PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Motorcyclist Struck My Mirror On Purpose - Claims It Wasn't Him (on video)
VANDRVR
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 12:03
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 12 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,981



Hey,

Odd one I find myself in here. Not sure if my insurance company seems to know what to do.

A few months back I was coming down a dual carriage way, a motorcyclist, being the ***** they tend to be, was dangerously filtering at gross speed completely out of my view as I joined the lane, then decides to rev-bomb me (because thats the manly thing to do) then wacks my mirror breaking it off. I have this on camera, along with his plate.

I called it into the police for a CRN (who wasn't really interested) then called my insurance when I went home. I sent them the footage.

After about a month I got a response saying that the other insurance company is denying any liability as the owner apparently wasn't riding the bike at the time and that it was another person who can't be located riding on his own insurance policy??? And for this reason, my insurer says its not in their interest to pursue this.

Is there anywhere I can go from here? It can't be that easy to just say "someone else was riding but I can't locate them and don't remember their name." Then the same B.S will apply for car drivers, wth?

Looking forward to some advice, thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 33)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Aug 2018 - 12:03
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
rosturra
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 11:43
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 683
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Is the OP entitled to name and address of RK of bike. Is it local?

I'm not advocating a confrontation.

But I'd be tempted to stake him out, with a cup of coffee and a camera, to see if the RKs bike gear is identical to that of the unidentified stranger on the video.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 13:22
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Bristol Alliance Limited v Williams 2011, the insurer is liable for all damage caused by use of vehicle, even when the damage is caused deliberately.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 20:56
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (rosturra @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 11:43) *
Is the OP entitled to name and address of RK of bike. Is it local?

I'm not advocating a confrontation.

But I'd be tempted to stake him out, with a cup of coffee and a camera, to see if the RKs bike gear is identical to that of the unidentified stranger on the video.

DVLA will provide the RK's info, for a fee.


Re: Bristol Alliance Limited...which insurer do you mean? The RK's insurer or the alleged rider's insurer?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:36
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



I was referring to the case where a chap drove his car into a shop front in a suicide attempt. Insurance company tried to claim it wasn't liable. Court found that the liabilities required to be covered by third party car insurance amounted to "use" of the vehicle, not just driving.

Although in a subsequent case (name escapes me) a court found that an insurance company wasn't liable to a rape victim who was raped in the back of a cab by a taxi driver. So there is a limit, although I am pretty certain riding up to someone and smashing their wing mirror off in the middle of the road would count as "use" of the motorcycle.

There would seem little point in obtaining the RK details unless you want to send them a PPC style letter and hope they crack. The RK does not have civil liability for the actions of another rider in a different place.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:46
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:36) *
I was referring to the case where a chap drove his car into a shop front in a suicide attempt. Insurance company tried to claim it wasn't liable. Court found that the liabilities required to be covered by third party car insurance amounted to "use" of the vehicle, not just driving.

It’s a conceptual problem. People think insurance covers you (or rather, third parties in this context) for accidents. The better way to look at it, in terms of third party liability, is that it covers your liability - whether that be for negligence (an accident) or trespass/assault (deliberate act).


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 21:58
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



Indeed.

I should say as well that (as you would expect) there is shedloads of case law in this area. There is also a lot of EU push beyond even the provisions in RTA that if you are a not at fault third party injured by a driver or rider of a motor vehicle you should just get paid by an insurer without complex legal arguments about liability.

If you look at judgements like Churchill vs Wilkinson 2011 then an insurer of a vehicle is liable even for unauthorised use of that vehicle.

However, at the moment you haven't confirmed the identity of the rider if indeed it can be confirmed. Until you get that you will be bounced around, because the RK insurance company will legitimately not pay for an authorised and otherwise insured third party.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 22:33
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 14:22) *
Bristol Alliance Limited v Williams 2011, the insurer is liable for all damage caused by use of vehicle, even when the damage is caused deliberately.

But, unless I've read things wrong , it wasn't the bike that swiped OP's mirror, it was the m/cyclists hand.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:26
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:33) *
QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 14:22) *
Bristol Alliance Limited v Williams 2011, the insurer is liable for all damage caused by use of vehicle, even when the damage is caused deliberately.

But, unless I've read things wrong , it wasn't the bike that swiped OP's mirror, it was the m/cyclists hand.

The principle was that it was use of the vehicle rather than driving the vehicle, as with a mobile offence. Road rage would seemingly almost certainly be covered as part of "use" of a vehicle. Otherwise, as SP mentioned, you would potentially be having to prove that an incredibly stupid piece of driving was indeed accidental, and recoverable from the insurance company, rather than deliberate and recoverable from the driver.

As I mentioned EU directives strongly push that in addition to RTA responsibilities insurers must compensate aggrieved third parties and then chase the responsible party for civil damages if they believe they had civil liability.

For the OP's purposes he is presumably more interested in whether an insurance company will put their hand in their pocket versus taking someone to court.

It is in law the driver or the rider who was and potentially is negligent, not the actual vehicle itself.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 23:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 15:08
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,356
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 18 Aug 2018 - 00:26) *
It is in law the driver or the rider who was and potentially is negligent, not the actual vehicle itself.

Would the insurer of the non-riding owner of the vehicle be liable for the tortious acts of the rider (assuming owner and rider were not insured by the same company)?

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ict_guy
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 09:41
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 18,924



Do you have legal cover with your insurance? You may be able to pursue all non-insured losses this way. The solicitor could just take the RK to the small claims court. The police should certainly be issuing an s172 to the RK??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 10:55
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



You can't take the RK to court if they weren't riding, unless you can prove that him allowing said third party to ride the bike was such a foreseeable risk he should have guarded against it.

Bearing in mind lending vehicles to an insured third party is a common practice, and in the grand scheme of things a smashed wing mirror is not crime of the century, that would be an uphill task.

Much easier just to get the name of the actual rider which of course may be the RK anyway.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ict_guy
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 12:17
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 18 Apr 2008
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 18,924



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 11:55) *
You can't take the RK to court if they weren't riding, unless you can prove that him allowing said third party to ride the bike was such a foreseeable risk he should have guarded against it.

Bearing in mind lending vehicles to an insured third party is a common practice, and in the grand scheme of things a smashed wing mirror is not crime of the century, that would be an uphill task.

Much easier just to get the name of the actual rider which of course may be the RK anyway.


You can take anybody to a small claims court. Even the threat of such may be enough to make the RK cough up. If the op has legal cover with his insurance, then this approach I'm sure would be successful. Having been the victim of something similar earlier in the year, the 'other sides' insurer settled my full un-insured losses after my insurers legal department served the relevant small claims court letters on the 'other side'. I subsequently, had a letter from my insurer telling me that my no claims had not been affected and that the accident would be classed as 'non-fault' from my perspective.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dwaynedouglas
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 06:46
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 9 Nov 2016
Member No.: 88,346



OP, I don't suppose you drive a silver Skoda do you?

It's just that there's a very similar event to the one you described on compilation 33 of UK Dashcameras at about 06:50 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6avtnlXSETA



--------------------
I'm not a lawyer or legally trained, my opinion is based on my experience - follow at your own risk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 09:29
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 11:55) *
You can't take the RK to court if they weren't riding, unless you can prove that him allowing said third party to ride the bike was such a foreseeable risk he should have guarded against it.

Bearing in mind lending vehicles to an insured third party is a common practice, and in the grand scheme of things a smashed wing mirror is not crime of the century, that would be an uphill task.

Much easier just to get the name of the actual rider which of course may be the RK anyway.

While lending vehicles to an insured third party might be a common practice with cars & vans in the case of motorcycles 99% of the time the rider will be the RK.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:16
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here