Re: Used Car

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 22:32:22 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
<g6jns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Alex Heney wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:43:45 +0100, "Peter Crosland"
<g6jns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andy Pandy wrote:
"Peter Crosland" <g6jns@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:13buqki724k9g90@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Even if he does have an insurance certificate it will, in most
cases, be invalid if he drives without RFL and a current MOT.

Not this bullshit again....

Why do you say that?

Because he is right.

It just shows how ignorant of the law you are.

Wrong. It shows how ignorant of it you are.

?An
insurer can, and usually will, void an insurance policy if you don't
comply with the law as I described.


So you will be able to easily find policies that allow them to do so?

You are, of course, completely wrong. They will NEVER do so, and I do
not believe the law even ALLOWS them to do so.

The law does not allow them to void the RTA cover for 3rd party injuries. It
DOES allow them to refuse any other payouts.


And?

You said his insurance certificate would be invalid. And that the
insurer would "void his policy".

His insurance certificate only *certifies* that he has the minimum
cover required by the RTA (although it also details any further cover
he has).

His certificate will still be valid, in that he will still have that
RTA cover.

And his policy will not be voided, just that some of the additional
cover *may* not be present (I haven't actually seen a policy that has
such a condition for any part of the cover, but I am willing to
believe they exist).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Press all the keys at once to continue...
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
.

Relevant Pages