Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Consumer Concerns' started by Aromulus, Jan 13, 2017.
S 2000 eh?
Sadly she's long gone, I've posted a few pictures here of her over the years so I won't post another, I had the S from early 2004 to late 2008 fantastic car and if I had the money the only thing I would buy again but they are getting rare these days as there were only a limited number ever built.
A magnet for Mr Plod...
Technically yes but I enjoyed it in the mountains mostly not on the main highway
There should be a thread for the favorite car you've ever owned. I for one miss my Jaguar EType. Craziest thing I ever did selling her.
I miss my Lotus Sevens. This is the second one I owned:
I'm pretty sure the EU ruling is based on much of existing UK law / insurance and not the other way round. If an uninsured driver is hit and maimed by say an insured drunk driver then they, in my opinion, should be able to access compensation. they are guilty of a crime but not of the incident. They should also be charged wtih the offence of driving without insurance. Criminal compensation is paid out to many victims, whether the perpetrator is found or not or whether anyone has insurance or not under the CICA. This to me is an extension of that. All UK not EU law as far as I can tell and will not disappear after Brexit
You have changed my thinking on this, 'they are guilty of a crime but not of the incident' I agree.
Missing my E Type
Take your point on guilty of the crime but not the incident and it is suggested that they should be open to compensation.
However and just to play devil's advocate if someone breaks in to a house and falls through some unsafe stairs are they entitled to compensation?
In my opinion no and I take your point, its not always black and white. If I was a guest, I would be entitled probably. It would depend on whether the owner was guilty of a crime by allowing the stairs to be unsafe and with no warning signs as well. The human response is always to say you should not have been there in the first place but that doesn't excuse the other parties of their responsibility whether it be safety or another criminal act. If the house owner is in the clear then there should be no compensation, in my opinion. Either way, the said burglar still gets charged and I am sure any comp would reflect his right to be there or not.
I used to know the answer to that - it's quite complicated, and wholly a matter of English, not EU, law. But I only learned it for an exam, I never used it in practice, and I've forgotten it.
Must do better haha
Now there's the thing " the right to be there" if the driver has no insurance he has no right to be on the road!
You need to get yourself a little black book Andrew, you're doing a lot of forgetting lately
Hope you haven't left anything in the oven while you are out with your youngster.
Seriously, I'm in the same boat as you.