Taxi Driver Online

I am insured fully comprehensive on a Hackney Carriage plated Vauxhall Vectra. 97 (P). A few weeks back i had someone drive into the back of my car. It has since been confirmed that it's a write off. To get back to work i now need a car that is under 5 years old (council regulations). The problem is, the amount that the other parties insurance has offered me is no where near enough for me to go & buy another car, under 5 yrs old.

They say that through an insurance claim, you cant better yourself? But i cant do anything about it, if the council wont let me use a car that is the same age as the 1 thats just been written off.

So now the only way i can get back to work, is to get myself in debt again and go & get one on finance.

Surely this isn't right??? Is it???

Anyone know of a way round this, as i'm sure i'm not going to be the only one in this situation?

Paul...

yes Paul I am going through the same thing, get a solicitor no win no fee and in the meantime ask if you can hire a car whilst the dispute goes on.

and make sure you claim for every penny costs of swithing radios roof lights testing car, miss out nothing, does your neck hurt? get a medical

was it your fault? if it was not you should be ok.

but for christs sake dont do the dealing with insurance yourself, next time insure 3rd party fire and theft you now know fully comp is money wasted.

Wharfie

It's a rum deal Paul, but on the other hand you'll just be in a position you would be in sooner or later anyway?

And you should get more for the car than you would if you waited a while and then got rid of it.

Dusty

We go in our taxis and try to dash,
then suddenly one day we have a crash,
The insurance who are quick to collect,
suddenly go slow that we detect,

so here we are off the road,
we go into depression and slow mode,
they get together and begin to judge,
while solicitors are slow and hard to buge,

When the offer comes finaly so slick,
we feel weve been beeten by a stick.
We the begin to feel for the full horror,
we will be poorer, and mortgaged tomorow.

Paddington Bill.

Not good at all Paul.

I don't think there is an easy answer, cos if there was you wouldn't need to ask on here.

Can you repair it yourself, or come to an arrangement with your insurance company?

It may well be worth it asking to have an assessor come down and have a chat with you.

But your experience just shows what a lovely trade we work in.

Alex

The thing that really gets me at the mo, is that i ahve been thinking of getting a brand new mondeo. But now i thinking, that if someone trashes the back of that in a years time. With some 50,000 + miles on the car. They're going to value the car as 4 years old. So now the £17K in there eye's is worth £5K but i still going to owe some £12K on the finance.

Hence £7K out of pocket...

I thought that is what we have "HIRE & REWARD" insurance for. I phoned round a few of these "NO WIN NO FEE" places, but the first Q they ask is "was there any injuries". As soon as you tell em there were no injuries. They dont wanna know.

So it looks as though, whatever happens! Every time "UNLESS" there are injuries involved in the accident. We're always going to be out of pocket whenever some crashes into our vehicle's & right's em off. & it's not even our fault...

Not a very nice situation.

Usually though, the insurance company will exchange like for like. So they hopefully will exchange a 1 year old vehicle for another.

The problem you have is when you come up against your councils licensing conditions.

The real law, not council law, should allow you to re-license a vehicle as old as you like, because in my view not to, is in breach of Euro law. I suspect the OFT will have quite a bit to say about that.

Have you spoke to your LO and explained your situation, cos really all you want to do is replace like for like. Our council has a policy of not licensing FX4 older than 10 years, but has just re-licensed one for an eleventh year.

For the simple reason that it is fit for the purpose !!!!!

Oh, I thought you were in favour of age rules Andy!

Which aspect of Euro law do you thing that age-rules are in breach of?

Hopefully the OFT will think that reasonable qualitative restrictions are a good idea.

Maybe you should try working for a few days in my manor, then you might think that a few qualitative restrictions are worthwhile!

Just get a form from the council, send it back and they'll send you a badge I would think. There's probably no need to have ever visited the place - indeed to require so would probably breach Euro law!!

Part of the problem in Paul's area seem to be that they presumably have an age-rule for replacement vehicles, and an older rule or none at all for licensed vehicles. Thus if your vehicle is written off it can mean a big jump in age to get going again. But a big jump would be required at some time anyway.

Everyone obviously sympathises with Paul, but there are bigger injustices in the world.

I would go for the new Mondeo Paul

Dusty

When I take out a lease on a vehicle I am always offered a policy which guarantees to cover the full amount of finance owing on a vehicle if it is written off.

Never taken it out, but I guess it is a standard offer to cover such circumstances.

Have to say you appear a little short sighted though Paul. A P reg Vectra, huge mileage and no apparent replacement policy in place. It was more likely that you could have had the gearbox go on you anytime, what would you have done then?

That's called GAP insurance.

Even better to have a "Fleet Lawclub" policy.

It costs us £300 a year for the fleet cars and about £30 for owner driver add ons. It provides for full no-win no fee legal help up to 50,000 a year, and our experience of it over the past 15 years is brilliant.

There are no "Senior Claims Handlers" involved like you get with DAS and Hambro and those other tossers (who we have tried on occassions), as everything is passed straight to your local solicitor nominated when you first join LawClub.

I cannot recommend them highly enough. The system works. Its good.

Hey Paul, I reitterate what Wharfie said: are you really SURE your neck doesn't hurt? Whiplash sometimes takes a while to come out?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.

I'm in favour of proper cars, and proper people, doing a proper job.

I think it's in breach of the Treaty of Rome, which is why prior to that a licensing condition may have said that 'a vehicle will not be licensed over ? years'. Now that same condition should say that 'a vehicle usually will not be licensed over ? years'.

A council, unless given a statutory duty, should not have hard and fast rules i.e. fettering it's discretion.

S*** vehciles, and s*** drivers are (in my opinion) evidence of s*** enforcement by a particular council.

OK Andy, the second part of your reasoning looks like local government law.

Which provision in the Treaty of Rome does age rules breach? - I haven't read any case law and suchlike on the issue, but I'm very interested.

Disregarding what is now currently law, personally I don't like what you outline, because those kinds of things could mean anything to anyone, which is a large part of why the current regime is the mess that it is.

I mean, presumably an LA can say that you must be over 21 to have a badge, or cars must be a certain size, surely that's fettering its discretion??

Dusty

No, that's laid out in statue. A council can't say you must be over 21, if the act says 18. From memory Kearns fought a case similar to that, where a council had an age rule different than the 1847 and 1976 acts, and won.

The certain car and drivers conditions apply, cos the acts allow councils to laid down their own criteria on those parts of the act.

There is a statue which says that drivers must have at least a years full driving license. Councils can't amend that, but they could have a knowledge that takes years, and get round it that way.

I'm not that good with the 'Treaty of Rome', but it does (from time to time) get thrown at me by officialdom. I think it basically freed up competition, and stopped councils and others setting rules in stone.

I have a lot of sympathy with the standards issue. But the lad who started the topic is in the s***, through no fault of his own.

If a council could get him out of the s***, then nobody loses. His 'new' car will be no different in age, condition and safety.

Which perhaps could lead us to the real meaning of the 'Treaty of Rome', in that officials can now use their common sense, and not dwell on out dated dogma.

My turn to ask if YOU'VE been drinking?

_________________
There is Significant Unmet Demand for my Opinion.