pre65 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 12:23 pm
I'm not sure how (or why) you would prosecute someone for driving away in a vehicle they own, but then, I'm not an expert in the law.
You may not but I can assure you it is stated case law under those Acts and there have been prosecutions in the past. You can look it up. My emphasis, however is that this law adds weight onto the liability of the dealer and their insurer.
Fair play Greg.
I'm surprised that the insurance company's that have had claims against them have not investigated and put the onus on the dealer to cover the loss.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
I'm not sure how (or why) you would prosecute someone for driving away in a vehicle they own, but then, I'm not an expert in the law.
Seems obvious to me, if you pass the vehicle into the hands of a third party, they become responsible. If you remove it from them without removing that responsibility then you could (for example) set fire to the vehicle and then expect the third party to pay compensation as they were responsible for it at that time.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
I'm not sure how (or why) you would prosecute someone for driving away in a vehicle they own, but then, I'm not an expert in the law.
Seems obvious to me, if you pass the vehicle into the hands of a third party, they become responsible. If you remove it from them without removing that responsibility then you could (for example) set fire to the vehicle and then expect the third party to pay compensation as they were responsible for it at that time.
Yes, of course , I could imagine scenarios like you mentioned, but in practice they are probably quite rare.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
The dealers insurance provider won't know if nobody tells them.
1. Unless they are the same provider
2. When you have a accident you tell the other party your insurers detail, and you also tell your insurer you had the accident. the other party insurer does not contact you. Why would this be any different? I am sure that one insurer can find out who the dealers insurance is by.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
pre65 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:34 pm
Well, I thought that was (sort of) what I tried to say previously ?
"I'm surprised that the insurance company's that have had claims against them have not investigated and put the onus on the dealer to cover the loss."
You may have thought that the two things were the same, but they are not. Putting the onus on the dealer is not the same as putting the onus on the dealers insurance.
Your "sort of" is a clear indication that even you know it wasn't what you said. It may have been what you meant, but we don't and can't know what you mean only what you say.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
pre65 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 05, 2024 1:34 pm
Well, I thought that was (sort of) what I tried to say previously ?
"I'm surprised that the insurance company's that have had claims against them have not investigated and put the onus on the dealer to cover the loss."
You may have thought that the two things were the same, but they are not. Putting the onus on the dealer is not the same as putting the onus on the dealers insurance.
Your "sort of" is a clear indication that even you know it wasn't what you said. It may have been what you meant, but we don't and can't know what you mean only what you say.
I know. I'm at my Mums and she's doing my head in.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.