Licences

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, haggis said:

Presumably C&RT only check insurance details if there is some doubt about them . For example, if a customer is being investigated for something else. Also, if a boat sinks and C&RT are involved in raising it, they need to check/communicate with the insurance company. I don't see them checking everyones details. 

In Scotland they ask to see a copy of your insurance certificate every year.  But there are not so many canal boats up here. 

You have to give insurance details to get a licence. 

[Lady M]

Surely only the company concerned, policy number & expiry date?

[Arthur Marshall]

22 minutes ago, Lady M said:

Surely only the company concerned, policy number & expiry date?

That's all they need to know until there's a claim, which I imagine are few and far between. Otherwise, the only person likely to suffer from lying they have a policy when they don't is the boat owner. All insurance is, after all, is a gamble when someone else decides the odds. Mostly , it's an expensive waste of money, except when it suddenly isn't. Even then, the losing party to the bet will do their best to avoid paying out.

[magnetman]

Insurance is designed so that insurance salesmen can have nice cars.

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, magnetman said:

Insurance is designed so that insurance salesmen can have nice cars.

You could say the same for an awful lot of businesses... 😉

 

Insurance is only really needed to cover the risk of occasional catastrophically expensive incidents which would bankrupt the customer/company, for smaller sums it's not worth it. I know some big companies like BT self-insured cars/vans rather than paying out premiums, on the principle it was cheaper for them to pay directly than allow insurers to cream off a profit.

 

I seem to remember the most expensive car insurance claim ever was many years ago in France, a car came off the road and landed on a railway track, which derailed and destroyed a train, which broke through a canal/river embankment and flooded a large area of the countryside including many houses and factories. I'm not sure even BT would have wanted to pick up the tab for that one... 😉

[Ronaldo47]

20 minutes ago, IanD said:

I know some big companies like BT self-insured cars/vans rather than paying out premiums, on the principle it was cheaper for them to pay directly than allow insurers to cream off a profit.

 

I believe that it is a legal requirement to have third party insurance for motor vehicles. Certainly GEC (when it was a large company!) only used to take out third party insurance for its company cars as the cost of fully comp insurance would have exceeded the cost of repairing or writing-off damaged vehicles.  The Government does the same sort of thing in relation to insurance in general, which is why the disastrous fire at Windsor Castle a couple of decades ago was not covered by any insurance. 

 

I adopt the same practice regarding breakdown insurance for domestic white goods, which are normally pretty reliable these days: I don't take any out.

[haggis]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

You have to give insurance details to get a licence. 

I know but you could always give  false info  :-). The question here was "do C&RT have the right to check insurance details?2 

[MtB]

5 minutes ago, haggis said:

I know but you could always give  false info  :-). The question here was "do C&RT have the right to check insurance details?2 

 

CRT once asked to see my insurance certificate. I asked what prompted their request and they said they'd noticed my policy number never changed from year to year (which is correct!). So this suggests someone at CRT does actually look at the insurance details.

 

I sent them a copy of the certificate and they were perfectly happy with that. 

 

[IanD]

53 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I believe that it is a legal requirement to have third party insurance for motor vehicles. Certainly GEC (when it was a large company!) only used to take out third party insurance for its company cars as the cost of fully comp insurance would have exceeded the cost of repairing or writing-off damaged vehicles.  The Government does the same sort of thing in relation to insurance in general, which is why the disastrous fire at Windsor Castle a couple of decades ago was not covered by any insurance. 

 

I adopt the same practice regarding breakdown insurance for domestic white goods, which are normally pretty reliable these days: I don't take any out.

 

It's a legal requirement for an individual to have third party insurance "or such a security in respect of third party risks":

 

"a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and"

 

An insurance policy simply means that in return for a premium the insurance company guarantees to pay out damages to third parties.

 

What I believe BT did was the same, except BT -- rather than an insurance company -- accepted the risk (presumably in writing) and guaranteed to pay out damages. They were "self-insuring", which would legally have the same security as an insurance policy. Or maybe BT were actually authorised to act as an insurer?

 

I don't know if this is still the case nowadays, but the law doesn't seem to exclude this for company-owned vehicles should a big enough company (like BT) choose to do it, though they may have to jump through some legal hoops to do it.

Edited February 23 by IanD

[Iain_S]

The option of "such a security ... " was removed in 2019 by The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019.

[Arthur Marshall]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

CRT once asked to see my insurance certificate. I asked what prompted their request and they said they'd noticed my policy number never changed from year to year (which is correct!). So this suggests someone at CRT does actually look at the insurance details.

 

I sent them a copy of the certificate and they were perfectly happy with that. 

 

I have a vague memory of doing the same, probably for the same reason - been 3rd party with Basic Boat since the requirement came in. They still do wreck removal cover.

[magnetman]

3P insurance for Boats became compulsory for vessels subject to inland registration or licensing in 1995 when the BS scheme came in. Coincidentally this was the first full yR I had lived on a Boat. 

 

I hate it although never had any issues with BS the Boats always pass and the unsurance gets paid but the principle is dodgy. 

 

I could spend a whole lifetime never making a claim and others could be idiots causing mayhem. 

 

It is an outrage. 

 

 

[David Mack]

3 hours ago, MtB said:

So this suggests someone at CRT does actually look at the insurance details.

Sometimes! My guess is that CRT check a sample of both insurance and home mooring details each year, the size of the sample being determined by the number of compliant/non-compliant boats they find.

[cuthound]

3 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I believe that it is a legal requirement to have third party insurance for motor vehicles. Certainly GEC (when it was a large company!) only used to take out third party insurance for its company cars as the cost of fully comp insurance would have exceeded the cost of repairing or writing-off damaged vehicles.  The Government does the same sort of thing in relation to insurance in general, which is why the disastrous fire at Windsor Castle a couple of decades ago was not covered by any insurance. 

 

I adopt the same practice regarding breakdown insurance for domestic white goods, which are normally pretty reliable these days: I don't take any out.

 

Until fairly recently, if you were rich enough, you could leave a large cash deposit (£500,000 when it was revoked) with a high court rather than take out a motor insurance policy and still comply with the road traffic act.

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-insurance-alternatives-removal-of-deposit-and-security-options

 

IIRC it was £50,000 when I passed my driving test way back in 1971.

[TheBiscuits]

12 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

Until fairly recently, if you were rich enough, you could leave a large cash deposit (£500,000 when it was revoked) with a high court rather than take out a motor insurance policy and still comply with the road traffic act.

 

 https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/motor-insurance-alternatives-removal-of-deposit-and-security-options

 

IIRC it was £50,000 when I passed my driving test way back in 1971.

 

Yes this.  I worked for BTR Dunlop many years ago and they chose to self insure their vehicle fleet.  I think that at the time they needed to keep £10 million in an escrow account, which was obviously peanuts to a big corporate organisation.  

 

The director who suggested it got quite a nice bonus when they'd totted up the savings on the open insurance market!

 

There may have been further underwriting of the risks, but a ten million quid excess tends to keep premiums down 😁

[Mad Harold]

4 hours ago, Ronaldo47 said:

 Certainly GEC (when it was a large company!) only used to take out third party insurance for its company cars as the cost of fully comp insurance would have exceeded the cost of repairing or writing-off damaged vehicles.

Tried to get a quote for third party only insurance for my car as it's old and worthless, but after trying several comparison sites found that the quoted premiums were dearer than comprehensive. 

Wondered why and after a bit of Googling found this from some insurance wonk.

"The type of driver who wants third party only, is more likely to have a claim"

Sounds like a load of horse manure to me!

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Mad Harold said:

Tried to get a quote for third party only insurance for my car as it's old and worthless, but after trying several comparison sites found that the quoted premiums were dearer than comprehensive. 

Wondered why and after a bit of Googling found this from some insurance wonk.

"The type of driver who wants third party only, is more likely to have a claim"

Sounds like a load of horse manure to me!

It's not, because insurance companies work on statistics. And in general people who skimp and take out third party insurance on an old banger are much more likely to make a claim than a careful driver in a nice new car with fully comp insurance...

 

It's why they put your premium up after accidents even if you have protected NCD (or don't even make a claim!) because the numbers show that having an accident (or even worse, more than one...) increases the chance of you having another one -- because careless drivers have more accidents. The fact that you might be a careful driver and the accident wasn't your fault doesn't matter to them, you're just another statistic... 😞

[MtB]

9 minutes ago, IanD said:

The fact that you might be a careful driver and the accident wasn't your fault doesn't matter to them, you're just another statistic... 😞

 

Aren't all accidents always the other driver's fault?

 

"Reading' the road, anticipating collision opportunities and driving in a manner to avoid them happening is quite a subtle skill which only truly shows up in a driver's long term accident record. 

[Ronaldo47]

I have heard of people  whose car was legally parked and they were not in it when it was hit by another car, being penalised by their insurers.

 

I wonder how those unfortunate people whose cars were written off by that  fire in the airport multistorey car park last year got on?  

Edited February 23 by Ronaldo47

[Momac]

1 minute ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I have heard of people  whose car was legally parked and they were not in it when it was hit by another car, being penalised by their insurers.

That happened to my daughter.

She contacted her insurer for advice but did not make a claim. Next renewal premium went up sharply.

This was 10 years ago so nothing new.

 

[cuthound]

15 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Aren't all accidents always the other driver's fault?

 

"Reading' the road, anticipating collision opportunities and driving in a manner to avoid them happening is quite a subtle skill which only truly shows up in a driver's long term accident record. 

 

I've always said you can judge how good (oe bad) a driver is by his no claims bonus...

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

I have heard of people  whose car was legally parked and they were not in it when it was hit by another car, being penalised by their insurers.

 

I wonder how those unfortunate people whose cars were written off by that  fire in the airport multistorey car park last year got on?  

 

I expect the stats show that people who park in stupid but legal places have more claims. 

 

And people who park in airport multi-story car parks. 

 

 

 

[Mad Harold]

3 hours ago, IanD said:

It's not, because insurance companies work on statistics. And in general people who skimp and take out third party insurance on an old banger are much more likely to make a claim than a careful driver in a nice new car with fully comp insurance..

I just find it extremely irritating when the insurance premium is a few quid more than my car is worth.

Perhaps I should buy a newer car and as the insurance premium will be less than the value of the car, it won't hurt as much.

I have opined before that motor insurance is more of a racket than an industry.

[Arthur Marshall]

6 hours ago, Mad Harold said:

I just find it extremely irritating when the insurance premium is a few quid more than my car is worth.

Perhaps I should buy a newer car and as the insurance premium will be less than the value of the car, it won't hurt as much.

I have opined before that motor insurance is more of a racket than an industry.

Insurance is a racket. It's just another gambling system , like the stock market.

[DandV]

14 hours ago, IanD said:

 

It's a legal requirement for an individual to have third party insurance "or such a security in respect of third party risks":

 

"a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and"

 

An insurance policy simply means that in return for a premium the insurance company guarantees to pay out damages to third parties.

 

What I believe BT did was the same, except BT -- rather than an insurance company -- accepted the risk (presumably in writing) and guaranteed to pay out damages. They were "self-insuring", which would legally have the same security as an insurance policy. Or maybe BT were actually authorised to act as an insurer?

 

I don't know if this is still the case nowadays, but the law doesn't seem to exclude this for company-owned vehicles should a big enough company (like BT) choose to do it, though they may have to jump through some legal hoops to do it.

And the large company I worked for "insured" their very large  vehicle fleet with a major insurer, with the premium being the amount of claims paid out to third parties plus a handling fee.

Saved the company having to have it's own staff involved in something outside their core expertise.