Clacton Lions - Musicals C/D 30 April
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Driving offences
A another driver crashed into me in July, causing my car to be written off. He admitted to the Pplice that attended the accident that it was his fault and he was consequently prosecuted. I have 2 questions.
I have received a letter today from the Police giving the latest info regarding
the court case. It informs me that :::
1 Offence :: Driving without due care and attention
Result :: £67 fine, £35 CPS costs, driving licence endorsed with 5 points.
2 Offence :: Driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a
licence.
Result :: No separate penalty
I appreciate that I don't have anymore info on the case, as I wasn't informed that he was in court. But what does the 2nd offence mean ? Does it mean that he didn't have a licence ? Surely if he didn't, he would have had a more severe penalty. So if he did have a licence, what else can the offence mean ?
2nd question. My NCB has suffered quite severely because of this accident. My insurance company paid out for my car, albeit 8 weeks later. But I had a £500 excess, and because his insurance company hadn't paid mine, they reduced my NCB down from 3 years to zero. They also refused to re-insure when when my year was up in September.
What is the best way to get back my £500 excess from his insurance company, and how do I get my NCB back to normal ?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
I have received a letter today from the Police giving the latest info regarding
the court case. It informs me that :::
1 Offence :: Driving without due care and attention
Result :: £67 fine, £35 CPS costs, driving licence endorsed with 5 points.
2 Offence :: Driving a motor vehicle otherwise than in accordance with a
licence.
Result :: No separate penalty
I appreciate that I don't have anymore info on the case, as I wasn't informed that he was in court. But what does the 2nd offence mean ? Does it mean that he didn't have a licence ? Surely if he didn't, he would have had a more severe penalty. So if he did have a licence, what else can the offence mean ?
2nd question. My NCB has suffered quite severely because of this accident. My insurance company paid out for my car, albeit 8 weeks later. But I had a £500 excess, and because his insurance company hadn't paid mine, they reduced my NCB down from 3 years to zero. They also refused to re-insure when when my year was up in September.
What is the best way to get back my £500 excess from his insurance company, and how do I get my NCB back to normal ?
Any help will be very much appreciated.
Answers
1 to 8 of 8
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The second offence means that the driver held a licence but it wasn't valid for driving the car he was in. The most likely explanation is either
(a) he only held a provisional licence (and wasn't accompanied by a qualified driver) ; or
(b) he only held a motorcycle licence.
Your claim is not against the other driver's insurer; it's against him. (If he's got valid insurance cover in place, he can pass the claim to his insurer. Otherwise he must foot the bill).
The first stage of making the claim is to send a formal demand to the other driver. (The courts won't get involved unless you've already given the guy a chance to pay up). You should send him a letter by recorded delivery (retaining a copy of the letter and the proof of posting). The letter must include:
(a) your name and address ;
(b) the name and address of the recipient ;
(c) the date ;
(d) a statement of the amount demanded ;
(e) the reason for the demand ;
(f) notification that if full payment isn't received within a specified period (I suggest 21 days) you will commence legal proceedings.
If you don't get your money, use the online claims process which is provided by Her Majesty's Courts Service:
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome
Chris
(a) he only held a provisional licence (and wasn't accompanied by a qualified driver) ; or
(b) he only held a motorcycle licence.
Your claim is not against the other driver's insurer; it's against him. (If he's got valid insurance cover in place, he can pass the claim to his insurer. Otherwise he must foot the bill).
The first stage of making the claim is to send a formal demand to the other driver. (The courts won't get involved unless you've already given the guy a chance to pay up). You should send him a letter by recorded delivery (retaining a copy of the letter and the proof of posting). The letter must include:
(a) your name and address ;
(b) the name and address of the recipient ;
(c) the date ;
(d) a statement of the amount demanded ;
(e) the reason for the demand ;
(f) notification that if full payment isn't received within a specified period (I suggest 21 days) you will commence legal proceedings.
If you don't get your money, use the online claims process which is provided by Her Majesty's Courts Service:
https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome
Chris
His insurance company has a legal obligation under the Road Traffic Act to pay you - on the assumption you have his insurance company details, write to them with your excess receipt requesting payment.
Buenchico is correct that technically you are claiming against the other driver and not his insurer, but the reality is if you write to his insurer directly they will (should) pay you.
Buenchico is correct that technically you are claiming against the other driver and not his insurer, but the reality is if you write to his insurer directly they will (should) pay you.
Thanks everybody.
The chap defintely had insurance, as my insurance company has given me details. So I will write to his company, asking for my excess back. I suppose its unlikley that they will just send me a cheque by return of post but I must start somewhere.
The second conviction is still a bit puzzling though. He was about my age, ie 58 going on 59, so while it is possible for him to only have a provisional licence, I think that it is unlikley. He could have a motorcycle licence I suppose. but if he had insurance for his car, isn't it normal for insurance companies to ask for proof of a driving licence, before issung him with insurance ? Perhaps its not...I can't remember what happened last time I took car insurance out.
But if it was a provisional or motor cycle, it seems strange that the Court should not apply any penalty for this offence. Surely driving without a proper driving licence is a serious offence ?
I suppose that the police authorities that sent me the letter might tell me more if I asked ? Its a job for the first few days of January 2012.
Happy Xmas to everybody who has helped me here !
The chap defintely had insurance, as my insurance company has given me details. So I will write to his company, asking for my excess back. I suppose its unlikley that they will just send me a cheque by return of post but I must start somewhere.
The second conviction is still a bit puzzling though. He was about my age, ie 58 going on 59, so while it is possible for him to only have a provisional licence, I think that it is unlikley. He could have a motorcycle licence I suppose. but if he had insurance for his car, isn't it normal for insurance companies to ask for proof of a driving licence, before issung him with insurance ? Perhaps its not...I can't remember what happened last time I took car insurance out.
But if it was a provisional or motor cycle, it seems strange that the Court should not apply any penalty for this offence. Surely driving without a proper driving licence is a serious offence ?
I suppose that the police authorities that sent me the letter might tell me more if I asked ? Its a job for the first few days of January 2012.
Happy Xmas to everybody who has helped me here !
1 to 8 of 8
