The plot thickens post crash events

Found out today the court date is November 12th in a YOUTH court!

So has to be under 18 which means there’s a good chance ge has no licence or recently passed and I thought you had to be 21 to hire a car??

I havnt got a clue what this is going to mean with my claim but I can see this going on for awhile

That sucks.
Hopefully the hire company’s insurance will take care of your claim, then trying to claim it back from whoever was driving. I think that’s usually what happens when an insured vehicle is driven by an uninsured driver.

Hope so otherwise Ill be waiting a very long time

if he has hired a car but not allowed to then surely again down to hire company not doing proper checks.

Unless his mum hired it legitimately and he then drove it. Which might give him theft of a vehicle and his mum liable for costs?

When I called the hire company the Monday after the guy said the that the driver was the customer and that his mum was now dealing with the matter.

I’m still waiting to hear anything as all of this has come from others. I thought I would of been the first to know being as I was eating Tarmac.

Give Andrew Dalton a call (White Dalton solicitors) 0800 783 6191. Tell him TDJ sent you :smiley:

Ok, firstly just because it is in a youth court does not mean anyone is a youth or juvenile it merely means that is where the case will be heard.

the court system is heavily clogged and sittings are done all over.

If ,however, it transpires he is a juvenile (and i don’t know the what the circs are) then any subsequent insurance cover will be null and void.

in a nutshell, he will be an uninsured driver and if he has obtained the car by false misrepresentation then any payout will be long winded.

The Motor insurance Bureau (MIB) do have the means to assist with cover but it is a very long and drawn out affair.

It’s not that simple… Once and insurer assumes a risk they’re stuck with the legal minimum.

If we suppose the mother hired the vehicle and then permitted her son to drive it (it doesn’t matter that she didn’t declare him at the time of hire) then the minimum legal insurance (3rd Party) will still be valid.

The only way the insurer could wriggle out of it would be if she declared that he has taken the vehicle without her permission, in which case he will be guilty of TWOC (taking the vehicle without consent) and it’s unlikely that she will do that as she wont want him done for TWOC.

If the driver hired the vehicle and it later comes to light that they made some sort of false claim then insurance would still be valid as the insurer has assumed the risk. Insurance cannot be magically voided by virtue of a false representation… it has to be cancelled… this is one reason why it’s so expensive.