Search results

He did :thumb2

ahhhhh.......................posted both due to running out of time updating . repeats a bit but both posts correct.

cant be asrsed to argue it because there isnt an argument. Do a bit of research. If the RTA does not require ins , use of it can not be enforced. Fact. It becomes a civil claim and the PERSON pursued Such nuances do apply to car parks. Fact. Where youve got mixed up and enter self...

lets get a few things straight here. Your last post is a crock of shite. Not quite sure what youre rambling on about being right or wrong There ARE different rules for car parks. Im just big enough to admit i dont know what they all are. What I said if you bother reading it properly is that I...

As always , spot on, that is exactly what we've been told :thumb2

it was ammended but not to cover all unadopted roads and areas as public highway. Not sure to what extent it does/did do but the point was a very good one.

youll find (and im out of date so its no doubt been amended again) that only a few years ago that was not an old wives tale. Only some elements of the road traffic act which included insurance matters were applicable to incidents that occurred in a private car park. For example I could not...

What wasnt put forward very well is the fact all groups cause wear and tear. Walkers are not excluded from this. Theres parts of certain walks we've done where paths have had to have been re routed because of damage caused by thousands of feet. However some of the more belligerent bobble hats...

absolutely correct as i understand it too :thumb2 it was a private car park, entry by permission (implied or direct ) or payment of fee.

definitely absolutely not the driver or the insurance. Youth squirts water from bottle then throws bottle at ip from within car causing injury. Youth arrested NOT the responsibility of the driver or their insurance. Dealt with that one myself. Person opening door is responsible and can be...

what a bunch of selfish narrow minded hypocrits those locals are.

ffs :doh

lmao :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol seen more of those struggling on rougher campsites with big (probably too big) caravans than any other 4x4 :naughty diesel or petrol? diesel ones do break down less ;)

VW & Mercs faired very well on my previous employers fleet ;) they were used and driven to the max 24/7. VW (probably larger than the one youre after) faired the best apparently.

Thats very interesting, thanks :thumb2

was settled by mid Jan 2000 and payout by the end, just over 3 weeks. ;) There isnt one really, his pratt of a friend is entirely liable. The only point to be established is the fastest , cheapest and easiest route to sort it. That is often definitely not via the Ins company:thumb2

Another interesting point on the taxi door examples, they come under slightly different terms and conditions at times. In connection with carrying passengers they have certain contractural obligations. Not sure how that affects liability of passengers actions but it does :naughty

Paul, the handbrake and the door are actually the same in principal on the simple premis that "due to the presence of a motor vehicle" xxx"occured". If you can sue a wasp , go for it :thumb2 but on those lines just out of interest I am personally aquainted with more than one individual who did...

such as?

What legislation covers that? (serious question) other than "owing to the presence of a motor vehicle" which is not specific enough in this case. I ask that because im sure youre wrong there ;) I recall a youth who slammed the handbrake on in his mates car being held entirely liable for all...