 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Three weeks ago my son was involved in a car accident which wasn't his fault, there were 7 witnesses who gave statements as to what had happened and all statements matched putting the blame on one specific driver, today he heard from his insurance company saying that her insurance is claiming that she has a condition called Automatisim, which basically can at any time put her into a trance like state (bit like sleepwalking), anything she does whilst in this state she can not be held responsible for as she has no control over what her body and mind does, lol I hear coming from you, same here when we were told, so googled it, it is a real condition and people suffering from it have actually gotten away with murder, having the case's quashed, surely if this condition can strike unawares at anytime, she should no be allowed to drive |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Surely it's something that should be mentioned on her licence?
My sister has epilepsy and she was stopped from taking her test, even though she rarely has seizures.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eppersCouple
over a year ago
telford |
I would be inclined to completely agree with you there,she should not hold a driving licence, but having said that we have some strange laws in this country,and if i remember correctly if she has not had an episode for a certain period of time they will issue a licence, daft i know but there you have it. I had an accident with a guy who had a heart attack at the wheel and veered into my path and hit me, but because the coroner would not commit to an actual time of death, i.e. 1 second before the accident or 1 second after, the insurance took it as before and decided his policy was null and void as it is no longer in force the second you die. to make worse i was only 3rd party fire and theft then, not any more fully comp all the way. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mumaWoman
over a year ago
Livingston |
Take this one all the way, starting with the DVLA.
My ex had a brain tumour that cause a couple of seizures and he had to be medically proven to be seizure free for a year before getting his licence back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago
glasgow |
if she didnt declare this condition,on her insurance forms.the ins company,could declare her policy,null and void.
if she did declare it,she should not have been granted insurance.
hope you'r son wins his case. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I would be inclined to completely agree with you there,she should not hold a driving licence, but having said that we have some strange laws in this country,and if i remember correctly if she has not had an episode for a certain period of time they will issue a licence, daft i know but there you have it. I had an accident with a guy who had a heart attack at the wheel and veered into my path and hit me, but because the coroner would not commit to an actual time of death, i.e. 1 second before the accident or 1 second after, the insurance took it as before and decided his policy was null and void as it is no longer in force the second you die. to make worse i was only 3rd party fire and theft then, not any more fully comp all the way."
Luky enough my son is fully comp but has had to pay out £400 excess before they would repair his car and if it turns out shes not insured/ held responsible or whatever, he won't be able to get that back |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eppersCouple
over a year ago
telford |
Peoples why don't you do as we do and insure your excess, most insurance companies will do it, add it to your house insurance if you can, we've got both cars and the van and the sons car all excess's are covered excess totall £1500 insurance to cover is £90. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would be inclined to completely agree with you there,she should not hold a driving licence, but having said that we have some strange laws in this country,and if i remember correctly if she has not had an episode for a certain period of time they will issue a licence, daft i know but there you have it. I had an accident with a guy who had a heart attack at the wheel and veered into my path and hit me, but because the coroner would not commit to an actual time of death, i.e. 1 second before the accident or 1 second after, the insurance took it as before and decided his policy was null and void as it is no longer in force the second you die. to make worse i was only 3rd party fire and theft then, not any more fully comp all the way.
Luky enough my son is fully comp but has had to pay out £400 excess before they would repair his car and if it turns out shes not insured/ held responsible or whatever, he won't be able to get that back"
If you find she's not insured, contact the Motor Insurer's Bureau who may be able to help
http://www.mib.org.uk/Customer+Services/en/Accidents+in+the+UK/Uninsured+Drivers+Agreement/Uninsured+Drivers.htm |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What i would like to know is how the hell she has got away with holding a driving license. Shes obviously been properly diagnosized with it and it should of been up to who ever diagnosed her to inform dvla.
I cant hold a driving license for health reasons.
Not knowing the full details only going on what you have written it seems to me a serious case of negligence for allowing her to hold a license
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
