Welland 2019 Dyno test of Boadicea

[glen233]

does the NTEC club third party insurance cover you for this sort of thing ?

[the highwayman]

Originally Posted by glen233

does the NTEC club third party insurance cover you for this sort of thing ?

No, under the present laws any claim would be against the engines RTA insurance.

[Earl Kitchener]

Originally Posted by the highwayman

No, under the present laws any claim would be against the engines RTA insurance.

I wouldn't like to rely on that. I agree that since Vnuk the fact that the test didn't take place on a road is irrelevant but if, and I stress if, a case like this came to court any engine owner would have to convince a judge that the test was 'use of a vehicle which was consistent with the normal function of that vehicle'. This of course in the light also of any restriction on cover contained in the Certificate of Motor Insurance.

[glen233]

if this is the case, is this practise illegal ?on any insurance policy it states that you are nor covered for racing pace making etc .

[David Powell]

If an engine owner of , say. 1920, had an insurance policy it likely would have covered the engine and ( perhaps) third party risks when in " Normal" use. Normal use would, of course cover using the engine out of gear driving machinery of any sort.
Insurers are in business to make money, if they can see a way to avoid making payments they will.
An engine owner would do well to check his/ her policy with the aid of a lawyer. small print exclusions can be confusing to a layman.
I rather doubt that RTA coverage alone would cover mishaps driving machinery as a stationary engine.
I regard insurance companies as " Licensed Thieves" and all I have is that demanded by law to drive my SUV
Regards David Powell.

[Earl Kitchener]

I suspect that in a case like this once a claim is made the various insurers would then fight it out amongst themselves to see who if any of them was liable. Those who think they can rely on RTA cover should look at the case of Mr Holden where the use of a vehicle is discussed. I have been told in the past that things like a tractor while stationary driving a sawbench on the belt have frequently made it necessary to decide whether it is RTA or PLI and as in the case of Mr Holden it is often down to the courts to decide. Incidentally you may be interested to note that due to the fact we have not had a government since 2016 the changes required to UK law in the light of Vnuk have never been made. In a recent judgement Lord Justice Flaux stated: “The fact that the UK government has failed to legislate for compulsory insurance in respect of the use of motor vehicles on private land and then specifically to delegate to the MIB the residual liability where the relevant vehicle is uninsured, can legitimately be described as a breakdown in the system put in place by the government.” Whether the present incumbents will be any different who knows....

[the highwayman]

Originally Posted by Earl Kitchener

I suspect that in a case like this once a claim is made the various insurers would then fight it out amongst themselves to see who if any of them was liable. Those who think they can rely on RTA cover should look at the case of Mr Holden where the use of a vehicle is discussed.

What is YOUR interpretation of this matter?

I have been told in the past that things like a tractor while stationary driving a sawbench on the belt have frequently made it necessary to decide whether it is RTA or PLI and as in the case of Mr Holden it is often down to the courts to decide.

PLI is only applicable to EMPLOYERS, in 'our' case it has no relevence.

Incidentally you may be interested to note that due to the fact we have not had a government since 2016 ......Errrr....?

the changes required to UK law in the light of Vnuk have never been made. In a recent judgement Lord Justice Flaux stated: “The fact that the UK government has failed to legislate for compulsory insurance in respect of the use of motor vehicles on private land and then specifically to delegate to the MIB the residual liability where the relevant vehicle is uninsured, can legitimately be described as a breakdown in the system put in place by the government.”

The provisions of the RTA have applied to off road situations for about 20 years, a rally field is NOT private land.

Whether the present incumbents will be any different who knows....

I'm guessing that post Brexit things will return to how they were 20 years ago, so certain members of our 'Representative body' will not have to worry. Everything that We get up to will be a bit more risky than it is now.

[the highwayman]

Originally Posted by Earl Kitchener

I suspect that in a case like this once a claim is made the various insurers would then fight it out amongst themselves to see who if any of them was liable. Those who think they can rely on RTA cover should look at the case of Mr Holden where the use of a vehicle is discussed. I have been told in the past that things like a tractor while stationary driving a sawbench on the belt have frequently made it necessary to decide whether it is RTA or PLI and as in the case of Mr Holden it is often down to the courts to decide. Incidentally you may be interested to note that due to the fact we have not had a government since 2016 the changes required to UK law in the light of Vnuk have never been made. In a recent judgement Lord Justice Flaux stated: “The fact that the UK government has failed to legislate for compulsory insurance in respect of the use of motor vehicles on private land and then specifically to delegate to the MIB the residual liability where the relevant vehicle is uninsured, can legitimately be described as a breakdown in the system put in place by the government.” Whether the present incumbents will be any different who knows....

Not really quite sure what Roger is trying to get at with this post, other than that He's scared to mention My name, but each to his own. Anyway the link to Mr. Holden actually proves My point precisely. Essentially following Mr Holdens incident HIS RTA insurance HAD to pay out, and this link is the court appeal by Mr Holdens car insurers to re-claim half of the payout (for destroying the adjacent premises) from the insurance of Mr Holdens Employer, on the reasoning that the adjoining building was destroyed by the fire in Mr Holdens Employers building rather than the fire in Mr Holdens car. It is interesting that both buildings were valued at £1,000,000 which at the time was the maximum liability for damage to property (now £1.2 million) under the RTA.

Either through His own incompetence or an attempt to cause mischief, ( hopefully the former) Roger has either overlooked or ignored THE MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENT in the whole article, which is naturally the statement that proves My point.

It seems very strange to Me that Roger has apparently been organising events for around 10 years less than I have yet has not kept up with changes (generally for the better) that have been brought in during this time. Whether these improvements will survive Brexit is yet to be seen