Welland 2019 Dyno test of Boadicea

[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

[Earl Kitchener]

A brief resume of the case can be found here I would draw attention to paragraph 2 of the comments.

The claim and counterclaim that are the concern of the case are irrelevant to the point I was making which hinges on the use of the vehicle under RTA cover. In UK law this has always been taken to indemnify the insured against claims in the case of accidents arising from the normal use of the vehicle on a road or public place. Normal use includes, and this is backed by case law, leaving a broken down car on the road until it can be recovered and such things. Incidents that would arise out of the normal use of the vehicle. This is the minimum cover required under the act applied with common sense as to what most would accept as use of the vehicle. I don't doubt that other policies confer more cover but as it happens my current cover excludes claims arising from the use of any cutting and welding equipment in the course of repairs.

Now in para 53 of the judgement Lord Hodge says

53. In my view, neither English domestic case law nor the jurisprudence of the
CJEU supports the view that the carrying out of significant repairs to a vehicle on
private property entails the “use” of the vehicle. The English case law which
interprets “use” in the RTA as “having the use of” makes good sense in the context
of vehicles which have been left on a road or in a public place, where members of
the public are likely to encounter them, but less sense if applied without qualification
to vehicles located on private property. In ordinary language one would not speak
of a person who is conducting substantial repairs to a stationary vehicle as “using”
that vehicle,

Now it seems to me that this indicates quite clearly that in assessing liability the courts could well be asked to give a decision on whether any activity with a vehicle could be construed as the 'use' of that vehicle under the act as it has been interpreted up until now.
Lord Hodge also refers in para 38 to a 2017 case where a tractor fitted with a herbicide pumping kit ran way and crushed a worker while it was being used as a stationary pump.

He notes that the European Court said:

the concept of “use of vehicles” covers “any use of a vehicle as a means of transport”
(para 38). The fact that a vehicle was stationary or that its engine was not running at
the time of the accident did not preclude the use falling within the scope of its
function as a means of transport (para 39). But the concept of “use of vehicles” did
not cover a circumstance in which the tractor’s principal function, at the time of the
accident, was not to serve as a means of transport but to generate, as a machine for
carrying out work, the motive power necessary to drive the pump of a herbicide
sprayer (para 42 and the dispositif).


These are simply matters to which i think it wise to draw attention.

[the highwayman]

Originally Posted by Earl Kitchener

A brief resume of the case can be found here I would draw attention to paragraph 2 of the comments.

The claim and counterclaim that are the concern of the case are irrelevant to the point I was making which hinges on the use of the vehicle under RTA cover. In UK law this has always been taken to indemnify the insured against claims in the case of accidents arising from the normal use of the vehicle on a road or public place. Normal use includes, and this is backed by case law, leaving a broken down car on the road until it can be recovered and such things. Incidents that would arise out of the normal use of the vehicle. This is the minimum cover required under the act applied with common sense as to what most would accept as use of the vehicle. I don't doubt that other policies confer more cover but as it happens my current cover excludes claims arising from the use of any cutting and welding equipment in the course of repairs.

Now in para 53 of the judgement Lord Hodge says

53. In my view, neither English domestic case law nor the jurisprudence of the
CJEU supports the view that the carrying out of significant repairs to a vehicle on
private property entails the “use” of the vehicle. The English case law which
interprets “use” in the RTA as “having the use of” makes good sense in the context
of vehicles which have been left on a road or in a public place, where members of
the public are likely to encounter them, but less sense if applied without qualification
to vehicles located on private property. In ordinary language one would not speak
of a person who is conducting substantial repairs to a stationary vehicle as “using”
that vehicle,

Now it seems to me that this indicates quite clearly that in assessing liability the courts could well be asked to give a decision on whether any activity with a vehicle could be construed as the 'use' of that vehicle under the act as it has been interpreted up until now.
Lord Hodge also refers in para 38 to a 2017 case where a tractor fitted with a herbicide pumping kit ran way and crushed a worker while it was being used as a stationary pump.

He notes that the European Court said:

the concept of “use of vehicles” covers “any use of a vehicle as a means of transport”
(para 38). The fact that a vehicle was stationary or that its engine was not running at
the time of the accident did not preclude the use falling within the scope of its
function as a means of transport (para 39). But the concept of “use of vehicles” did
not cover a circumstance in which the tractor’s principal function, at the time of the
accident, was not to serve as a means of transport but to generate, as a machine for
carrying out work, the motive power necessary to drive the pump of a herbicide
sprayer (para 42 and the dispositif).


These are simply matters to which i think it wise to draw attention.

You are STILL missing the main point of RTA insurance, and You are drifting off into the LA LA Land of Public Liability, which has NOTHING to do with playing with engines, The important part of the link that You have posted is in paragraph 3 BUT for You to recognise this would merely expose the irrelevence (In this matter) of the NTET and it's 'Dream up a problem that dosen't exist and then fail to solve it' mentality. 'Use' is of no relevence to RTA insurance and in trying to give it some relevence You are effectively betraying the entire Road steam fraternity.

[Earl Kitchener]

Originally Posted by the highwayman

You are STILL missing the main point of RTA insurance, and You are drifting off into the LA LA Land of Public Liability, which has NOTHING to do with playing with engines, The important part of the link that You have posted is in paragraph 3 BUT for You to recognise this would merely expose the irrelevence (In this matter) of the NTET and it's 'Dream up a problem that dosen't exist and then fail to solve it' mentality. 'Use' is of no relevence to RTA insurance and in trying to give it some relevence You are effectively betraying the entire Road steam fraternity.

Well then we shall simply have to agree to differ.

[the highwayman]

Originally Posted by Earl Kitchener

Well then we shall simply have to agree to differ.

Is it worth pointing out that both of the last 2 officials of the NTET who agreed to differ with Me are now no longer even members of the NTET?

[Paul30013]

Originally Posted by the highwayman

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

Stephen,

Do you have other info on this case or have I misread? It states on page 3 of the judgement that AXA, Pheonix engineering's insurers paid out over £2m to Pheonix and the neighbour to settle the claim. AXA then took action against UKI (Holden's RTA insurer) in Pheonix name to recover their loss as they felt Holden to be responsible and his RTA policy should cover the liability. In the first case the judge found UKI not liable, in the appeal that decision was reversed and UKI was felt to be liable and then in the third case in the Supreme Court even taking into account again the EU situation the appeal was overruled and the first judgement upheld that UKI was not liable and the activity undertaken was not "normal use of the vehicle" and thus not covered under the policy. It takes a bit of reading to understand it but I can't see that UKI the RTA insurer ever paid out anything? Do I have that wrong?

I assume if I haven't that AXA / Pheonix could persue Mr Holden personally for the damages if they could prove negligence, probably not in their interest as even if they won he is probably unlikely to have the resources for them to recover their loss and as he was an employee albeit probably not on pay at the time Pheonix themselves may have culpability by virtue of allowing the work to proceed and as AXA is Pheonix insurer it would be an even more convoluted circle! Phoenix also agreed to limit their pursuit of the claim to UKI.

Notwithstanding my second para I can't see how this illustrates the gold plated RTA insurance covers all eventualities? As far as I can see UKI the RTA insurer never paid a penny in settlement of the claim although they would have incurred substantial legal costs. The judgement also establishes case law for future similar situations.

Obviously this case is unrelated to the dyno testing as there is no employee / employer relationship and it was in a public space not private property where the public were excluded. Let's just be thankful that there was no need on this occasion to put the legalities to the test!

Paul.