jimmywx11

[ArthurWankspittle]

Drink? I thought you used it for colonic irrigation?

Same difference in Jimmyw's case

No, that would be sinus wash surely?

[rumpelstilzchen]

jimmy really has abandoned his idea of "losing the name". He is now promoting "Have loads of names":

if you get some tickets, just "sell" the car to another alias and / or address for good mesure

And once again his method will invalidate his insurance.

[ArthurWankspittle]

if you get some tickets, just "sell" the car to another alias and / or address for good mesure

Brilliant Jimmy. Then you take your time proving to the Police that you actually sold the car and either admit falsifying DVLA documents or perverting the course of justice.

[Skeleton]

Our Jimmy has a new hobby, maybe this will stop him from making himself look a complete idiot like on all his other videos.

Jimmy has taken to reviewing Juicers, Juicer companies be afraid, Jimmy is on your case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOEDmr004LA

[longdog]

Our Jimmy has a new hobby, maybe this will stop him from making himself look a complete idiot like on all his other videos.

Jimmy has taken to reviewing Juicers, Juicer companies be afraid, Jimmy is on your case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOEDmr004LA

Juicing: For people who are too lazy to chew

[YiamCross]

Our Jimmy has a new hobby, maybe this will stop him from making himself look a complete idiot like on all his other videos.

Jimmy has taken to reviewing Juicers, Juicer companies be afraid, Jimmy is on your case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOEDmr004LA

Very professional, just like everything else he turns his hand to.

This whole business of car in the dog's name is, I'm afraid, like everything else Jimmyw says he does. An invention. The system has been changed to make it difficult if not impossible to do now unless you're very sophisticated in creating a false identity and that in itself is no small task.

Money laundering, anti terrorst laws, all the exra annoying legislation that people like him trying to run scams and cons have created in thier wake would put paid to that.

It's like these idiots who deregister their cars and drive around with their own number plates on. Eventually some bored copper will pull them and it's game over. Trouble is, when you start creating false IDs they get very interested.

[vampireLOREN]

Our Jimmy has a new hobby, maybe this will stop him from making himself look a complete idiot like on all his other videos.

Jimmy has taken to reviewing Juicers, Juicer companies be afraid, Jimmy is on your case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOEDmr004LA

I want Sunny Jim to mix that wonderful MMS in with his Juice and drink it by the gallon

[littleFred]

On the subject of GOOFers without car insurance or even registration, Help!!! Someone trying to sue me.

How much help does she get, even though she claims the accident wasn't her fault? You guessed it ...

[PeanutGallery]

On the subject of GOOFers without car insurance or even registration, Help!!! Someone trying to sue me.

How much help does she get, even though she claims the accident wasn't her fault? You guessed it ...

The 'advice' which boils down to try and claim it as 'their word against yours' is pretty poor. In fact I would suggest that trying to argue you weren't their or aren't responsible would likely be considered an attempt to pervert the course of justice. The court will look at the fact that their was an accident and that one of the vehicles was unregistered and uninsured and also the other party were given these details at the time, which match those of the person they could identify as the other driver.

If the police got involved it would likely turn very serious, so that would be an exceptionally stupid argument to try to bring at this late stage. From what little, and their is little in the thread, it would seem that they are being asked to defend a civil claim, likely being brought by the other parties insurance provider (which would be why the MIB would be a named co-defendant). Unless Kate has enough assets in her name to make an acceptable offer to settle out of court I would say that it will likely go all the way and if ignored could easily lead to very real financial hardship.

This does raise an interesting observation, previously the detaxers and uninsured drivers in the free scene had argued that they would privately pay to make good any damage they caused. They would bleat about staying in honour and exclaimed such things quite loudly. But here we have that exact situation, they are disputing the damage done (by claiming it wasn't their fault - note this doesn't mean I don't believe them, I just don't have enough of the facts concerning the accident to make a call on it), and are now trying to get out of the consequences their mistake may have caused another driver (again we don't know who is or is not at fault).

[Skeleton]

This right to travel bullshit that has been spouted long and loud was always going to bite people and we have yet another winner, going by her OP i have no sympathy for her.

I was in a road traffic accident in October 2012 which wasn't my fault

Of course it was not, some facts as to why it was not would help.

The car wasn't registered and I had no insurance

Good on you for admitting you know that to drive in the UK, you have to be taxed and insured.

I was stupid enough to exchange details of name and address,

Stupidity probably saved you, because thankfully you did not think of this at the time.

What do I do?

Stay off Goofy land trying to find an excuse to wheedle out of it, because the excuse will not work, and get some proper legal advice.

[notorial dissent]

Question for the UK crowd. Are you not required to summon the police and make an accident report whenever there has been an accident? It is universal law here as far as I know that police must be called and reports made for ANY vehicle accident. The penalties for not can be quite severe, at least in my state, and insurance claims can be denied if there is no police report. The only exception we have here is if we are on accident alert and then the report must be made within 24 hrs.

[rogfulton]

I believe that it is also the case here (Texas at least) that the accident will be deemed the fault of the driver who is driving unlawfully (no insurance proof, expired registration, driving impaired, etc).

[Skeleton]

Question for the UK crowd. Are you not required to summon the police and make an accident report whenever there has been an accident? It is universal law here as far as I know that police must be called and reports made for ANY vehicle accident. The penalties for not can be quite severe, at least in my state, and insurance claims can be denied if there is no police report. The only exception we have here is if we are on accident alert and then the report must be made within 24 hrs.

Here in Australia any accident has to be reported to the Police.

I thought in the UK (I emigrated many moons ago) that if you had a minor shunt and no one was injured or property damaged, you and the other driver swapped details and let the Insurance companies fight it out without involving the Police. However :-

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/if ... n-accident

Says different.

[littleFred]

In the UK, if no one is injured and no property (including vehicles) is damaged, there is no need to exchange details or report it. That's fair enough; there is nothing to report.

If there is injury or damage, drivers must (RTA 1988 s170) stop and exchange details (name and address of driver and owner; vehicle reg number). It is also usual to exchange insurance details, although that isn't a requirement for damage-only unless the police ask for it (RTA s170(5), s165).

If I had a damage-only accident and the other driver didn't produce insurance details, I'd certainly report it to the police in the hope that they would oblige the other driver to give the insurance details (which they commonly do, starting with an s172 notice).

In Kate's case, the other driver may also have been reluctant to involve the police. Or perhaps they did, and Kate has already been prosecuted for insurance and VED (tax) offences, and is now fearful she will have to dig even deeper into her pockets.

She is a long-serving GOOFer. See for example Wake-Up Thread.

[ArthurWankspittle]

From what little, and their is little in the thread, it would seem that they are being asked to defend a civil claim, likely being brought by the other parties insurance provider (which would be why the MIB would be a named co-defendant). Unless Kate has enough assets in her name to make an acceptable offer to settle out of court I would say that it will likely go all the way and if ignored could easily lead to very real financial hardship.

Just to further explain for the ex-colonists, MIB is the http://www.mib.org.uk/Home/en/default.htm Motorist Insurance Bureau (and not Men in Black) which is an insurance industry body funded by contributions from all motor insurers (PoE take note) to, amongst other things, cover victims of uninsured drivers. What PeanutGalley says makes sense - this is the other party's insurer saying either Kate or MIB pay out to our client.
Kate will also have the further problems of 1 having to pay out four figures to get any insurance whatsoever even on a moped. 2 anything she is found driving while uninsured will be confiscated. 3 whatever the situation with the accident, not having insurance etc. makes you look like you are a dishonest person which won't go down well in court.

[hobgoblin]

Driving without insurance will also result in a large fine and a minimum of six points on her licence, assuming she has one of course, being a well established Goofer.

[notorial dissent]

Since this has gone as far as a civil suit, one must assume that either Kate has sufficient resources, which for a Goofer I find suspect, or else they need to do this to set up a claim with your MIB. WE have a similar but different situation here, where you are required, I believe to have included in your policy uninsured motorist coverage, something people foolishly scrimp on, so that when the local uninsured Footl here runs in to you and has no or only the bare minimum insurance you are still covered for things like medical expenses, which can be staggering even in a small accident. Her biggest problem however, is that since she was uninsured and unlicensed the presumptions will all be against her, and she will most likely lose. Stupid can be amazingly expensive.

[Skeleton]

Driving without insurance will also result in a large fine and a minimum of six points on her licence, assuming she has one of course, being a well established Goofer.

Would that drive up the price the next time you have to insure your car?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Would that drive up the price the next time you have to insure your car?

Just a lot. See my previous comment.

....Kate will also have the further problems of 1 having to pay out four figures to get any insurance whatsoever even on a moped....

[AndyPandy]

Found this:

Failure to respond to claim letters

If someone does not reply to a claim letter holding them liable for damages following a road accident, you should take one of the following courses of action:-

if you have fully comprehensive insurance, let the insurance company pursue the claim. If the insurance company does not manage to recover damages from the other person you may lose your no-claims bonus, unless you can successfully sue the liable person

So presumably she's being sued because she didn't respond to the claim letters and provide her insurance details.