Cutting down on the number of road users

This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.

What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.

However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.

Why is this idea important?

This is going to sound a bit draconian and I can hardly believe I'm about to write this. There are a huge number of vehicles on the road that are only used for very short journeys where public transport or (dare I say) walking would be as effective. The problem is that we are being squeezed on prices of vehicles, price of fuel, increased congestion. It hurts but we soon adjust to the pain. What we need is a system where people have to make a deliberate and life changing committment to own and run a car, and they need to make this committment every year.

What I propose is that the government take all tax off of fuel and abolish the road fund license. Instead, replace it with a single "Personal Transport Tax" and a "Commercial Transport Tax" of approximately £10,000 per year and £15,000 per year respectively. For those road users whose business and livelihood depends on their vehicle, there wouldbe a break-even point of say 25,000 for personal vehicles and 35,000 per year for commercial vehicles where their motoring under this new scheme costs about the same as it did under the old scheme. Therefore, people who NEED to use vehicles will be largely unaffected.

However, the rest of us would need to make a decision every year – "Will I get £10,000 worth of use out my vehicle this year?" Most will agree that they will not. You can get a lot of taxis, buses and trains for £10,000 per year. This will drive more people and more money ontoi the public transport system and we can stop subsidizing them with tax payers money. Where there is more money in public transport, competition will appear driving the service quality up. Everyone's a winner. Personnaly, if I had to make that decision right now, I could only justify having one car and that one car does about 40,000 miles per year. The other car would have to go. I think a lot of people would feel the same way.

DLA Car Allowance

I think they should still give car to people but make them pay for insurnce and road tax for the thing.

 

Stops all the freeloaders jumping on teh band wagon then

Why is this idea important?

I think they should still give car to people but make them pay for insurnce and road tax for the thing.

 

Stops all the freeloaders jumping on teh band wagon then

The EU,taxing,insuring and mot-ing a vehicle in any country ?

Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.

I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL  EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX  for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…

So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.

Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country )  as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him  a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.

Can anyone see my point  ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???

 

Why is this idea important?

Hello,As a long term Motorhomer/campervan user i have noticed maybe a loop hole or unworkable/unfair use of our individual countries motor taxes etc.

I'm not sure if i can explain properly,i hope you understand what i'm trying to convey,but for instance,we are ALL  EU citizens now,apparantly all abide by the same rules and regs,my country the UK ,has certain rules and regs regardings vehicles,stating we need an MOT every year,road TAX  for use of the roads and a valid INSURANCE,paid yearly and also valid for that time,as far as i'm aware,so do all the other EU countries…

So,my point is,if i am away from the UK,and my Insurance/MOTor Tax runs out,I am in fact breaking the law,not only in the UK (and i'm not there,maybe in Spain at the time) or the EU law.

Why cant EU road users be classed the same,and for their convenience be able to recieve and purchase these documents ,ANYWHERE in the EU,as an example,i overstayed a long holiday while travelling Europe,i had to stop said holiday when noticing documents about to expire ! thus a long rushed 2000 mile journey back to the UK,to get the out dated TAX,that i hadn't or wouldn't have used (as being out of the country for 6 months !) an MOT,where as ANY qualified mot station in the EU could have made sure my vehicle was safe (as thats what its for) and that INSURANCE be purchased in any insurance broker (online or in that particular EU country )  as for instance,a Bulgarian can get EU cover insurance with even added perks of a green card that allows him  a greater number of countries of cover,it also covers him for the UK !! but the same Bulgarian/Spanish/Italian would have the same problem as myself and have to travel the 1000/2000 miles back to their country of origin,to be lawfull again,which seems in this computer ,open borders EU countries,rather ludicrous.

Can anyone see my point  ? please make a comment,and any Govt official,please look into this,before someone takes it to a tribunal/law courts …from a EU road user,with rights ???

 

End the barmy compensation culture, lets be human!

Criminals' now have a new career path. Their new get quick rich scheme is to sue the victims and claim crazy amounts of compension in the full knowledge that the court of law will reward them handsomely.Laws and legislation should be there to protect the victims and the vulnerable, how did common sense become so backwards? i find it astonishing!

Why is this idea important?

Criminals' now have a new career path. Their new get quick rich scheme is to sue the victims and claim crazy amounts of compension in the full knowledge that the court of law will reward them handsomely.Laws and legislation should be there to protect the victims and the vulnerable, how did common sense become so backwards? i find it astonishing!

Reform Insurance Premium Tax (IPT)

Remove Insurance Premium Tax from premiums on all forms of insurance and add it to claims so that illegitimate claims are weeded out and reduce the overall cost of insurance.

Why is this idea important?

Remove Insurance Premium Tax from premiums on all forms of insurance and add it to claims so that illegitimate claims are weeded out and reduce the overall cost of insurance.

tackle the compensation culture which is driving up insurance premiums..

1. People who make more than one claim within a period of three years should be automatically checked to see if they are engineering multiple claims.

For instance: those who have road traffic accidents should have to declare if they have had any other accidents in the previous three years and not be allowed to 'stage' multiple accidents as is done by many.

2. Make it a necassary requirement for anyone who is involved in an accident to visit a 'Government' doctor for them to properly perform the necessary medical checks and not allow solisitors to send them to the doctors and practices who they employee and tell the claiments what to say.

3. Ban radio, TV and printed advertisements from solisitors who offer these services.

4. Make it a requirement that law firms and solisitors can be awarded no more that 50% of what is awarded in any claim filed.

Why is this idea important?

1. People who make more than one claim within a period of three years should be automatically checked to see if they are engineering multiple claims.

For instance: those who have road traffic accidents should have to declare if they have had any other accidents in the previous three years and not be allowed to 'stage' multiple accidents as is done by many.

2. Make it a necassary requirement for anyone who is involved in an accident to visit a 'Government' doctor for them to properly perform the necessary medical checks and not allow solisitors to send them to the doctors and practices who they employee and tell the claiments what to say.

3. Ban radio, TV and printed advertisements from solisitors who offer these services.

4. Make it a requirement that law firms and solisitors can be awarded no more that 50% of what is awarded in any claim filed.

Don’t loose NCD if hit by uninsured

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

Why is this idea important?

If an uninsured driver hits you and the accident is entirely their fault, it should be illegal for an insurance company to charge you an excess, or remove your No Claims Discount.

preventing fraud under no win no fee

Unfortunately, Conditional Fee Agreements are a huge enticement to those that wish to bring fraudulent claims, because with the use of an after the event legal expenses policy they provide a claimant with a consequence-free entitlement to litigate. If the claim fails, the Claimant’s solicitor does not charge his client and the insurance policy should pay the other parties costs.  Unfortunately if a policyholder (the claimant) has lied to his insurer (i.e. to say that he was in an accident when he was not) the insurer can void the policy on the basis of its policyholder’s misrepresentation and get out of paying the otherside’s costs. This means that Defendants that do their “job” of defending cases successfully, may not recover the costs for doing so. This loop hole costs defendants (including local authorities) thousands of pounds per case.

If the law, that already exists for vehicle insurance, is extended to cover after the event legal expense policies, so that in the event a claim fails, the insurer must pay the other party’s costs, defendants can be assured that it is financially worth defending fraudulent claims. The insurer will have a right to pursue their policyholder for the payout, which should deter some would be fraudulent claimants, and if not, at least encourage the after the event insurers to vet their policyholders properly before they underwrite the claims.

Why is this idea important?

Unfortunately, Conditional Fee Agreements are a huge enticement to those that wish to bring fraudulent claims, because with the use of an after the event legal expenses policy they provide a claimant with a consequence-free entitlement to litigate. If the claim fails, the Claimant’s solicitor does not charge his client and the insurance policy should pay the other parties costs.  Unfortunately if a policyholder (the claimant) has lied to his insurer (i.e. to say that he was in an accident when he was not) the insurer can void the policy on the basis of its policyholder’s misrepresentation and get out of paying the otherside’s costs. This means that Defendants that do their “job” of defending cases successfully, may not recover the costs for doing so. This loop hole costs defendants (including local authorities) thousands of pounds per case.

If the law, that already exists for vehicle insurance, is extended to cover after the event legal expense policies, so that in the event a claim fails, the insurer must pay the other party’s costs, defendants can be assured that it is financially worth defending fraudulent claims. The insurer will have a right to pursue their policyholder for the payout, which should deter some would be fraudulent claimants, and if not, at least encourage the after the event insurers to vet their policyholders properly before they underwrite the claims.

Repeal Chancellery laws, and ban chancellery insurance

Chancellery insurance is a rip off waiting to sting home-buyers. While the amounts involved are relatively small compared to other costs of buying a house, it is just another way that the legal and insurance industries find to obstruct the housing market, and to take advantage of people by forcing them to take out policies that they do not want, and probably haven't budgeted for. Many will be forced into spending an extra hundred or two for this insurance. 

The purpose of the insurance? The fixing of the local church roof. Surely this constitutes a tax. If this is the case, label it as such, and don't start hiding the avarice of insurance brokers under the fear and uncertainty of archaic laws.

Why is this idea important?

Chancellery insurance is a rip off waiting to sting home-buyers. While the amounts involved are relatively small compared to other costs of buying a house, it is just another way that the legal and insurance industries find to obstruct the housing market, and to take advantage of people by forcing them to take out policies that they do not want, and probably haven't budgeted for. Many will be forced into spending an extra hundred or two for this insurance. 

The purpose of the insurance? The fixing of the local church roof. Surely this constitutes a tax. If this is the case, label it as such, and don't start hiding the avarice of insurance brokers under the fear and uncertainty of archaic laws.

Change VED to insurance

Scrap VED on private cars. Introduce a basic third-party injury insurance cost based on car/risk profile.

Investigate a simil;ar approach to commercial vehicles (not so clear as I write this)

Why is this idea important?

Scrap VED on private cars. Introduce a basic third-party injury insurance cost based on car/risk profile.

Investigate a simil;ar approach to commercial vehicles (not so clear as I write this)

Repeal No Win No Fee Legislation

This law has ricochet all over our society, at first I thought this can be a bad idea how wrong I was!

It has made Health & Safety a national joke as people and business’s over react about being sued, it’s caused people to no longer accept responsibility for their own errors and seek unwarranted compensation. Its caused insurance premiums to rise s payouts rise in number and value.

Yet we all know, at least the reasonable man does that the vast majority of these claims would never win in a court however they never get there as its cheaper to settle than pay legal fee’s, so the fraudster, the com men, the idiotic get paid out whilst the rest us pay up on our insurance and have our life’s limited a little bit more each year as over zealous H&S consultants tall rubbish to their clients.

However we can stop all this madness, may I suggest:

  • Undo the legislation in full
  • Change the legislation so that cases have to go to court  and have reason shined upon them – or maybe a high percentage of each solicitors cases have to go before a court.
  • Make solicitors have to do a pro bono case for each No Win No Fee case they take to court.
  • If the case isn’t won in court make the costs to the losing claimant very high.
  • Etc etc

Please do something!!!!

Why is this idea important?

This law has ricochet all over our society, at first I thought this can be a bad idea how wrong I was!

It has made Health & Safety a national joke as people and business’s over react about being sued, it’s caused people to no longer accept responsibility for their own errors and seek unwarranted compensation. Its caused insurance premiums to rise s payouts rise in number and value.

Yet we all know, at least the reasonable man does that the vast majority of these claims would never win in a court however they never get there as its cheaper to settle than pay legal fee’s, so the fraudster, the com men, the idiotic get paid out whilst the rest us pay up on our insurance and have our life’s limited a little bit more each year as over zealous H&S consultants tall rubbish to their clients.

However we can stop all this madness, may I suggest:

  • Undo the legislation in full
  • Change the legislation so that cases have to go to court  and have reason shined upon them – or maybe a high percentage of each solicitors cases have to go before a court.
  • Make solicitors have to do a pro bono case for each No Win No Fee case they take to court.
  • If the case isn’t won in court make the costs to the losing claimant very high.
  • Etc etc

Please do something!!!!

Penalty for no insurance

Currently the fine and points for no insurance are imposed by a courts evaluation of the offence and usually amounts to less than a years insurance cost.

So, why not impose a mandatory 10x the middle qote from the 3 cheapest qoutes for that vehicle on a car quote site that are frequently advertising on TV.

This would make people who do not insure their vehicles think about it mor and if there are 3 million uninsured drivers out there, then think of the revenue that would raise. If they cant pay the seize the car and auction them off if they have value to pay the fine.

Why is this idea important?

Currently the fine and points for no insurance are imposed by a courts evaluation of the offence and usually amounts to less than a years insurance cost.

So, why not impose a mandatory 10x the middle qote from the 3 cheapest qoutes for that vehicle on a car quote site that are frequently advertising on TV.

This would make people who do not insure their vehicles think about it mor and if there are 3 million uninsured drivers out there, then think of the revenue that would raise. If they cant pay the seize the car and auction them off if they have value to pay the fine.

Make uninsured drivers pay.

Uninsured drivers cost us all a lot of money on our insurance premiums and, if one of them hits us, we lose our NCD and our excess isn't covered even if the crash wasn't your faul. I'm not sure if it is entirely fair to penalise the law abiding majority to pay for the law breaking minority.

 

I believe that if someone chooses to drive without insurance and then has a crash, they personally are liable for all the resultant costs and they should only recieve help from the Motor Insurer's Bureau once their esate is valued at £0.

Why is this idea important?

Uninsured drivers cost us all a lot of money on our insurance premiums and, if one of them hits us, we lose our NCD and our excess isn't covered even if the crash wasn't your faul. I'm not sure if it is entirely fair to penalise the law abiding majority to pay for the law breaking minority.

 

I believe that if someone chooses to drive without insurance and then has a crash, they personally are liable for all the resultant costs and they should only recieve help from the Motor Insurer's Bureau once their esate is valued at £0.

Fairer insurance law for consumers…

Why do insurers have such a poor reputation?

Part of the reason is that some insurers are still relying on law which was established in 18th century commercial insurance cases, even when dealing with consumers.

For example, every time you buy an insurance policy – motor, household, life, whatever – you must tell the insurer everything which a prudent insurer might consider relevant to the risk.  This rule was set down in a commercial insurance case heard in 1766!  The insurer is not as a matter of contract law required to ask any questions to guide you, even in respect of those matters which it regards as typically relevant. 

Unless you work for an insurer, how likely is it that you will accurately anticipate everything which should be disclosed?

Yet the penalties are harsh.  If you fail to disclose a relevant fact and this failure induces the insurer to enter into the contract, it may on becoming aware of the true position set your policy aside from outset and reject any claim you have made.  This is so regardless of whether  you acted fraudulently, negligently or entirely innocently.  Nor does there need to be any connection between the alleged non-disclosure and the claim.  And once you have had a policy set aside you will have to declare this in all future applications making it harder to obtain cover at a reasonable cost.

This law may well have been appropriate for commercial insurance arranged in individual face-to-face transactions between equals in the 18th century. However it makes little sense for such law to be applied to modern-day mass-market consumer insurance policies, often purchased over the 'phone or the internet.

If a policy is set aside, consumers do have the right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service.  This is an invaluable option as the Ombudsmen make decisions on the basis of what is "fair and reasonable".  In insurance this frequently means ignoring the law.  However it may take months before a decision is made and the service is subject to restrictions.  For example, awards are only binding to £100,000 – a figure which has remained unchanged for 29 years!  For an example of  how woefully inadequate this limit now is, consider the case of Ms Michelle Barber which was widely reported last year.  Ms Barber's house was rebuilt by an insurer after a fire. Subsequently the insurer demanded that Ms Barber reimburse the costs of £241,000 after it discovered that when taking out the policy she had failed to declare a fine of just £150. 

Reform would also discourage several unacceptable practices.  At present some insurers:

  • defer until the claims stage enquiries which would more properly have been made when the initial application was received (for example, in Cuthbertson v Friends Provident, Lord Eassie suggested that "the only purpose of recovering the GP records was to see whether within those notes there was any entry which might give the defenders grounds for avoiding or invalidating the policy under which the claim was being made"),
  • allege non-disclosure as a technical means of rejecting a claim where the reality is that they suspect fraud but are either unable to prove it or unwilling to spend the time and money that a proper investigation would require,
  • adopt an unduly harsh approach to claims when financial pressures bite – indeed claims handlers may be assessed on their ability to "control" costs and it may even affect their remuneration.

The better insurers do not rely on the harsher aspects of the law and would gain from it being reformed.  First it would prevent their less ethical competitors from gaining a financial advantage by refusing claims on spurious grounds.   Secondly, reform would improve the reputation of the insurance industry as a whole.

Fortunately, all the necessary work for consumer insurance law reform has been completed by the Law Commissions, and reforming legislation has been drafted – the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill.  Amongst other provisions this Bill would abolish the duty of disclosure for consumers – if an insurer required information it would be obliged to ask a clear question.

Now all that is needed is swift implementation…

Why is this idea important?

Why do insurers have such a poor reputation?

Part of the reason is that some insurers are still relying on law which was established in 18th century commercial insurance cases, even when dealing with consumers.

For example, every time you buy an insurance policy – motor, household, life, whatever – you must tell the insurer everything which a prudent insurer might consider relevant to the risk.  This rule was set down in a commercial insurance case heard in 1766!  The insurer is not as a matter of contract law required to ask any questions to guide you, even in respect of those matters which it regards as typically relevant. 

Unless you work for an insurer, how likely is it that you will accurately anticipate everything which should be disclosed?

Yet the penalties are harsh.  If you fail to disclose a relevant fact and this failure induces the insurer to enter into the contract, it may on becoming aware of the true position set your policy aside from outset and reject any claim you have made.  This is so regardless of whether  you acted fraudulently, negligently or entirely innocently.  Nor does there need to be any connection between the alleged non-disclosure and the claim.  And once you have had a policy set aside you will have to declare this in all future applications making it harder to obtain cover at a reasonable cost.

This law may well have been appropriate for commercial insurance arranged in individual face-to-face transactions between equals in the 18th century. However it makes little sense for such law to be applied to modern-day mass-market consumer insurance policies, often purchased over the 'phone or the internet.

If a policy is set aside, consumers do have the right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service.  This is an invaluable option as the Ombudsmen make decisions on the basis of what is "fair and reasonable".  In insurance this frequently means ignoring the law.  However it may take months before a decision is made and the service is subject to restrictions.  For example, awards are only binding to £100,000 – a figure which has remained unchanged for 29 years!  For an example of  how woefully inadequate this limit now is, consider the case of Ms Michelle Barber which was widely reported last year.  Ms Barber's house was rebuilt by an insurer after a fire. Subsequently the insurer demanded that Ms Barber reimburse the costs of £241,000 after it discovered that when taking out the policy she had failed to declare a fine of just £150. 

Reform would also discourage several unacceptable practices.  At present some insurers:

  • defer until the claims stage enquiries which would more properly have been made when the initial application was received (for example, in Cuthbertson v Friends Provident, Lord Eassie suggested that "the only purpose of recovering the GP records was to see whether within those notes there was any entry which might give the defenders grounds for avoiding or invalidating the policy under which the claim was being made"),
  • allege non-disclosure as a technical means of rejecting a claim where the reality is that they suspect fraud but are either unable to prove it or unwilling to spend the time and money that a proper investigation would require,
  • adopt an unduly harsh approach to claims when financial pressures bite – indeed claims handlers may be assessed on their ability to "control" costs and it may even affect their remuneration.

The better insurers do not rely on the harsher aspects of the law and would gain from it being reformed.  First it would prevent their less ethical competitors from gaining a financial advantage by refusing claims on spurious grounds.   Secondly, reform would improve the reputation of the insurance industry as a whole.

Fortunately, all the necessary work for consumer insurance law reform has been completed by the Law Commissions, and reforming legislation has been drafted – the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Bill.  Amongst other provisions this Bill would abolish the duty of disclosure for consumers – if an insurer required information it would be obliged to ask a clear question.

Now all that is needed is swift implementation…

Reduce ‘Blame and Claim’ Culture

As is fairly common in many other European countries, basic Third Party insurance for everyone should be required. Making this mandatory would probably not be effective but it should be 'strongly advised' with gains for those who are covered.

'Tripped on a pavement?' – don't claim off your local council, use your Third Party insurance. Repeat claims can then be tracked, the cost of the premium can go up to reflect this and councils save money.  Fraudulent claims would also be discouraged. The range of cover afforded to be reflected in the price of the premium – some 'common' claims to be seen as part of any basic cover. This basic cover should be affordable to all – reductions for pensioners, those receiving certain State benefits to be taken into account. For those receiving reductions, however, more than a set number of claims within a set time-frame would either reduce any 'discount' or attract a higher premium.

A No Claims Bonus, or perhaps rebate, to be an integral part of the cover: no claim in two years equates to 50% reduction for next year or return of 30% of contributions for example.

The scheme could be implemented either by established Insurance companies or, less preferably, by an authorised government agency.

Why is this idea important?

As is fairly common in many other European countries, basic Third Party insurance for everyone should be required. Making this mandatory would probably not be effective but it should be 'strongly advised' with gains for those who are covered.

'Tripped on a pavement?' – don't claim off your local council, use your Third Party insurance. Repeat claims can then be tracked, the cost of the premium can go up to reflect this and councils save money.  Fraudulent claims would also be discouraged. The range of cover afforded to be reflected in the price of the premium – some 'common' claims to be seen as part of any basic cover. This basic cover should be affordable to all – reductions for pensioners, those receiving certain State benefits to be taken into account. For those receiving reductions, however, more than a set number of claims within a set time-frame would either reduce any 'discount' or attract a higher premium.

A No Claims Bonus, or perhaps rebate, to be an integral part of the cover: no claim in two years equates to 50% reduction for next year or return of 30% of contributions for example.

The scheme could be implemented either by established Insurance companies or, less preferably, by an authorised government agency.

Abolish the No Win No Fee System

Employers, councils and government, including the public sector, are funding the no win no fee system that is being exploited by solicitors and quasi legal organisations, by having to pay inflated insurance premiums. It must cost billions of pounds from the private and public purse each year. I am told that this system is not available in Scotland or N.Ireland, which begs the question why do we have it in England? There is still legal aid in this country and if anyone has a legitimate grievance and low resources they can still bring a case.  At the moment, the slightest fall, scratch or "bad back" can be blamed on someone, usally the hapless employer. This litigious system encourages and promotes the  "blame" culture, which is so evident in our country today. How many of us were too worried to clear the snow from the pavements outside our homes last winter because we worried that we would be liable if someone slipped?  Please let us get back to a sense of personal responsibility for ones own safekeeping and the simple acceptance that accidents can and do happen despite the most careful of attention!

Why is this idea important?

Employers, councils and government, including the public sector, are funding the no win no fee system that is being exploited by solicitors and quasi legal organisations, by having to pay inflated insurance premiums. It must cost billions of pounds from the private and public purse each year. I am told that this system is not available in Scotland or N.Ireland, which begs the question why do we have it in England? There is still legal aid in this country and if anyone has a legitimate grievance and low resources they can still bring a case.  At the moment, the slightest fall, scratch or "bad back" can be blamed on someone, usally the hapless employer. This litigious system encourages and promotes the  "blame" culture, which is so evident in our country today. How many of us were too worried to clear the snow from the pavements outside our homes last winter because we worried that we would be liable if someone slipped?  Please let us get back to a sense of personal responsibility for ones own safekeeping and the simple acceptance that accidents can and do happen despite the most careful of attention!

Increase Fairness in Insurance Premiums

I would like to see the courts instructed to desist from applying silly sums against people that are insured for genuine accidents in the home or at events.

These huge sums sometimes exceed by great margins the payouts to Service personel etc and  are driving the legal industry to seek them. They are in consequence making certain public events difficult to insure.

Examples, conkers, firework displays, bouncy castles and other entertainment surrounding children are now prohibitivly expencive to insure even when reasonable precautions are taken and the event organisers have a good safety record.

Why is this idea important?

I would like to see the courts instructed to desist from applying silly sums against people that are insured for genuine accidents in the home or at events.

These huge sums sometimes exceed by great margins the payouts to Service personel etc and  are driving the legal industry to seek them. They are in consequence making certain public events difficult to insure.

Examples, conkers, firework displays, bouncy castles and other entertainment surrounding children are now prohibitivly expencive to insure even when reasonable precautions are taken and the event organisers have a good safety record.

Uninsured Drivers and the chaos they cause

A real example

I write from bitter personal experience. Last year a 16 year old youth was permitted to drive a car by another slightly older qualified driver who was named on the insurance policy covering that vehicle. The 16 year old was over the limit and lost control of the car on a bend demolished a garden wall ending up in our front garden. The car was obviously written off and the total damage to our property and a car parked in the drive was in the region of £7 – £8K. Add the cost of writing of the third party car and its recovery and the time spent by the third party's insurer, our household insurer and our car insurer, the total costs exceed £10K. The wrangling is still going on as the third party insurer is considering action against the named driver and the youth but do not expect to make any significant recovery. Ultimately the claim will probably be met through the Uninsured Drivers Fund, something every insurer pays into and is obviously then included in the premiums that we all pay.

What would I do

Where  underage drivers cause accidents they should be made to pay. However young unisnsured drivers say aged 16  cannot be expected to have the money to pay. Why ultimately should everyone else?

I would therefore arrange for the Unisured Drivers Fund to loan the Uninsured driver the cost of the claim. If they were an adult and working then as part of the criminal court prosecution, I would through the court system set an attachment of earnings order to the uninsured driver, so they had to pay back the loan to the Uninsured driver fund together with interest and administration costs. If they could not pay then the normal recovery action should be carried out culminating in seizure of goods and ultimately bankruptcy.

For a young uninsured driver with no income, I would treat the loan from the Uninsured Drivers Fund similar to a Student loan except that once they were working the repayment would be made in the same way as an attachment of earnings order. Again interest and administration charges would be passed on until the loan was repaid.

Why is this idea important?

A real example

I write from bitter personal experience. Last year a 16 year old youth was permitted to drive a car by another slightly older qualified driver who was named on the insurance policy covering that vehicle. The 16 year old was over the limit and lost control of the car on a bend demolished a garden wall ending up in our front garden. The car was obviously written off and the total damage to our property and a car parked in the drive was in the region of £7 – £8K. Add the cost of writing of the third party car and its recovery and the time spent by the third party's insurer, our household insurer and our car insurer, the total costs exceed £10K. The wrangling is still going on as the third party insurer is considering action against the named driver and the youth but do not expect to make any significant recovery. Ultimately the claim will probably be met through the Uninsured Drivers Fund, something every insurer pays into and is obviously then included in the premiums that we all pay.

What would I do

Where  underage drivers cause accidents they should be made to pay. However young unisnsured drivers say aged 16  cannot be expected to have the money to pay. Why ultimately should everyone else?

I would therefore arrange for the Unisured Drivers Fund to loan the Uninsured driver the cost of the claim. If they were an adult and working then as part of the criminal court prosecution, I would through the court system set an attachment of earnings order to the uninsured driver, so they had to pay back the loan to the Uninsured driver fund together with interest and administration costs. If they could not pay then the normal recovery action should be carried out culminating in seizure of goods and ultimately bankruptcy.

For a young uninsured driver with no income, I would treat the loan from the Uninsured Drivers Fund similar to a Student loan except that once they were working the repayment would be made in the same way as an attachment of earnings order. Again interest and administration charges would be passed on until the loan was repaid.

Remove the need for third party car insurance

Remove the need for third party car insurance.  Insurance should be for those that want protection.  Anyone wanting to insure their car against accidents can take out fully comp. as now and the insurance company can stop their charade that you have to pay more if the other person is not insured.  You pay for your insurance.  If the other person hasn't paid that will be their look out, the government already pick up the tab for patching up anyone who survives the accident.  Then you'll have to look after yourselves or you will have to foot the repair bill alone and no one should get paid compensation for suffering out of your insurance they can take out their own personal insurance.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the need for third party car insurance.  Insurance should be for those that want protection.  Anyone wanting to insure their car against accidents can take out fully comp. as now and the insurance company can stop their charade that you have to pay more if the other person is not insured.  You pay for your insurance.  If the other person hasn't paid that will be their look out, the government already pick up the tab for patching up anyone who survives the accident.  Then you'll have to look after yourselves or you will have to foot the repair bill alone and no one should get paid compensation for suffering out of your insurance they can take out their own personal insurance.

Stop insured drivers having to pay for uninsured drivers

It is ridiculous that drivers that choose to insure their cars have to pay hugher car insurance premiums in order to fund the costs associated with uninsured drivers.

Fines for driving without insurance should always be much greater than the cost of the insurance, rather than proportional to the offender's income, and the vehicle should be confiscated immediately to help ensure the fine is paid (vehicle can be released if the fine is paid promptly and vehicle owner can demonstrate that it is insured).

Any balance of the fine should be deducted from the offender's income.

Whilst it is unlikely that collected fines alone will ever cover the total cost of uninsured drivers, by making not insuring the vehicle more expensive than insuring the vehicle, it should help. (Especially in conjunction with awareness campaigns highlighting high detection rates, high fines and what 3rd party insurance is for) Any shortfall in the cost should be raised in such a way that it does not increase the cost of insurance (e.g. fuel duty or income tax), as the high cost of insurance (especially for young male drivers) is a major reason for non-insured driving.

See Motor insurance and uninsured driving, especially the 2006 report Uninsured driving in the UK. The government has already done much to improve detection rates, but moving the burden of cost from the insured to the offenders would help a great deal.

Why is this idea important?

It is ridiculous that drivers that choose to insure their cars have to pay hugher car insurance premiums in order to fund the costs associated with uninsured drivers.

Fines for driving without insurance should always be much greater than the cost of the insurance, rather than proportional to the offender's income, and the vehicle should be confiscated immediately to help ensure the fine is paid (vehicle can be released if the fine is paid promptly and vehicle owner can demonstrate that it is insured).

Any balance of the fine should be deducted from the offender's income.

Whilst it is unlikely that collected fines alone will ever cover the total cost of uninsured drivers, by making not insuring the vehicle more expensive than insuring the vehicle, it should help. (Especially in conjunction with awareness campaigns highlighting high detection rates, high fines and what 3rd party insurance is for) Any shortfall in the cost should be raised in such a way that it does not increase the cost of insurance (e.g. fuel duty or income tax), as the high cost of insurance (especially for young male drivers) is a major reason for non-insured driving.

See Motor insurance and uninsured driving, especially the 2006 report Uninsured driving in the UK. The government has already done much to improve detection rates, but moving the burden of cost from the insured to the offenders would help a great deal.

liability insuarnce – liability

revoke the liability law that states one has the right to sue. the right to sue must be civil with no liabilty on any party directly. there is too much that this country takes for granted, the right to claim liabilty is a claim too far

Why is this idea important?

revoke the liability law that states one has the right to sue. the right to sue must be civil with no liabilty on any party directly. there is too much that this country takes for granted, the right to claim liabilty is a claim too far

Remove need for annual renewal or car house and other insurance

The annual renewal of eg car insurance involves the production and delivery of reminders, policies and certificates of insurance, ands time in actively "renewing" your contract annually, arranging payment etc, and has rather  serious consequences eg for motor if you forget.

Why is this idea important?

The annual renewal of eg car insurance involves the production and delivery of reminders, policies and certificates of insurance, ands time in actively "renewing" your contract annually, arranging payment etc, and has rather  serious consequences eg for motor if you forget.

Ban small print and legal speak in all legally binding contracts

How many of us have been caught out by small print on a contract signed in good faith by both parties? 

1. Small print should be large print is essentail to the permformance of the contract.

2. Legal speak that would require professional interpretation by a legal mind should be banned from all everday consumer contracts such as all types of insurance, credit card agreements, mobile phone contracts, supply of service contracts (e.g. supply of broadband, TV entertainment services) etc.  Clauses should be in everyday English that is easily understood by a lay person.

Why is this idea important?

How many of us have been caught out by small print on a contract signed in good faith by both parties? 

1. Small print should be large print is essentail to the permformance of the contract.

2. Legal speak that would require professional interpretation by a legal mind should be banned from all everday consumer contracts such as all types of insurance, credit card agreements, mobile phone contracts, supply of service contracts (e.g. supply of broadband, TV entertainment services) etc.  Clauses should be in everyday English that is easily understood by a lay person.

Trading Standards for Insurance policies

I'm a new driver.

I was shocked to get numerous qoutes from various insurance companies of nearly £4000. For a 1.2 clio. Twice the value of the car.

I believe this is extremley unfair on those drivers who are extremly sensible, like me…

I mean, how many 17 or 18 year olds have 4k lying around, and a car. Let alone the cost of petrol with all this tax on it.

I call the government to step in and sort this mess out, either with policies to proove that younger drviers can be sensible, or measures to make sure that 4K is really needed for a small car.

such measures could be a deposit based system, if you crash, you loose your deposit. Simple. I don't buy cinema tickets and rent a dvd instead that evening?

Why is this idea important?

I'm a new driver.

I was shocked to get numerous qoutes from various insurance companies of nearly £4000. For a 1.2 clio. Twice the value of the car.

I believe this is extremley unfair on those drivers who are extremly sensible, like me…

I mean, how many 17 or 18 year olds have 4k lying around, and a car. Let alone the cost of petrol with all this tax on it.

I call the government to step in and sort this mess out, either with policies to proove that younger drviers can be sensible, or measures to make sure that 4K is really needed for a small car.

such measures could be a deposit based system, if you crash, you loose your deposit. Simple. I don't buy cinema tickets and rent a dvd instead that evening?