Coach - no insurance - accident

[CondensedMilkSarnies]

We were involved in an RTA and have just found out the coach we were on was not insured. Does the holiday company we booked it through hold any liability for this?

I feel that this should be high lighted in some way to protect others . I'm so mad .

You were posting about this the other day. Who was at fault for the accident? Was it the coach driver or were you hit by another vehicle? I assumed from your previous post it was the latter and that was the vehicle that was uninsured...?

There are two sources of law in the UK

oops, forgot the EU

Thankyou all for replying .

I'm happy that my solicitor is taking the best course of action .

My main concern is that Love Holidays are using a company that is putting people's lives at risk. There is a review on Trip Advisor stating that another driver was swerving and that they had a 'near miss'.

Dog there were no other vehicles involved- our driver fell asleep.

I have lodged a complaint with Love Holidays , so will see what they say.

Ok, in that case yes I think you have at the very least cause for a complaint against Love Holidays, it's reasonable to assume that the coach company they provided would be insured and professional. I would expect them to have a responsibility to check insurance. Perhaps contact ABTA too?
It's a different claim to that against the MIB. They aren't directly liable for your injuries but there would appear to be some responsibility there, it's a much more complex case however, discuss the possibility of claiming with your Solicitor but you may need someone different for a case against the Holiday firm. It's a bit out of my area at this stage!
Hope you get the right outcome.

I'm not sure why my solicitor can't contact the coach company directly and ask who their insurer is ? Why do we have to involve MIB ? He thinks it's unlikely that they dont have insurance , we just don't know who it is.

I am well aware that we have both common law and statute law. However, the courts only make common law where statute law is unclear or in conflict and where there are no suitable precedents. In this instance parliament has chosen to give specific protection to people booking package holidays. I very much doubt that the courts would choose to extend this protection to other types of holidays. There is no basis in either statute law or common law for them to do so. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that doing so would be contrary to established law. So I remain of the view that going to court would be a waste of time and money. If the OP wants to change the law she should lobby parliament. That is free and far more likely to succeed.

I really grateful for all your input

Ok, the mib basically act as a go between. They contact their equivalent in , say Spain, and pass on all the info they have. Spanish mib will then try to find an insurer. If its a country that has a data base ( like the uk mid) then this can happen quickly. It can be slow though. If there are insurers identified mib will get them to confirm their interests and usually the will have a uk representative that will deal with your solicitor in england and in english. If there is no insurance it can be a lengthy wait but mib in that case will carry out a similar function and deal with the matter on behalf of the foreign bureau. One thing you need to bear in mind is that your compensation will be in line with that paid in the country where the accident happened and this can be a fair bit less ( or more) than uk rates

Righto , Thankyou . The whole thing has been a nightmare tbh. I've just spent most of today filling out a 20 page form and trying to find receipts and invoices for everything .

There is no basis in either statute law or common law for them to do so.

Love Holidays' Terms and Conditions

When making your booking we will arrange for you to enter into a contract with the supplier (tour operator/airline or other supplier) named on your booking summary. For most bookings we act as agent for the supplier but we act as your agent when making a booking with most no frills airlines. Details will be given at the time of booking. As an agent we accept no responsibility for the acts or omissions of the supplier or for the services provided by the supplier. The supplier’s Terms & Conditions will apply to your booking and we advise you to read these carefully as they contain important information about your booking. Please ask us for copies of these if you do not have them.

You may wish to purchase flights, hotel, car rental, transfers or other services on our website. Each component will be provided by different third party providers of the products you have selected. Your contract will be with the individual suppliers and not with us. Since you create your own travel arrangements by adding each component separately to create your own bespoke booking, this is not a package and therefore you are not protected under the Package Travel Regulations; and unless you book a Flight-Plus, your booking may not benefit from ATOL protection either. Until a component has been confirmed by the individual supplier, no contract has been formed.

The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Evasion by means of secondary contract

A person is not bound by any contract term prejudicing or taking away rights of his which arise under, or in connection with the performance of, another contract, so far as those rights extend to the enforcement of another’s liability which this Part of this Act prevents that other from excluding or restricting.

According to Lord Denning's Red Hand Rule, such a clause would need to be printed in red ink with a red hand pointing to it. (Spurling v Bradshaw [1956])

there are no suitable precedents

Precedents would not apply due to materially different facts i.e. Love Holidays received payment for an illegal activity.

I remain of the view that going to court would be a waste of time and money.

prh47bridge, if everyone were of that view, the law would never change.

Common law is dynamic; it's designed to keep pace with society.

New precedents are needed!

Sounds really stressful. I hope you get it sorted out.

Whatever the law is , I think Love Holidays have a moral obligation to ensure they are using reputable companies at the very least .

lovelearning

The clause is NOT prejudicing or taking away any rights. It is setting out the law as it stands regarding agents (and, indeed, as it applies to all agents of any type - travel, employment, etc.). The contract for supply of coach services was between the OP and the coach company. Her rights are against the coach company. Her rights against the agent are limited to acts and omissions by the agent. The agent is not in any way liable for acts and omissions by the coach company.

The facts are NOT materially different. Love Holidays did NOT receive payment for an illegal activity. Operating coaches is NOT an illegal activity. The coach company may have failed to meet its legal obligations but that is another matter. And it is well established in law that Love Holidays, as an agent, is not responsible for the acts or omissions of either of the contracting parties, even if those acts or omissions include failure to comply with relevant law. There are precedents for this so this is absolutely NOT a new situation. The agency was disclosed so the agent cannot be sued on the contract as it was not his contract (Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship Association).

if everyone were of that view, the law would never change

Parliament, of course, changes the law regularly. And there are occasions when it is worth going to court and arguing a legal point - mainly where the law is unclear and there are no existing precedents. However, this would be arguing for the court to overturn existing precedents and complete change the legal framework applying to agents of all types. That is highly unlikely. It needs parliament to change the legislation applying to agents.

I'm sure you could find a lawyer who would take your money to put your arguments to court. They would, however, expect to lose.

2nd year law student by any chance lovelearning?

When does non delegable duty of care apply? Woodland vs Essex cc...

Not a law student!! Just interested and sorry for hijack.

titchy

The OP wants two things: financial recompense, and to make the people who put her in harms way suffer. The easiest way to achieve these objectives is via the MIB for the former, and a publicity campaign for the latter (petitions, You and Yours, even, god help us, a sad face in the the Daily Mail). Both are relatively quick and cheap.

An expensive and quixotic quest to the Supreme Court is not going to achieve either.

This is all really interesting - I love legal stuff ( so wish I'd studied law , I went down the medical route instead) .
Anyway , many moons ago I worked in recruitment , placing temps with various companies , it was my job to ensure that the temp was fit for employment , so I had to check passports, work visas etc ., the onus was on us , the recruitment company. Is this not similar to Love Holidays having to check the coach company is fit to operate ?
I'm well aware that I know nothing about the law and Love Holidays small print clearly states they are not responsible for the coach company though .

You were checking that the temps were eligible to work in the UK because the temps were actually employed by the employment agency you worked for, not the company to whom you supplied temps. That company paid the agency and the agency paid the staff. That is normal for temp staff. Employers are required to ensure that their employees are eligible to work in the UK. For an employment agency that includes any temps they employ and supply to other companies.

If the company to whom you supplied temps was the employer they would have to carry out the eligibility checks themselves. Not only is there no requirement for employment agencies to carry out these checks, it is actually prohibited for employers to delegate the task to agencies. They must carry out the checks themselves and can be penalised if they fail to do so.

Thankyou for explaining bridge

There is case law on what constitutes a package holiday. Titshall v Qwerty, although I'm sure I have read of a more recent case?

www.haroldstock.com/case-studies/what-constitutes-a-package-holiday-titshall-v-qwerty-travel-limited-2/

Although it's impossible to say if that's any help whatsoever.

It must be a very difficult time for you op. I hope your solicitor can track down the relevant party/insurer.

My solicitor said it's quite common in cases such as this to have to go to MIB . The police gave me the name of Mapfre as being the insurance company so I don't know where they for that information from .

If Mapfre were the insurer, you can sue them in E&W (if you live here). If there was no insurance, you can sue the MIB here (and leave them to get the foreign equivalent guarantee fund to repay them). In both cases the level of damages you will get will be the foreign assessment, but most EU countries provide compensation for the same sorts of losses you'd claim here. Not as generous in most cases but sometimes not far off.

No need to mess around trying to change the common law, trying to fix Love Holidays with responsibility or whatever else people are suggesting.

OP, which firm are you using? PM if you prefer.