Brian Kirby Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Brock - 2014-10-24 3:32 PM The engine will be OK, giving steady progress. From my experience 350kg will not be a sufficient loading margin for a family of 4. Five passengers may account for most of that before anything else is added. An average size adult with the correct Body Mass Index is said to weigh a tad below 80kgs so allowing for three adult passengers and two children, you might be talking of 320kg in passenger weight before other things are included. The risk of being caught is low but slowly increasing as various traffic measures are targeting overloaded vehicles. The consequence of overloading is not just about the fines and penalty points you might incur, but the carnage should you have an accident through overloading. Look elsewhere. Agreed. Plus that van has a long rear overhang meaning that the (albeit fairly generous) 2,250kg maximum rear axle load will be under threat. The Italians tend to build these vans for the hire market, and they aim at keeping the MAM down to 3,500kg, since anything heavier restricts hirings. Payload is not the main consideration, and many have a hopelessly slender allowance. The OP should therfeore get the van weighed (presumably it is more or less completely unladen) if he wishes to proceed, though I too would echo the advice that it is not a practical van for use as he intends. He will then have to estimate the extra weight of a full tank of fuel (at approx 0.85kg/litre), and add his gas cylinder/s (approx 28kg per 13 kg steel cylinder), whatever water he would intend carrying (at 1kg/litre), himself and all potential passengers, and the weights of food, drinks, clothes, bikes plus bike rack, the awning he speaks of, and general camping clobber including his EHU cable and probably levelling ramps. If he does this properly, I'm absolutely certain he will come to a figure exceeding 3,500kg. I will add, for his benefit if he is still looking in, that he will be extremely unlikely to get a van that long, with that many berths, that will work within a MAM of 3,500kg. He therefore seems to have two main choices. 1. Run overloaded, which carries two main risks. First legal, as if stopped and check weighed by VOSA he will encounter the sanctions others have already alluded to. Second mechanical, as he will be liable to overload both suspension and tyres (an unknown quantity on a used van, unless all are renewed), increasing the risk of failure. Sudden failure of either would make an overloaded 3.5 tonne van quite a handful; and with the height, and length relative to wheelbase of this van, I think it would be very difficult to retain control. The consequences, were he to lose control, could be catastrophic. 2. Look at vans with MAMs exceeding 3,500kg. I would suggest at least 3,580kg, but preferably more. There are plenty around, and at least they have the necessary payloads, and are built on chassis and running gear suitable for his intended use. If his licence does not presently cover vehicles over 3,500kg, he will need to take a further test to increase his licence permissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-10-24 5:36 PM The Italians tend to build these vans for the hire market, and they aim at keeping the MAM down to 3,500kg, since anything heavier restricts hirings. Payload is not the main consideration, and many have a hopelessly slender allowance. We have hired the same size Rimor, but with different layout, there was just the two of us, and not much 'junk'. It definitely felt very ponderous to drive which suggests to me it was on the limit even then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-10-24 5:36 PM 2. Look at vans with MAMs exceeding 3,500kg. I would suggest at least 3,580kg, but preferably more. There are plenty around, and at least they have the necessary payloads, and are built on chassis and running gear suitable for his intended use. If his licence does not presently cover vehicles over 3,500kg, he will need to take a further test to increase his licence permissions. 3850kg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 jeffo - 2014-10-24 8:34 AM Hi. I have made an offer on a 7 berth Rimor Katamarano Sound. The layout is perfect for my family of 4, with the occassional use of 6 seats. The van is 6.83 m long, with a 140 hp 2.2l engine. It is a ford base. will this be sufficient? thanks Jeff Guessing your requirements..........If your "Not" retired or work part time........ then the sensible answer is get a caravan ;-) ...............As with that many kids you'll soon get fed up with upping sticks :-| ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-10-24 8:47 PM Brian Kirby - 2014-10-24 5:36 PM 2. Look at vans with MAMs exceeding 3,500kg. I would suggest at least 3,580kg, but preferably more. There are plenty around, and at least they have the necessary payloads, and are built on chassis and running gear suitable for his intended use. If his licence does not presently cover vehicles over 3,500kg, he will need to take a further test to increase his licence permissions. 3850kg? Well spotted, and thanks. Yep, that's the one. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 StuartO - 2014-10-24 2:45 PM An insurance contract is a "contract of ultimate good faith" so it can be repudiated completely if you have seriously broken good faith for example by lying on the proposal form. If you thereby turn out to be an unisured driver, a damaged third party might be able to get something from elsewhere (for example in UK from the Motor Insurers' Bureau) but abroad that might be uncertain and they might get a lawyer to come after your house instead. I understand all that and am not looking for an argument - just trying to establish the facts. From what I heard on the radio, the legal minimum vehicle insurance is in a class on its own, and they can't get out of paying the third party claim, even if you have lied on the proposal form. This came up in a discussion about young drivers / boy racers who lie on proposal forms to reduce the sky high premiums they would otherwise have to pay - if they could get insurance at all. Its not something I have studied in any detail or verified though, because it doesn't apply to me. I have no incentive to lie on a proposal form because I have told the whole truth, never been refused insurance, and my annual premium is only £154.76p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Peter James - 2014-10-25 7:42 AM I understand all that and am not looking for an argument - just trying to establish the facts. From what I heard on the radio, the legal minimum vehicle insurance is in a class on its own, and they can't get out of paying the third party claim, even if you have lied on the proposal form. AIUI, even if you lie on your application form, the Insurer is still liable for the level of Third Party protection defined in the Road Traffic Act. The insurer could, however, then take action against the "insured" to recover the costs of that. Any First Party protection would be probably null and void (though this would be a contractual matter between the insurer and the policyholder - and despite opinions on insurance providers, I am sure there are some factors that would be looked on leniently, but probably not any gross overloading). In the case of there being NO insurance policy (valid or otherwise) in force, or the inability to identify the vehicle/driver involved in any accident, the MIB (Motor Insurer's Bureau, not Men in Black) will eventually pick up the issue (and this is paid for by a levy on ALL motor insurance policies). All the above subject to detail that would make this post far too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-10-25 8:13 AM Peter James - 2014-10-25 7:42 AM I understand all that and am not looking for an argument - just trying to establish the facts. From what I heard on the radio, the legal minimum vehicle insurance is in a class on its own, and they can't get out of paying the third party claim, even if you have lied on the proposal form. AIUI, even if you lie on your application form, the Insurer is still liable for the level of Third Party protection defined in the Road Traffic Act. The insurer could, however, then take action against the "insured" to recover the costs of that. Any First Party protection would be probably null and void (though this would be a contractual matter between the insurer and the policyholder - and despite opinions on insurance providers, I am sure there are some factors that would be looked on leniently, but probably not any gross overloading). In the case of there being NO insurance policy (valid or otherwise) in force, or the inability to identify the vehicle/driver involved in any accident, the MIB (Motor Insurer's Bureau, not Men in Black) will eventually pick up the issue (and this is paid for by a levy on ALL motor insurance policies). All the above subject to detail that would make this post far too long. Thats how I understood it, Thanks. English Law is never straightforward because if it was the lawyers wouldn't make so much money. I was just trying to answer the OPs question about what would happen if he was caught overloaded, and clarify that, unlike what has been suggested, he would not have the crime of being uninsured to add to his problems. The authorities always say they are cracking down on everything, but I have seen no evidence of an increase in weight checks so I think the chances of being checked are still very low. But if the OP's vehicle is over his licensed weight (not dangerous when vehicle is designed to carry more weight than its licensed for) every time he goes out the risk of being caught must be increased, and its not a risk that I would take on such a regular basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-10-25 8:13 AM AIUI, even if you lie on your application form, the Insurer is still liable for the level of Third Party protection defined in the Road Traffic Act ............. Do you have anything to back that opinion up? I'm not trying to pick and argument with you or suggest that you are not right but it would be interesting to learn of the legal specifics, as it were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Peter James - 2014-10-25 11:40 AM....................But if the OP's vehicle is over his licensed weight (not dangerous when vehicle is designed to carry more weight than its licensed for) every time he goes out the risk of being caught must be increased, and its not a risk that I would take on such a regular basis. If you mean what I think you mean, Peter, at the expense of going OT, I'm not so sure. I don't think his risk of being caught would increase if he was both overloaded and had an inappropriate license, I think that risk would remain the same. What would increase though, would be the potential penalties he would face. First the overload, and second the wrong license. Combined, these might, possibly, turn something that could be treated as unfortunate oversight into something the authorities would pursue, if only to persuade him to pay more attention to the law in future. So, I think same risk of being caught, but more serious consequences if caught. However, I somehow think he decided a while back we were all giving him the "wrong" adivce, and has now left the stage. So, keep a sharp lookout for overloaded Rimors on your travels! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-10-25 2:57 PM However, I somehow think he decided a while back we were all giving him the "wrong" adivce, and has now left the stage. So, keep a sharp lookout for overloaded Rimors on your travels! :-) That was my impression too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 StuartO - 2014-10-25 12:58 PM Robinhood - 2014-10-25 8:13 AM AIUI, even if you lie on your application form, the Insurer is still liable for the level of Third Party protection defined in the Road Traffic Act ............. Do you have anything to back that opinion up? I'm not trying to pick and argument with you or suggest that you are not right but it would be interesting to learn of the legal specifics, as it were. ....I'd suggest you read the documentation from the MIB site (though it isn't easy to find ;-) ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-10-25 2:57 PM Peter James - 2014-10-25 11:40 AM....................But if the OP's vehicle is over his licensed weight (not dangerous when vehicle is designed to carry more weight than its licensed for) every time he goes out the risk of being caught must be increased, and its not a risk that I would take on such a regular basis. If you mean what I think you mean, Peter, at the expense of going OT, I'm not so sure. I don't think his risk of being caught would increase if he was both overloaded and had an inappropriate license, I think that risk would remain the same. What would increase though, would be the potential penalties he would face. First the overload, and second the wrong license. Combined, these might, possibly, turn something that could be treated as unfortunate oversight into something the authorities would pursue, if only to persuade him to pay more attention to the law in future. So, I think same risk of being caught, but more serious consequences if caught. However, I somehow think he decided a while back we were all giving him the "wrong" adivce, and has now left the stage. So, keep a sharp lookout for overloaded Rimors on your travels! :-) Sorry, my post was badly worded. When I said every time he goes out the risk must be increased I was thinking of it like Russian Roulette - the chances of losing may be 1 in 6000 rather than 1 in 6, but the principle is still the same - the more times you risk it the more likely you are to come unstuck. When I said licensed weight I was thinking of the 3.5 tonnes on the Road Fund Licence, when the vehicle may be designed to carry more and able to do so quite safely. I digress slightly but about 20 years ago I was prosecuted for driving a lorry about 2 tonnes over its licensed weight of 38 tonnes (although the lorry design weight was about 44 tonnes). It came about because a customer lied about the weight of goods to cheat the haulier out of revenue. Across the channel the law is such that the customer would have been prosecuted for this. But British 'Justice' is designed for the convenience of the Police and the Courts, such that only the Driver and Haulier was prosecuted, presumably because they are easier to find, and the guilty party (customer who lied about the weight) gets away with it. But I did not have to remove the excess weight before continuing, I did not get any endorsement on my licence, and there was no mention of invalidating the insurance. If breaking the law automatically invalidated insurance then presumably everyone who committed a motoring offence would be charged with driving without insurance as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-10-25 4:23 PM StuartO - 2014-10-25 12:58 PM Robinhood - 2014-10-25 8:13 AM AIUI, even if you lie on your application form, the Insurer is still liable for the level of Third Party protection defined in the Road Traffic Act ............. Do you have anything to back that opinion up? I'm not trying to pick and argument with you or suggest that you are not right but it would be interesting to learn of the legal specifics, as it were. ....I'd suggest you read the documentation from the MIB site (though it isn't easy to find ;-) ). I did a bit of Googling this afternoon and came across the MIB website. It didn't seem to have anything relevant on it but I'll have another look. I ended uo wading through a legal textbook on the Law of Motor Insurance and found that Chapter 5 might have the bits i needed, but the "sample" they'd put on display ran out aon page 94 in the middle of Chapter 4, so I was marooned. Very heavy going but it did seem to suggest that motor policies are automatically "avoided" if the "assured" fails to fulfill any "warranty" he has made, such as holding a valid driving licence for the vehicle. No mention of any exemption for the "Road Traffic Act" provisions. Insurers are clearly not allowed to "avoid" a policy for trivial reasons, but "warranties" seem to be holy ground. Fail in one of those and you are on your own until you - and I suspect RTA cover or not, the while policy is "avoided". can fulfill the warranty, when the policy automatically switches back on again. Since you spoke with such dismissive firmness and authority on the subject RobinHood, I rather assumed you would have the relevant clause or the relevant Act or Regulation at your fingertips. You weren't flying a bit of a kyte were you? Time to prove your point or retract perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 StuartO - 2014-10-25 9:08 PM Since you spoke with such dismissive firmness and authority on the subject RobinHood, I rather assumed you would have the relevant clause or the relevant Act or Regulation at your fingertips. You weren't flying a bit of a kyte were you? Time to prove your point or retract perhaps? The fundamentals are set out in a series of MOAs documented by the MIB (as I referenced). The full requirements and workings of compulsory motor insurance are contained in the various provisions of the Road traffic Act. I'm certainly not going to spend my Saturday night looking for detailed references for someone else, especially someone who doesn't appear to be able to ask nicely! (And what don't you understand about AIUI?) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Joe90 Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I mean, seriously who gives a you've all got more chance of being wiped out by some texting, facebook updating idiot, than an overloaded Rimor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Joe90 - 2014-10-25 10:25 PM I mean, seriously who gives a you've all got more chance of being wiped out by some texting, facebook updating idiot, than an overloaded Rimor In my experience, the person who texts, drinks coffee, eats a sandwich, and speeds when driving, is the same one who knowingly drives a overloaded vehicle on a regular basis. AFAIK he's heading for the alps on monday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I think you may be looking in the wrong place Stuart. What I heard on the radio was that, typically, a boy racer can lie on the proposal form by saying an older family member is the main driver of his hot hatchback, thereby getting insurance at a much reduced premium, and this will not invalidate his third party insurance. But the Insurance Companies are not likely to make this known through their Motor Insurance Bureau. You may be more likely to find it in the Road Traffic Acts. I don't have any proof of this, but I don't have any vested interest in it or any axe to grind here either, and have things I would rather do today than search through Road Traffic Acts looking for it to confirm whether or not its true, Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 colin - 2014-10-26 7:14 AM Joe90 - 2014-10-25 10:25 PM I mean, seriously who gives a you've all got more chance of being wiped out by some texting, facebook updating idiot, than an overloaded Rimor In my experience, the person who texts, drinks coffee, eats a sandwich, and speeds when driving, is the same one who knowingly drives a overloaded vehicle on a regular basis. AFAIK he's heading for the alps on monday. I think the police work on a similar understanding of osychology and via traffic offences catch qute a few no-goods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Southender - 2014-10-24 10:29 AM jeffo - 2014-10-24 9:28 AM What happens if you inadvertently exceed the 3500kg limit? thanks You will be prosecuted and rightly so. I drove around for years blissfully unaware I was overloaded, never got stopped ;-) ..............only went to a weighbridge after reading about the subject on here................now tow a trailer specially plaited to match my GTW...............with it we're legal and have a 100 kilo spare capacity B-) ................ Over 22 years now and still not been stopped :-S ....... So I guess your chances of being prosecuted are low :-| .............anyone know someone who's been done? (?) ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Insurance liability is probably best resolved by insurers and their lawyers. There is also a difference between invalidating your insurance and you insurers responsibility to cough up. I'm not a lawyer so I will leave you to decide on whether the following is relevant. Judgment will be that gained through a court action although I wonder if insurers accept that judgment will be awarded so just pay up without the need for court action. Section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 deals with the 'Duty of insurers or persons giving security to satisfy judgment against persons insured or secured against third-party risks' and says ... "(5) Notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel, or may have avoided or cancelled, the policy or security, he must, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the persons entitled to the benefit of the judgment— (a) as regards liability in respect of death or bodily injury, any sum payable under the judgment in respect of the liability, together with any sum which, by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments, is payable in respect of interest on that sum, (b) as regards liability in respect of damage to property, any sum required to be paid under subsection (6) below, and © any amount payable in respect of costs." It then goes on and on including the right of the insurer to recover from the insured. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151 My insurance policy through Comfort makes it clear it will meets its liabilities under the Road Traffic Acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-10-26 8:46 AM I drove around for years blissfully unaware I was overloaded, never got stopped ;-) ..............only went to a weighbridge after reading about the subject on here....... I've had a similar experience. I've been sleeping in my van when its parked on streets for years, putting plastic bags of sh*t in dog waste bins intended for plastic bags of sh*t, and only discovered there was anything wrong with that by reading about it on here *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-10-25 9:30 PM (And what don't you understand about AIUI?) ;-) All of it, or at least I didn't until I googled it. AIUI = As I understand it? Might have been to spell it out on this forum for ageing motorhomers, or suppose I should have looked it up before responding. I still haven't a clue what MOAs on the MIB site are. AIUI (and as i said earlier) insurers cannot lightly avoid a policy, so for example they cannot set traps to catch those of us who don't read small print very well. But if they have spelled something out to you clealry and you did tell porkies there are circumstances when they can dump you and indeed it appears to happen automatically in law, as soon as a "warranty" is not met. And if a policy is "avoided" (weird terminology, but that's what they say) I don't think any part of the policy is excluded, so the Road Traffic Act cover is lost too. That's presumably one of the scenarios in which a the third party would presumably have to claim from the MIB. I imagine not having a driving licence (or being disqualified) might fall into that category because I heard it said on one of the police reality programs recently that when a driver is driving when disqualified any insurance there might be on the car is automatically rendered invalid, so he gets done for driving without insurance too. In other situations, such as innocent false representation, like forgetting to declare a previous accident or a driving conviction, insurers probably cannot "avoid" the whole policy, or at least it's much harder for them to do so, although they can try to avoiding liability for a particular claim or part of a cliam, especially first party laibility, i.e. damage to or loss of the insured vehicle. Perhaps in this sort of situation the thord party liability would be preserved, and the insurer would have to try to recover those costs from their insured. It gets very complicated when you start looking into it. I doubt that being unknowingly a little bit overloaded would invalidate your insurance but if the insurer thought you had been negligently overloaded they might well be able to avoid paying for your damage - and perhaps even to refuse or come after you later for third party costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Brock - 2014-10-26 9:18 AM It then goes on and on including the right of the insurer to recover from the insured. Well Done That Man for looking it up. When you have assets that baliffs can seize you have to obey the law or lose them (all) in compensation, fines, inflated legal costs, etc etc etc.......... The sort of people who can afford to break the law are those with no assets that baliffs can seize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 Peter James - 2014-10-26 9:36 AM pelmetman - 2014-10-26 8:46 AM I drove around for years blissfully unaware I was overloaded, never got stopped ;-) ..............only went to a weighbridge after reading about the subject on here....... I've had a similar experience. I've been sleeping in my van when its parked on streets for years, putting plastic bags of sh*t in dog waste bins intended for plastic bags of DOG sh*t, and only discovered there was anything wrong with that by reading about it on here *-) You're welcome... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.