Dollymarie Posted May 23, 2017 Report Share Posted May 23, 2017 When I was involved in a car crash (other driver at fault) it took 8 months before I received a penny in compensation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brady bunch Posted May 23, 2017 Report Share Posted May 23, 2017 Madness, club should have told the driver of the car it would all be sorted to his satisfaction, bought a brand new version of his smashed car, holiday for him and the wife to SL's African retreat, two season tickets and no need for the police to even turn up if no one was badly injured..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sydneybcfc Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 As much as it happened while he was here, it's not really a Bristol City problem. He wasn't driving on official Bristol City business or using a Bristol City owned car. If a player gets in a fight on the weekend and punches someone, should the club pay compensation for something that happened outside of work? Same goes for anyone's company. It's sad and hopefully Tammy puts his hand in his pocket and makes up the few thousand needed to correct his mistake, but this has nothing to do with Bristol City or even Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
42nite Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 6 hours ago, brady bunch said: Madness, club should have told the driver of the car it would all be sorted to his satisfaction, bought a brand new version of his smashed car, holiday for him and the wife to SL's African retreat, two season tickets and no need for the police to even turn up if no one was badly injured..... Can't agree with you here I'm afraid. So people who knowingly drive with no licence or insurance should only get in trouble with the police and courts if someone gets badly injured? That's not going to deter others from doing it. My car was driven into by an uninsured, unlicenced driver, and it's a nightmare trying to sort things out, all through no fault of my own. Tammy's a great lad, but he knew full well what he was doing. He gambled and lost, no excuses. The courts should throw the book at him and anyone else doing the same. My opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septic Peg Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Thought he went to court back in March and got a fine? And to be fair, I would have thought that either Tammy or Matthews would have sorted the fella out with a new motor. 2 weeks wages and a shiny new Toyota for the chap. Why didn't Matthews get a bollocking anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Tammy apparently didn't know you had to reapply for your license and retake your test when you had lost your license in the first two years. He just thought he could drive again once his ban was up. Matthews apparently didn't know all of the above and thought he was just lending him his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted May 24, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Dollymarie said: Tammy apparently didn't know you had to reapply for your license and retake your test when you had lost your license in the first two years. He just thought he could drive again once his ban was up. Matthews apparently didn't know all of the above and thought he was just lending him his car. Ha Ha - can see that standing up in court Sorry officer, didn't realise I couldn't drink 10 pints of natch then drive home ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_unreliant Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Dollymarie said: Tammy apparently didn't know you had to reapply for your license and retake your test when you had lost your license in the first two years. He just thought he could drive again once his ban was up. Matthews apparently didn't know all of the above and thought he was just lending him his car. Have to say I didn't know that you had to do that either. You would imagine he would have got paperwork spelling this out though. It doesn't quite tally with the chap's quote of LJ saying Tammy was still banned either. Whatever the truth is I'm sure he has learnt from it. Just hope someone looks after the innocent party and replaces his car at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wendyredredrobin Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Actually, the MIB exists for this reason. They will cover uninsured damages and recover from the other driver where they can. Ive used them twice and the process is as quick and easy as claiming on your own insurance. However, being on 25k per week, you would have thought that Tammy would just give him a few grand to shut him up. As for his ptsd and injuries, ido woner if he is making the most od them. Probably a SAG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Red Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 11 hours ago, bigbash said: Just found this in the mail online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-4535228/Chelsea-starlet-Tammy-Abraham-accused-car-crash.html Reads like the other driver is milking it just a tad for compensation. Whatever the rights and wrongs, & Tammy is obviously in the wrong, the other guy deserves a mention in despatches for being a bit of a grifter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gornagain Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 This is the Daily Mail. I think that they will have paid the victim and tidied up his story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 9 minutes ago, Die Hard Red said: Reads like the other driver is milking it just a tad for compensation. Whatever the rights and wrongs, & Tammy is obviously in the wrong, the other guy deserves a mention in despatches for being a bit of a grifter. Think you're being kind there Yet another modern 'take the p**s fraudster' milking it , as per the modern compensation culture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 55 minutes ago, robin_unreliant said: Have to say I didn't know that you had to do that either. You would imagine he would have got paperwork spelling this out though. It doesn't quite tally with the chap's quote of LJ saying Tammy was still banned either. Whatever the truth is I'm sure he has learnt from it. Just hope someone looks after the innocent party and replaces his car at least. And nor did I but ignorance of the law is no excuse as we know. I must say if this story is true with so much money in football especially being earned by a 19 year old, I would have thought that swift and thoughtful resolution to this matter should have been the first priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted May 24, 2017 Admin Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: And nor did I but ignorance of the law is no excuse as we know. I must say if this story is true with so much money in football especially being earned by a 19 year old, I would have thought that swift and thoughtful resolution to this matter should have been the first priority. Assume the reason you wouldn't know is because you haven't broken this law Am sure when he was pulled up first time around it would have been laid out in simple terms what he needed to do before be able to drive again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 4 minutes ago, phantom said: Assume the reason you wouldn't know is because you haven't broken this law Am sure when he was pulled up first time around it would have been laid out in simple terms what he needed to do before be able to drive again Exactly, but as the armed forces saying goes, you can slide further on bullshit than gravel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 13 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: And nor did I but ignorance of the law is no excuse as we know. I must say if this story is true with so much money in football especially being earned by a 19 year old, I would have thought that swift and thoughtful resolution to this matter should have been the first priority. I agree I too didn't realise about the retest, but I've never been in the situation of having my licence taken away either. As others have said I'm sure it would have been made very clear in the paperwork he received about the ban. And no the 'he's a footballer'/ 'only 19' won't wash, if he's old enough to get a licence in the first place and lucky enough to even have a car, never mind a high powered one, then he should have respected the laws of the country which are there to protect from uninsured law breakers like him. And yes, with money not bring an issue for him I would have thought he should have paid out at least something for goodwill or to keep this bloke happy. They are hardly fighting over guilt or not, not that it matters with no insurance. I thought this bloke is genuine by the way he tried to consol Tammy at the time when he was upset, but now he realises who is (£££) he has gone to the paper which doesn't seem right, maybe he is that desperate? As for him not being on Bristol City business someone else mentions, he was travelling to training, his place of work, so yes he was using the car for Bristol City business, at a stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 2 hours ago, Die Hard Red said: Reads like the other driver is milking it just a tad for compensation. Whatever the rights and wrongs, & Tammy is obviously in the wrong, the other guy deserves a mention in despatches for being a bit of a grifter. What you think he's exaggerating when he says his 10 year old Toyota was his pride and joy? What a cynical world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeneys Penalties Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 13 hours ago, Dollymarie said: When I was involved in a car crash (other driver at fault) it took 8 months before I received a penny in compensation. ooh not bad. My car was the brakes for a Transit Van at the end of the Keynsham Bypass. Driver was uninsured.....Bloody good job I had Legal Expenses on my insurance....though it still took 2 years to sort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septic Peg Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Not being funny here but surely Tammy knew he wouldn't have insurance. Was he paying insurance on a car he couldn't drive? Highly doubt it... and an insurer would have made his policy null and void after his ban. So Matthews would have known he had no insurance either. Smacks of a cover up to me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Just now, Septic Peg said: Not being funny here but surely Tammy knew he wouldn't have insurance. Was he paying insurance on a car he couldn't drive? Highly doubt it... and an insurer would have made his policy null and void after his ban. So Matthews would have known he had no insurance either. Smacks of a cover up to me... Totally agree Id be amazed if Matthews doesn't / hasn't ? Received a summons for (aid and abet) No Insurance No driving licence As the vehicles owner the responsibility was on him (As well as Tammy of course) to ensure that Tammy was legal to drive his vehicle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fordy62 Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 4 hours ago, phantom said: Assume the reason you wouldn't know is because you haven't broken this law Am sure when he was pulled up first time around it would have been laid out in simple terms what he needed to do before be able to drive again Abso-bloody-exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 We don't know what Tammy said to the club or team mates. Did he openly declare he was banned, how did he normally get to training every day? How did he mask the fact that no one had ever seen him driving? Was this really the first time he had borrowed a car? Did he tell Matthews that his ban has ended recently and I just haven't got around to buying a car yet? Matthews might not have know to be fair. Yes it's on the owner to ensure he is lending his car legally, but if Tammy led him to believe all was OK is Matthews really going to ask to see his team mates documents? He trusted him and Tammy might have let him down too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Notgetinya Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Speaking as a traffic cop (tin hat on) there are so many possibilities with this story. The fact is that road traffic law is black and white so you either commit the offence or you don't (there are no grey areas such as self defence in the case of assault). With that in mind Tammy has no defence. Matthews is ok if Tammy has given him no reason to assume that he doesn't have a license or insurance, even if Matthews did know it's likely Tammy would take the wrap to keep him out of trouble. If Matthews admitted to being aware then he would be prosecuted for permitting Tammy to drive without insurance etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Strict liability I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Although the guy is clearly milking it to the extreme, you've got to be pretty dense to be driving without a licence or insurance and being an ignorant footballer isn't a defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, BRISTOL86 said: Although the guy is clearly milking it to the extreme, you've got to be pretty dense to be driving without a licence or insurance and being an ignorant footballer isn't a defence. And why shouldn't he?, Tammy has lost nothing, if the story is true this poor bloke has lost his car and has had to fork out for another car that he didn't need or want, to be honest to the outsider it looks just like another pampered overpaid pussie of a footballer believing that the law of the land does not apply him and 2 football clubs both owned by billionaires washing their hands of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRISTOL86 Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 Just now, Esmond Million's Bung said: And why shouldn't he?, Tammy has lost nothing, if the story is true this poor bloke has lost his car and has had to fork out for another car that he didn't need or want, to be honest to the outsider it looks just like another pampered overpaid pussie of a footballer believing that the law of the land does not apply him and 2 football clubs both owned by billionaires washing their hands of it. Indeed. No doubt the Mail have put sensationalist words in his mouth but he was still the innocent party in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RumRed Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 24 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said: And why shouldn't he?, Tammy has lost nothing, if the story is true this poor bloke has lost his car and has had to fork out for another car that he didn't need or want, to be honest to the outsider it looks just like another pampered overpaid pussie of a footballer believing that the law of the land does not apply him and 2 football clubs both owned by billionaires washing their hands of it. I agree wholeheartedly but I guess it's the admittance of liability opening up a whole can of worms legally. I expect the money has to be sorted in court rather than what would effectively look like,and would be, hush money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheshire_red Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 A driver under 25 can only drive the vehicle they are insured for in any case, they are not covered to drive Third Party on another vehicle. Is it only drivers in the first two years after qualifying that have to retake their Test if disqualified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted May 24, 2017 Report Share Posted May 24, 2017 1 minute ago, cheshire_red said: A driver under 25 can only drive the vehicle they are insured for in any case, they are not covered to drive Third Party on another vehicle. Is it only drivers in the first two years after qualifying that have to retake their Test if disqualified? Or anyone can be ordered , as part of a sentence , to retake test if disqualified by a court Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.