Riots and damage compensation

[Notch7]

I don't think anyone has mentioned racism in this thread, not today so far.
I suggest you review the thread.

You have just joined the trolls who intended to close down the discussion with their pointless comments.

The Himmie breakdown pattern:

Stage 1) start ranting about racism
Stage 2) start thread complaining how the mods are biased
Stage 3) get banned
Stage 4) rejoin with new user name
Stage 5) go to stage 1)

 

[kingandy2nd]

The discussion is not how to make a claim, it's whether the claim will be met, or not.
The 2016 Act clearly states that claims for political disturbance or civil commotion are not covered.

You claimed the above. The RCA 2016 says no such thing.

I have proved this over and over today. If it’s a riot as per the definition provided by the legislation, which the majority of this weeks protests have been, then claims under the RCA will be honoured.

All you have quoted as evidence is an out of date statement ABI from before the legislation was enacted which referenced those activities as possible exclusions.

The advice has not changed from that I previously presented.
You haven't embarrassed me, you've confirmed what I was previously saying.

What you previously presented was an incorrect statement. Your advice may not have changed, either way you are still wrong.

I didn’t say you were embarrassed. One can only assume you’re too self involved to be embarrassed. I said I am embarrassed for you as you keep on sticking to your guns when you have been proved to be wrong.

It’s a good job I’ve been bored on my sun lounger by the pool in Agadir today, otherwise I would have put you on mute a long time ago.

 

[Odds]

Will the insurance cover Acts of Terrorism? since some of the rioters are likely to be charged under those terms.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

The Himmie breakdown pattern:

Stage 1) start ranting about racism
Stage 2) start thread complaining how the mods are biased
Stage 3) get banned
Stage 4) rejoin with new user name
Stage 5) go to stage 1)

You clearly haven't read my response to your earlier trolling, where I totally refuted your allegation.
But if you want to continue embarrassing yourself, who am I to stop you.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

You claimed the above. The RCA 2016 says no such thing.

I have proved this over and over today. If it’s a riot as per the definition provided by the legislation, which the majority of this weeks protests have been, then claims under the RCA will be honoured.

All you have quoted as evidence is an out of date statement ABI from before the legislation was enacted which referenced those activities as possible exclusions.

What you previously presented was an incorrect statement. Your advice may not have changed, either way you are still wrong.

I didn’t say you were embarrassed. One can only assume you’re too self involved to be embarrassed. I said I am embarrassed for you as you keep on sticking to your guns when you have been proved to be wrong.

It’s a good job I’ve been bored on my sun lounger by the pool in Agadir today, otherwise I would have put you on mute a long time ago.

It is abundantly clear that compensation will only be paid for damage suffered in a riot.

This will only cover you for events defined as a riot, and claims must be made to the RCA within 43 days after the riot ended.

If there were other scenarios, such as war, terrorism, etc, that damage would be compensated, it would say so. But it doesn't.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Will the insurance cover Acts of Terrorism? since some of the rioters are likely to be charged under those terms.

Apparently not, but there may be some who will argue that the government will cover damage in all and every case.

We're talking government compensation but think in terms of insurance claims.
If it doesn't cover it, it doesn't cover it.
There doesn't need to be specific exclusions.

 

[Brigadier]

If there were other scenarios, such as war, terrorism, etc, that damage would be compensated, it would say so. But it doesn't.

Because it is the RIOT Compensation Act 2016, you dumb f~ck.

 

[Mrs Ten Names]

Because it is the RIOT Compensation Act 2016, you dumb f~ck.

And it doesn't cover damage in any other scenarios, you dumb f~ck.

 

[denso13]

You claimed the above. The RCA 2016 says no such thing.

It doesn't have exclusions, it only covers riots, ergo, it doesn't cover political disturbance or civil commotion.

 

[kingandy2nd]

It is abundantly clear that compensation will only be paid for damage suffered in a riot.

If there were other scenarios, such as war, terrorism, etc, that damage would be compensated, it would say so. But it doesn't.

I know. I provided you with the legislation for the compensation and also the legislation that defines a riot.

I will post your quote again with the part that is incorrect in bold that you then went onto say;

The discussion is not how to make a claim, it's whether the claim will be met, or not.
The 2016 Act clearly states that claims for political disturbance or civil commotion are not covered.
The guidance that you present specifically states that "not all instances of damage or loss that occur during a period of civil disturbance will meet the criteria,,,...... etc.
Were they riots, civil commotions or political disturbances?

Who decides?
Currently they might be described as riots. (Except by Musk who calls them civil war).
For how long and why will that description apply?

The RCA does not state those two things (civil commotion nor political disturbances) are not covered.

You were suggesting that is the riots were classified as either thing, there would be no RCA compensation. I have told you many times you were wrong.

Either event could also be a riot if it the criteria defining a riot was met.

 

[kingandy2nd]

It doesn't have exclusions, it only covers riots, ergo, it doesn't cover political disturbance or civil commotion.

Either you’re not reading properly or you’re trolling too.

The act does have exclusions, please read back as I have posted them previously. It does not exclude civil commotion or political disturbances - which Mrs Doubtfyre claims it did. He/she said the ‘act clearly excludes those things’. I contested that it does not.

I have provided the definition of a riot under the legislation and said repeatedly that as long as those criteria are met, it is could be categorised as a riot and that RCA would pay.

What are you struggling to comprehend here?

 

[ajohn]

Will the insurance cover Acts of Terrorism? since some of the rioters are likely to be charged under those terms.

You have had an answer from our resident insurance expert who is invariably correct. The DPP is prepared to charge some number of rioters with terrorism. That's as far as it has gone so far.

 

[Brigadier]

And it doesn't cover damage in any other scenarios, you dumb f~ck.

Why would it?

As PUWER doesn't cover the flammability of bedding.

 

[kingandy2nd]

Public Order Act 1986

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide...

www.legislation.gov.uk

The cover by insurance depends on the label given to the 'disturbances'.

This thread is about the Riot Compensation Act of 2016.

I have provided you with the definition of a riot under legislation, all the disturbances we’ve seen the past few days would be classed as riots.

If a person or company had insurance, but the insurance determined the loss not to be covered under the terms of their wording, then the insured could claim directly from the local authorities under the act.

Agreed.


But if the disturbances are re-categorised as political disturbances or civil commotion, there is (possibly) no insurance cover, nor compensation scheme.

The legislation is quite clear.

Yes. If you choose to read it, which I guess you did not.

Riot.​

(1)Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.

(3)The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.

(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.

(5)Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.

(6)A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.

Where does the act “clearly state claims for political disturbance or civil commotion are not covered.”

Please paste the link.

The only exclusions I can find are as follows:

View attachment 351389

The part “not all instances of damage or loss that occur during a period of civil disturbance will meet the criteria” means that not all losses will be covered - there are limits to claims.

And the PCCs or Mayor’s office will follow the legislation of what defines a riot. That ones pretty obvious.

No, I asked you specifically where it “clearly state claims for political disturbance or civil commotion are not covered in the legislation”.

It does not.

The note you’ve quoted does not mention either. As I’ve said, the RCA covers specific types of damage/loss - ie buildings, vehicles, etc to certain limits. That note is intended to highlight that not all losses someone / a company can have endured as part of a riot.

The ABI publication you are quoting was released in August 2013.

ABI guidance on riot compensation | Practical Law

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has published guidance on the legal position for businesses affected by the August riots.

content.next.westlaw.com

The Riot Compensation Act is from 2016.

The RCA 2016 has clarified, some may say simplified, the ability to make a claim for damage following a riot (as defined in accordance with section 1 of the Public Order Act 1986) - posted below to assist you.

View attachment 351395

You could just apologise and admit you were wrong to use out of date sources.

As per what has already been posted, SoS, PCC and the MoLO would all need to follow the legislation. The example you’ve quoted is clearly about what happens if the definition of a riot is not met - ie if 11 people breakaway and damage property.

Civil commotion and political disturbances would be defined as a riot if the criteria were me as per the legislation (I.e 12+ people, violence, etc).

War is something else entirely.

Civil commotion and political disturbances would be defined as a riot if the criteria were me as per the legislation (I.e 12+ people, violence, etc).

 

[denso13]

It does not exclude civil commotion or political disturbances

Of course it does. Your understanding is just wrong, with respect.