The Hymer MLT motorhome that rolled over ! (1 Viewer)

[Wizz]

Some of you may recall the threads on this forum that mentioned this incident several weeks back.
It concerned a Hymer ML T, I believe an ML T580, 'Jim's aspirational purchase......

I have just watched a very recent podcast by - Motorhome Matt, discussing the matter with the owner/passenger of the MH. She describes the incident and where it all went wrong, and the fact that she thought she had purchased additional extended comprehensive insurance to cover her foreign travel.

She outlines her insurance companies take on the matter, and refusal to pay her claim. The refusal based on the fact that the vehicle was being driven 'off road, not on a public highway' motorhome taken off main road ....
I find the interesting bit to be the wording of the - ' off road, taken off main road '.

Surely so many motorhomes are taken 'off road, off a main road' perhaps not to the extremes this one had been taken, but on some occasions just to reach a quiet park up, or remote site or such like..........heaven forbid an accident occurring whilst doing so.
It suggests to me a little ambiguity in the wording of these policies.

Equally surprising was how apparently well the Hymer stood up to being rolled. Only £2000 in repairs for a few dents !

The podcast is worth a watch, 23 minutes long.

 

[PP Bear]

Got a link by any chance

 

[Brains]

We have a Hymer MLT 570

I agree it's concerning, having seen the original video where they rolled, the track was what we would call in the UK a 'BOAT, a Byway Open to All Traffic.
or in other words, a green lane.

The road started out as a normal gravelled track, down which I'd have pushed a wheelchair, but it got steadily worse the further they went.
In a 2 x 4, I think I may have turned around before they did (the accident happened on the way back), but it's not like they were crossing the Darien Gap.

Even England has thousands of miles of BOAT's, and the less populated the country, the more miles of motorised track there is, so Wales and Scotland may have more than England.
Once you get abroad, Spain, the Alpine regions, the Balkans, and especially Greece, there are entire towns only reachable by tracks.

You don't need a Landrover to navigate these roads, indeed some of them even have "regular" bus services.
But if the insurance services are going to limit where motorhome can go (as they do in New Zealand) then they need to be issuing regularly updated maps.
As motorhomes and increasingly capable going to these places.

Furthermore; Most campsites are by definition 'off road' as are many storage places.

Personally I think the Insurance Company needs to be challenged in court.
Which sounds like the sort of class action Motorhome Fun, the CCC and the C&MHC should be banding together to get a judgement.

 

[Wizz]

Got a link by any chance

 

[Brains]

The insurance companies need to realise that the Hymer MLT series are a bit of Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

If you google images of the Hymer MLT's they are always shown fording rivers, climbing snowy passes, on remote cliff tops, etc.
You can find plenty of videos of them doing some fairly serious off roading.
They are sold as a 'rugged' motorhome, a 'soft-roader'.

In effect they occupy the same niche as the Range Rover and the Jeep in the car world.
Vehicles that are capable of going on rough tracks, but in reality are used to pick the kids up from school.

The sales photos of Range Rovers and their ilk are all the same as the MLT's, fording rivers, climbing snowy passes and at the game shoot or horse trials.

Two pictures of the Hymer MLT-570,
the winch is an optional extra designed for Warners Shows!

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[PP Bear]

The insurance companies need to realise that the Hymer MLT series are a bit of Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

If you google images of the Hymer MLT's they are always shown fording rivers, climbing snowy passes, on remote cliff tops, etc.
You can find plenty of videos of them doing some fairly serious off roading.
They are sold as a 'rugged' motorhome, a 'soft-roader'.

In effect they occupy the same niche as the Range Rover and the Jeep in the car world.
Vehicles that are capable of going on rough tracks, but in reality are used to pick the kids up from school.

The sales photos of Range Rovers and their ilk are all the same as the MLT's, fording rivers, climbing snowy passes and at the game shoot or horse trials.

Two pictures of the Hymer MLT-570,
the winch is an optional extra designed for Warners Shows!

View attachment 926832

View attachment 926833

Blimey how deep can it go with the air intake snorkel, purely a gimmick or would you really wade it that deep.

Belly lockers would need to be submarine standard and wonder how waterproofed the electrics are, plus anything underslung.

Would still have one though

 

[Abgs]

Blimey how deep can it go with the air intake snorkel, purely a gimmick or would you really wade it that deep.

Nah ... it's to keep the sand out when you're blasting across the Sahara ...

 

[Revolvor]

Blimey how deep can it go with the air intake snorkel, purely a gimmick or would you really wade it that deep.

Belly lockers would need to be submarine standard and wonder how waterproofed the electrics are, plus anything underslung.

Would still have one though

Snorkels are not just for water. When I lived in Kenya, many vehicles had them to reduce the amount of dust getting into the engine on rough roads.

 

[Jim]

I would say that If you are going to be taking a 4x4 off road, there are lots of insurance policies you can take out for exactly that.

Insurance companies only need half an excuse to back out of a claim, but damage from off-road driving is a reasonable excuse. That said, I didn't recognise the wording.
I've seen this in countless policies


But it sounded to me, as Matt read it out, that they just added "off-road" to this section. Whether they had, is for that lady to check.

 

[PeterCarole29]

Do you remember the days when you would insure your sons car with him as an added driver. We did this for a small car for one of our sons
To cut a long story short out of the blue i got a call from Christopher. "someones car has just gone in the back of me what do i do"
It was nice to be asked for advice so gave him all the things to do. i decided to chase up the shunt as i hadnt heard anything from the other person. He said i can send you a can of spray but you can sing for anything else. This really riled me and got straight onto the insurance company. They said we have done an investigation and as it was your sons intension to race he was not covered. ( he was in the que for the 1/4 mile strip ) at a race track. I then learnt to ask more questions when he asks for advice

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hja]

We probably all need to check our insurance policies. I think it was on page 37 of the said policy, as an exclusion. But if this is a common exclusion it leads most of us wide open. After all camp sites are by definition of the highway. As are storage sites. CLs, CSs you often go down a track to get to them. Countries like Sweden have miles of non metalled roads that are still signposted roads, not tracks.

 

[Ridgeway]

Belly lockers would need to be submarine standard and wonder how waterproofed the electrics are, plus anything underslung.

The ones on this truck were indeed waterproof for that reason, but that‘s a proper overland vehicle

He had made them himself out of SS and fabricated double seems into the door frames, his welding was pretty impressive.

 

[Brains]

Blimey how deep can it go with the air intake snorkel, purely a gimmick or would you really wade it that deep.

Belly lockers would need to be submarine standard and wonder how waterproofed the electrics are, plus anything underslung.

Would still have one though

 

[tacr2man]

Snorkels can be very efficacious when correctly installed

 

[Red Sonja]

I thought the problem with their insurance not paying out was that they were over their 90 day limit. (They had spent time in Morrocco) Not that they were off road.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[DandJ]

We have a Hymer MLT 570

I agree it's concerning, having seen the original video where they rolled, the track was what we would call in the UK a 'BOAT, a Byway Open to All Traffic.
or in other words, a green lane.

The road started out as a normal gravelled track, down which I'd have pushed a wheelchair, but it got steadily worse the further they went.
In a 2 x 4, I think I may have turned around before they did (the accident happened on the way back), but it's not like they were crossing the Darien Gap.

Even England has thousands of miles of BOAT's, and the less populated the country, the more miles of motorised track there is, so Wales and Scotland may have more than England.
Once you get abroad, Spain, the Alpine regions, the Balkans, and especially Greece, there are entire towns only reachable by tracks.

You don't need a Landrover to navigate these roads, indeed some of them even have "regular" bus services.
But if the insurance services are going to limit where motorhome can go (as they do in New Zealand) then they need to be issuing regularly updated maps.
As motorhomes and increasingly capable going to these places.

Furthermore; Most campsites are by definition 'off road' as are many storage places.

Personally I think the Insurance Company needs to be challenged in court.
Which sounds like the sort of class action Motorhome Fun, the CCC and the C&MHC should be banding together to get a judgement.

To drive on a BOAT...or a chemin here in France (and presumably other non tarmacced tracks around Europe), you are required to have a road legal vehicle and to have a licence to drive said vehicle as well as, obviously, valid insurance. The Ins co definitely need taking to court over this but they generally know that they have money and power behind them and in general, the claimant is some normal bod who simply can't afford to go thru the 'process'.
Here's a random councils page on BOATs

Vehicles and rights of way

What you need to know about driving vehicles on footpaths, bridleways and Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATs)

www.surreycc.gov.uk

 

[Brains]

I thought the problem with their insurance not paying out was that they were over their 90 day limit. (They had spent time in Morrocco) Not that they were off road.

I've not seen the latest video.

But if they were in Morocco, many companies do not cover Morocco, which is why you can buy insurance at the border.
So their 90 days should have stopped when they left Spain and restarted when they re-entered Spain.
(Same as their EU passport days)

It strikes me that the insurance company is trying to use this as as an excuse not to pay.

The concerning thing is the length of time they were out of the country is nothing at all to do with the accident.
It could just as easily happened in the first week instead of the last week.
I think a decent silk lawyer would get that argument passed by the Judge.

The same applies to driving on a local road.
It is a recognised valid road.
Just because it is not tarmacked makes no difference, all the normal rules of the road apply, for example it has a speed limit.
(I've yet to see a non-tarmacked road where you can get even close to the national speed limit, but that is not the point)

I think it's worth appealing against the decision.
I also think the big motorhome groups should be discussing this at boardroom level.

If all Off Roading driving means the insurance does not count, then every campsite needs to be closed to all UK registered motor vehicles with immediate effect.

 

[jumartoo]

I thought the problem with their insurance not paying out was that they were over their 90 day limit. (They had spent time in Morrocco) Not that they were off road.

I thought the same. That's what was said at the time.

 

[Barchetta47]

But if they were in Morocco, many companies do not cover Morocco, which is why you can buy insurance at the border.

The policy they had was with LV, the same as us. They had a green card to travel in Morocco. The policy clearly states 180 days outside the UK each year no trip longer than 90 days. The trip in question was longer than 90 days. I’m pretty sure they admitted this at the time. End of!! They made a mistake I can’t see how any insurance company would cover them. Unfortunately the whole truth was not told in the recent video, if the earlier threads are correct.

 

[Red Sonja]

I think they are trying to fudge the facts with the off road issue. I'm pretty sure that at the time it was the amount of days they had been out of the UK that was the problem not that they were off road

I'm pretty sure that this lady would pursue the matter to the end if she thought there was not an issue. it just shows you need to read the small print and re read it.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[hja]

But there was still an exclusion on her insurance for driving off the highway

 

[Red Sonja]

But there was still an exclusion on her insurance for driving off the highway

There may have been and I'm sure she could legally argue it was a highway of sorts. This wasn't the reason the insurance didn't pay out though. Having watched all the videos she clearly stated in the early days that it was the number of days away that was the problem

 

[jumartoo]

There may have been and I'm sure she could legally argue it was a highway of sorts. This wasn't the reason the insurance didn't pay out though. Having watched all the videos she clearly stated in the early days that it was the number of days away that was the problem

We've ridden our emtbs on some of these tracks. They're difficult for us and we can ride from side to side for the best line.

Anyone driving, any, vehicle, needs to be confident and know exactly how to drive off road.

The guy wasn't confident, hence the accident.

 

[jumartoo]

There may have been and I'm sure she could legally argue it was a highway of sorts. This wasn't the reason the insurance didn't pay out though. Having watched all the videos she clearly stated in the early days that it was the number of days away that was the problem

If it's an unsurfaced road, in Spain, it'll have a road number or name, somewhere.

 

[DandJ]

But there was still an exclusion on her insurance for driving off the highway

I'm pretty sure that it will be a highway in Spain...just as a BOAT is a highway in the UK. (See above post 16) This is where it all gets a bit silly and 'legalesque'...Highway, road, ...this is from the UK Road Traffic Act.

• “road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,

As Brains says above...a good brief would get it thrown out of court on a legal technicality....i.e the Insurance Co throwing their weight about. (I say that purely looking at this case as regards them driving 'off road' when in all likelihood...the 'off road' is likely to be properly classified as for public vehicular access)

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jumartoo]

I'm pretty sure that it will be a highway in Spain...just as a BOAT is a highway in the UK. (See above post 16) This is where it all gets a bit silly and 'legalesque'...Highway, road, ...this is from the UK Road Traffic Act.

• “road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,

As Brains says above...a good brief would get it thrown out of court on a legal technicality....i.e the Insurance Co throwing their weight about. (I say that purely looking at this case as regards them driving 'off road' when in all likelihood...the 'off road' is likely to be properly classified as for public vehicular access)

But, if there's a perfectly good, surfaced road, to the very same place, where does their argument stand?

 

[Brains]

But, if there's a perfectly good, surfaced road, to the very same place, where does their argument stand?

How would you know ?
On maps both routes are marked (correctly) as roads.

Even in the UK, which has a very high quality of maps available, is difficult to tell the difference between a gravel byway and a tarmacked single track road.

And every one of us has at some point blindly followed their satnav into a totally inappropriate location for a motorhome.

My Hymer supplied satnav always tries to take me to the loading bays at supermarkets and tells me in a stern voice that the public supermarket carpark is not suitable and I should leave the area immediately.
The satnav also tells me my mothers and my brother houses, both down long un-tarmacked roads are dangerous locations.

 

[DandJ]

But, if there's a perfectly good, surfaced road, to the very same place, where does their argument stand?

It isn't 'their argument' as such. It is just a simple fact. There are often 2 or more ways of going from A to B. I can choose whichever route I wish. Where would the logic of your statement end for a wriggly insurance company ? You drove on a busy A road, knowing full well that more vehicles increases your chance of a collision, you should have taken the B road... so we aren't paying up....' ?
The 'powers that be' cannot have it both ways. If a right of way...be it a tarmac road or a gravel track classified as a BOAT, requires me to have fully road legal vehicle and to also have a valid driving licence...then the insurance company cannot simply state 'you're not insured'. (There may be other smallprint about manner of driving etc?)

 

[jumartoo]

It isn't 'their argument' as such. It is just a simple fact. There are often 2 or more ways of going from A to B. I can choose whichever route I wish. Where would the logic of your statement end for a wriggly insurance company ? You drove on a busy A road, knowing full well that more vehicles increases your chance of a collision, you should have taken the B road... so we aren't paying up....' ?
The 'powers that be' cannot have it both ways. If a right of way...be it a tarmac road or a gravel track classified as a BOAT, requires me to have fully road legal vehicle and to also have a valid driving licence...then the insurance company cannot simply state 'you're not insured'. (There may be other smallprint about manner of driving etc?)

Have you seen the road they were trying to travel on? I have. No insurance company would say it was the better route to travel.

It was through this terrain ... although not the exact route.

 

[DandJ]

Have you seen the road they were trying to travel on? I have. No insurance company would say it was the better route to travel.

It was through this terrain ... although not the exact route.

My original comment was regarding BOATs in the UK (and chemins in France) If the road/track they took in Spain was a legal 'route' like a BOAT...it is irrelevent whether there is a 'better route to travel'. I presume you live in Spain...what is the legal status of the myriad of dirt tracks that locals drive and ride motorbikes on? (Genuine question...not after an argument or internet oneupmanship)

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}