allowing someone uninsured to drive my car |
allowing someone uninsured to drive my car |
Wed, 1 Dec 2021 - 17:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 6 Oct 2021 Member No.: 114,293 |
I let a someone else drive my car, a traffic officer pulled up next to us and asked him to pull over.
When pulled over he ran from the car as he was not insured. Car is in my name and insured by me. The officer was just on his own. The officer asked for his details, I only know his first name which is tricky to spell. So I just provided this as I do not know his address or other details. The officer said he is seizing the car as the driver was not insured. He only assumed this as the driver ran. He also said I am getting 6 points for letting someone else drive without insurance. So is the driver. I picked up the car the following day by going station/impound. It's been 2 weeks now and I have not received anything. I would have expected something by now. What should I expect? He also gave me his number and said to call him if I have any more info. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Dec 2021 - 12:03
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Clearly, verbal requests can be made. They would be admissible, as against the accused, as confession evidence. Strictly speaking, such confession evidence would be admissible even if section 172 didn't exist. It could be admitted as confession evidence, but not as a section 172 response. I appreciate this is academic. Section 172 provides the mechanism to compel a response. It has nothing to do with admissibility, which would be a matter of common law (preserved by statute) as regards a verbal admission by the driver. What you seem to be describing as a “section 172 response” is a confession if made by the accused driver. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 6 Dec 2021 - 12:03
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 7 Dec 2021 - 01:20
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
No chance, otherwise if your car is involved in an accident and the old bill comes round and asks about it, all you need to do is that a mate borrowed it but you won't say who and somehow they can't serve a s172. No chance at all of that. I'm not sure if these two offences would be covered by the "same incident" rule as the s172 offence would take place several weeks later, so there might be at least a theoretical risk of accruing 12 points. The phrasing of your question shows why the limitation on S172 requests exist. The requirement is that the "the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give". If the OP did genuinely not know at the time but later found the identity, there is no reason why he could not rely on reasonable diligence. Presumably the police required an immediate response. The 28 days to exercise due diligence specifically only applies to written requests. IMO reasonable diligence for a verbal request can only be assumed to be what the OP knew at the time or could reasonably obtain. There is no fixed wording for a S172 request and - much like the children's fairy tales where a wish is used up by ill considered responses - I don't think the police can decide they made a S172 request at an inopportune moment for evidence gathering and repeat it at a more convenient point. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:47 |