NIP -WHY MY INSURANCE POLICY Options

[bobenz]

Hi All, i received a Nip Decembr 2017, it was posted within time and with correct information. i completed it with the name of the driver i think was driving. the Nip was returned for post code.
The constabulary responded, that i send my insurance policy and the drivers licencse of the driver, i called the constabulary that i am not in possession of his drivers license( How could I have been) . so i sent a wriiten letter providing same information of the driver and that they should contact him.

i got another letter asking me to provide my insurance policy that shows that the driver could drive my car.- i am to respond within


36mph in 30mph.

MY TOUGHT,
I do not want to provide my policy as it does not cover him as the driver......... i don't want my insurance cancelled or higher cost
i want to write them that they should contact him to provide his own insurance that covered him to drive the car........(he is abroad and not talking to me)----- just comprehensive

should they be asking for my insurance policy?
should I call them up? should i send it any way?
should i just send a letter without the policy?
should i request for the picture?----------- we switched driving at a time but he mentioned that he thinks a flash came up when he drove(which was why i concluded it was him)


Kindly advice please i have 3 days more

This post has been edited by bobenz: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 19:48

[Advertisement]

[AntonyMMM]

I do not want to provide my policy as it does not cover him as the driver.........

The police get quite sceptical about driver nominations who have conveniently "gone abroad" ....so they will always ask the difficult questions about insurance.

What insurance did this driver have that covered him to drive your car (and did you check) ?

Unless you can show that the driver was covered, you are very likely to be charged with "permitting no insurance" ..... which carries 6 points.

should i request for the picture?

For what reason ? .... doesn't really matter if you know who was driving.

This post has been edited by AntonyMMM: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 10:52

[Logician]

It is quite unlikely that an Irish driver would have a policy that covered him for driving a UK registered car in the UK, you need to check with him as a matter of urgency. As you know your policy does not cover him driving you may be open to a charge of permitting driving with no insurance.

[notmeatloaf]

Just to clarify, there are two (potentially three) separate offences here.

Driving without insurance - which your friend is liable for in the unlikely event the police catch up with him.

Permitting to drive without insurance - which it sounds like you are probably guilty of. Six points, a fine and raised insurance premiums for five years. This offence doesn't need knowledge, if you lend your car to someone and just don't know if they have insurance it is not a defence. It is not the police's job to prove you didn't have insurance, it is your job to prove you did.

Perverting the course of justice - for the small minority of people who name a foreign driver when they know they were actually driving. Potential jail time if found guilty.


Others will weigh in with their opinions, but if you genuinely lent your car out without checking there was valid insurance in place and your mate can't provide an insurance policy covering him you are bang to rights for permitting. Hopefully your Irish mate will chip in for the fine as it is him who has got you into this mess.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 - 11:12

[thisisntme]

It can also get you a whole world of pain when it comes to hiring cars from mainstream rental companies. Avis and Herz, in their Ts and Cs state they will not rent a vehicle to anyone with an insurance related endorsement. So hopefully for your sake, your 'friend' has insurance that enables him to drive any vehicle in the UK at third party level...

[Jlc]

Just to answer the headline question - it doesn't have to be your policy that provided cover for the driver. (Obviously if it did then all fine and dandy)

[panther12]

This offence doesn't need knowledge, if you lend your car to someone and just don't know if they have insurance it is not a defence.

That's my understanding of it, and as an added measure you should only give permission to drive on the strict condition they are insured. And if it turns out they aren't I think it becomes TWOC.

[BaggieBoy]

That's my understanding of it, and as an added measure you should only give permission to drive on the strict condition they are insured. And if it turns out they aren't I think it becomes TWOC.

I think your understanding is wrong, the owner gave permission, lack of insurance won't turn that into TWOC.

[Logician]

That's my understanding of it, and as an added measure you should only give permission to drive on the strict condition they are insured. And if it turns out they aren't I think it becomes TWOC.

I think your understanding is wrong, the owner gave permission, lack of insurance won't turn that into TWOC.

If the owner gave permission only on the express condition that the driver had insurance, and the driver did not in fact have insurance, then he did not have permission to drive the vehicle, which is the rationale for the owner not to be guilty of permitting driving with no insurance in those circumstances. (Newbury v Davis [1974] RTR 367) If the driver did not have the owner's permission, it follows that he did indeed take the vehicle without the owner's consent.

[andy_foster]

If the driver knew that he was not insured, it would indeed be TWOC. However, if the driver believed that he was insured, then he would believe that he was permitted and would not be guilty of TWOC.

[Churchmouse]

36 in a 30! That would just be a speed awareness course or a fixed penalty/three points for the driver...

There are no UK insurance policies that allow "any driver" to drive a particular vehicle, are there? So your policy is irrelevant. HIS policy is relevant, because some/many UK policies allow the "policyholder" to drive other vehicles ("DOV") with the owner's permission. His licence is also irrelevant, because the police will simply create a "ghost licence" for anyone who does not hold a UK licence, and use that to accumulate points. I don't think there is an offence of permitting an unlicenced driver to drive, but there is definitely an offence of permitting an uninsured driver to drive, and the penalties for this are severe. It should be obvious, now, why.

--Churchmouse

[peterguk]

There are no UK insurance policies that allow "any driver" to drive a particular vehicle, are there?

Yes. I have one. Don't think they're particularly unusual.

I'd need to check but i think limitiations are full DL and over 25 years of age.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 - 00:01

[thisisntme]

There are no UK insurance policies that allow "any driver" to drive a particular vehicle, are there?

Yes. I have one. Don't think they're particularly unusual.

I'd need to check but i think limitiations are full DL and over 25 years of age.

As do I.

[666]

I don't think there is an offence of permitting an unlicenced driver to drive, but there is definitely an offence of permitting an uninsured driver to drive, and the penalties for this are severe. It should be obvious, now, why.

--Churchmouse

RTA 1988 section 87(2): "It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person] to drive a motor vehicle of that class."

[nosferatu1001]

Our work one is any driver authorised by the company, we then have internal limits on what authorised means (not everyone should drive an M3...)

[Churchmouse]

There are no UK insurance policies that allow "any driver" to drive a particular vehicle, are there?

Yes. I have one. Don't think they're particularly unusual.

I'd need to check but i think limitiations are full DL and over 25 years of age.

They are absolutely normal on the Continent: it is the vehicle that is insured, rather than the driver. But I've never been offered that kind of policy in the UK (nor have I sought one, however). Comprehensive, or third-party only? The online quotation sites do not appear to list such policies as an option (1-4 named drivers, max), so I would still consider them to be rather unusual for a vehicle owned by an individual.

As for s.87(2), does this offence incorporate a requirement for the "permitter" to prove that the driver had an appropriate licence, or must the police prove that the driver did not have an appropriate licence? This would be relevant to the OP's position.

[Apologies for my somewhat speculative post yesterday--more research was definitely required...]

--Churchmouse

[The Rookie]

Bobenz has been back and not posted....

[thisisntme]

There are no UK insurance policies that allow "any driver" to drive a particular vehicle, are there?

Yes. I have one. Don't think they're particularly unusual.

I'd need to check but i think limitiations are full DL and over 25 years of age.

They are absolutely normal on the Continent: it is the vehicle that is insured, rather than the driver. But I've never been offered that kind of policy in the UK (nor have I sought one, however). Comprehensive, or third-party only? The online quotation sites do not appear to list such policies as an option (1-4 named drivers, max), so I would still consider them to be rather unusual for a vehicle owned by an individual.

As for s.87(2), does this offence incorporate a requirement for the "permitter" to prove that the driver had an appropriate licence, or must the police prove that the driver did not have an appropriate licence? This would be relevant to the OP's position.

[Apologies for my somewhat speculative post yesterday--more research was definitely required...]

--Churchmouse

Drivers other than named get the same cover as myself - Fully Comp. Just as I get fully comp when I drive any other car that is not ordinarily kept at my address. (Hiscox)

[bobenz]

Thank you everyone for all the responses .... you have enlightened so many grey areas that i had before now. i appreciate this.

the Nip was over speeding caught on the camera.


i am the only "permitted Driver" On my insurance certificate(comprehensive) and yes i am allowed to drive other individual cars provided i am driving with the owner's express consent so far (it is not a rental car and a car on hire purchase. )

My concern now is that I am the only permitted driver stated on the certificate, does that preclude any other driver from driving it ?

Even when they have the provision on their own policy to be able to drive other individual cars as I have on my own as stated above?

Must I include any other driver as "permitted driver" even when they have their own policy?

does that mean i am required to have my policy authorise them before they can drive my car( even if they have comprehensive) and have the above clause on their certificate (allowed to drive other individual cars provided i am driving with the owner's express consent)


I want to send a letter alongside the certificate of insurance, that i asked my friend expressly if he had an insurance and that i have seen him drive other cars and that i reasonably believe same.

I just need a good defence to fall on whilst i get his on policy for review.

Thank you

This post has been edited by bobenz: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 - 10:07

[Jlc]

Your policy does not preclude other drivers. Either your policy covers them (or not as it seems here) or they have their own cover. If you can simply provide proof of that cover then there’s no issue. If you cannot (as I suspect the case here) then it’s going to be difficult for you.

What exactly did you do to confirm they had cover to drive your vehicle? (Assumptions and presumptions won’t help)