Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: NIP requirements for registered keeper
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
scargutt
Recently lent my car to a friend who was caught speeding by a front facing camera. I provided his details but have now been asked to provide his insurance details too as he lives outside the country. He assured me he had insurance, and i took his word for it - what is the position, I don't want to be involved any more and think that by providing the details i have fulfilled my responsibilities. Or, do i need to have evidence of his insurance?

Any help here would be great as i hate the tone of all the letters they send, which all threaten you with prosecution etc, despite the fact that half o fthe time it's their error.

Am I also too late to request photographic evidence from them? It was a frint facing camera so any photo is likely to prove inconclusive, but if they're asking for insurance to rattle my cage, anything i can do to delay matters would be useful.

Thanks

Also, just checked with the NIP wizard and it stops at the opint where i've disclosed the driver's details and suggests that i just warn the driver to expect a NIP and direct them to this site. I guess I need some advice form anyone else who has received a similar letter. It's West Yorkshire Police if that makes any difference.
The Rookie
There is an offence of 'permitting' an uninsured driver to drive your car, and you 'should' have proof someone is insured before permitting them to drive. Although they should be asking him first and then only approaching you after they believe he may not be insured.

This is there normal techniques for putting the screws on to stop people naming overseas drivers as they can't usually extract their £60 from them - they will also often ask for flight tickets (or proof of) etc.

Its a bit late to back pedal after naming them as the driver (doesn't look good does it?) by asking for photo's, but no harm in it I guess!

Simon
jdfi
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 17 Sep 2007 - 13:47) *
There is an offence of 'permitting' an uninsured driver to drive your car, and you 'should' have proof someone is insured before permitting them to drive. Although they should be asking him first and then only approaching you after they believe he may not be insured.



Simon, do you have more detail of the above offence (enacting legislation, penalties, etc)?
scargutt
simon, you're right about asking for the evidence now, and this may make them more suspicious. Do you suggest that I just ignore the letter for now? I ignored the first NIP, then responded to the second. Neither were sent recorded and neither has this latest letter been sent recorded.

One other potential issue i have though is i recently moved and the car is still registered at my old address. I do still own the flat it's registered too, but am not living there. I have a horrible image of the police turning up and scaring the living daylights out of my tenants before prosecuting me for having out of date information. Is it time to accept the fact that i'm going to jail, or just flee the country?
nemo
QUOTE (jdfi @ Mon, 17 Sep 2007 - 13:53) *
Simon, do you have more detail of the above offence (enacting legislation, penalties, etc)?

Section 143 Road Traffic Act 1988

Penalties upon conviction for either driving whilst uninsured or causing / permitting to drive whilst uninsured are currently 6 - 8 points OR a period of disqualification plus a fine of up to £5,000. Also, significantly higher insurance premiums are inevitable for a driver whose licence bears an 'IN' endorsement code.
andy_foster
QUOTE (scargutt @ Mon, 17 Sep 2007 - 13:57) *
Is it time to accept the fact that i'm going to jail, or just flee the country?


Permitting your overseas friend to drive without insurance is not an imprisonable offence.
However, lying about who was driving in an attempt to pervert the course of justice is.
Barking Mad
QUOTE (scargutt @ Mon, 17 Sep 2007 - 11:58) *
Recently lent my car to a friend who was caught speeding by a front facing camera. I provided his details but have now been asked to provide his insurance details too as he lives outside the country. He assured me he had insurance, and i took his word for it - what is the position, I don't want to be involved any more and think that by providing the details i have fulfilled my responsibilities. Or, do i need to have evidence of his insurance?


Cutting all the crap away: If you lent anyone your car on the CONDITION that they were insured to drive it and it transpires that their assurances were empty and they weren't then you have committed no offence! The individual to whom you lent the car has - it's called "joyriding" and is covered by the 1968 Theft Act (I think it's S12 but others will advise). Officially "Driving without permission. " CONDITIONAL Permission to drive is only permission if the conditions set are met. Your obligation is to take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicle is insured for the use of the person driving it. Asking a foreigner "Are you insured?" is reasonable. INSISTING that they produce their insurance to you is not. And in any case, if your friend were a Russian, tell me, do you read Russian and the Cyric alphabet? Or Arabic and the style of Arabic writing?

I don't carry my insurance around with me in my pocket when I go anywhere. I certainly don't take my insurance with me if I fly abroad!!!!! Nor do I know anybody else who does either - and I do know a lot of people! How can the REASONABLY expect anyone else to conform to this requirement?

How on earth can they prove you did not say to your foreign friend "Do you have insurance? - I can only lend you the car if you do"?

Stick to your guns and assure them that this conversation took place and tell them that you (especially now) have no power to demand the driver's insurance, and that if they suspect an offence contrary to the theft act (joyriding) has taken place, they should approach the suspected perpetrator directly rather than hound you as a victim of such a crime shlould such a crime have taken place in any case! IMHO I don't think it's possible to aid and abett someone to joyride in one's own car??? You either thought he had insurance or you didn't! And you would not have lent him the car had you thought he didn't have any.
andy_foster
QUOTE (Barking Mad @ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 - 04:27) *
Cutting all the crap away: If you lent anyone your car on the CONDITION that they were insured to drive it and it transpires that their assurances were empty and they weren't then you have committed no offence! The individual to whom you lent the car has - it's called "joyriding" and is covered by the 1968 Theft Act (I think it's S12 but others will advise). Officially "Driving without permission. " CONDITIONAL Permission to drive is only permission if the conditions set are met. Your obligation is to take reasonable steps to ensure that the vehicle is insured for the use of the person driving it. Asking a foreigner "Are you insured?" is reasonable. INSISTING that they produce their insurance to you is not. And in any case, if your friend were a Russian, tell me, do you read Russian and the Cyric alphabet? Or Arabic and the style of Arabic writing?


Permitting is a strict liability offence. "Reasonable" and belief are neither here nor there. The obligation is not to ask whether he was insured, or to check his documents. It is for the driver to be insured.

If you permit me to drive your car, but don't ask whether I'm insured, no offence is committed if I am insured.
However, if I were to show you a forged insurance certificate, but I was not actually insured, it would be an offence to permit me to drive - although that would probably constitute special reasons

Conditional permission only applies if it was actually an explicit condition. Giving permission after being told a lie is not conditional permission.

As the OP seems to have indicated, the penalty for being caught lying in response to a statutory demand for information, is far more serious than the offence itself.
The Rookie
With AF, BM is wrong, it is a strict liability offence, so if he wasn't insured the offence was commited - end of story.

However if you can convince a magistrate you had every reason to believe they were insured, then that could constitute 'special reasons' not to endorse.

Simon
Barking Mad
Fair enough, chaps - I accept I stand corrected BUT how can the OP now extracate himself from the do-do if his friend really was insured but from his cosy home in outer Mongolia decides the matter is not important enough for him to send over his docs?

If the foreigner really was insured then our man is going to get done for permitting no insurance even when insurance was in place!

Yet another reason not to register the car to oneself, I see, if one is not actually a "chav" and is abiding by and doing everything possible to comply with the spirit of the law?
Barking Mad
You know, I can accept the wisdom and views of Rookie & AF but I still have a nagging feeling I might not be as wrong as these learned fellows think.

Some one comes to you and says "Can I borrow your car please"?

You say "Yes but ONLY if you have a licence and insurance."

They say "Yes, I have, I promise I have"

You allow them to drive off.

The speed camera / accident / whatever happens and Plod comes to ask for the driver's insurance and you relay this story, surely the driver is guilty of taking the car without consent if he knew he didn't have the licence / insurance?

And if that is so, then surely the culpable individual must be the driver not the owner - else if someone takes my car one night from the street (whether I know them or not), I would be guilty of permitting use without insurance - for a joyrider?!?!?!?!?

Are you really sure, gentlemen?
The Rookie
YES.....but thats why the 'special reasons' defence is allowed, to allow a degree of 'common sense' from the magistrates, it being impossible to write a law that would cover any and every eventaulity in enough detail, it being easier to have an absolute offence and special reasons defence!

However in this case for the OP, the permitting would have to be proven, and for that to occur the driver must not be insured, now for the driver it would be a simple case of he's not insured as he's not submitted his docs, the not showing of the Doc's being an equal offence, (much like declining a breath test) however I'm not sure if that is the case with permitting, is an absence of docs enough to prove permitting or does it have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Simon
nemo
icon_idea.gif Scargutt - use the search facility and enter +Newbury +Davis. The search should return plenty of threads which deal with the offence of causing or permitting to drive whilst uninsured.
The Rookie
Conversley this case is useful as well...

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1969/1.html Sweet v parsley (You can't make some of them up!)

Summary from Newbury

In Newbury v Davis [1974] RTR 367, 370, MacKenna J
said:
In my judgment the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the
car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis
had policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none.
Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the
defendant’s permission. In other words, permission given subject
to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all.
It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where
the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief
that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope
that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given
subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to
my mind there is difference and it is one of legal substance. On
this view of the case the defendant committed no offence.

Simon
wolfie
Hi folks,

I've recently been through this situation, and Newbury v Avis is the crux of it. You have not committed an offence IF, and only IF, the permission that you granted to your friend was conditional on him being insured to drive your car.

You need to be able to prove this, maybe with a statement from your friend to that effect. Also, statements from other witnesses to the agreement between you, if there were any.

If he is not willing to provide this statement, he may not have been insured, and to help you out would be admitting that he took your vehicle without your consent (TWOC) which is an arrestable offence.

Now maybe you get to find out how good a friend he is?

When BiB tried to do me for this offence they made no attempt whatsoever to talk to the offender, just went straight for me - even after the offender had been convicted after failing to produce his documents and telling the court that I was innocent. Don't expect the BiB to do the decent thing, or even the sensible thing.

I had to get seven S9 witness statements to get the prosecution dropped, and I'm still waiting for my expenses to be paid.

Wolfie
Barking Mad
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 - 15:59) *
In Newbury v Davis [1974] RTR 367, 370, MacKenna J
said:
In my judgment the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the
car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis
had policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none.
Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the
defendant’s permission. In other words, permission given subject
to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all.

It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where
the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief
that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope
that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given
subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled
. But to
my mind there is difference and it is one of legal substance. On
this view of the case the defendant committed no offence.


Simon


Isn't that what I said in the beginning????
andy_foster
BM,

The point I was trying to make is that you are retrospectively telling the OP what his conversation with the mysterious overseas driver was.
Basically, you are advising him to lie. Don't do that on these forums.
jeffreyarcher
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 - 15:59) *
Conversley this case is useful as well...

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1969/1.html Sweet v parsley

Interesting case; I don't see how it helps, though.
I am unaware of any authorities that suggest that permitting driving with no insurance is not an absolute offence; quite the reverse, even Newbury v Davis does not suggest that.
The Rookie
I think were Sweet helps is in establishing that what at that moment in time were held to be absolute offences through their wording, can later be argued to not have been the intention and thus it is not after all an absolute offence - sect 143 of the RTA apears to make permitting an absolute offence, but even Newbury v davis goes as far as making it absolutely clear if it is or isn't. Its not a route I would want to take (and have no intention of putting myself in such a position where I would need to) but as an adjust to other defences such as Newbury where teh case was less clear cut, then it would surely be useful.

Simon
wolfie
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 19 Sep 2007 - 09:55) *
I think were Sweet helps is in establishing that what at that moment in time were held to be absolute offences through their wording, can later be argued to not have been the intention and thus it is not after all an absolute offence - sect 143 of the RTA apears to make permitting an absolute offence, but even Newbury v davis goes as far as making it absolutely clear if it is or isn't. Its not a route I would want to take (and have no intention of putting myself in such a position where I would need to) but as an adjust to other defences such as Newbury where teh case was less clear cut, then it would surely be useful.


I'm getting more and more confused about what constitutes an absolute offence nowadays.

Failure to display a VEL is absolute and black and white. The only defence is to prove that the VEL was displayed properly.

Permit no insurance is an absolute offence, and yet one can successfully argue that the permission was conditional and therefore not granted. So permit no insurance is not an absolute offence in the same way that failure to display a VEL is. I suppose the analogy would be that your placement of the VEL on the windscreen was conditional on the adhesive working, but it failed to do so - but the offence is still committed.

Speeding is an absolute offence, and yet this site is dedicated to arguing the law, and people are being successful.

Is the only definition of an absolute offence one that doesn't involve mens rea?
Is there a list of absolute offences? I can't find one.

Wolfie
Barking Mad
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 - 22:33) *
BM,

The point I was trying to make is that you are retrospectively telling the OP what his conversation with the mysterious overseas driver was.
Basically, you are advising him to lie. Don't do that on these forums.


Andy,

I don't think I am telling the OP what his conersations were. I am not advising anyone to lie - more so I have never advocated perjury on any thread on this forum!
jdfi
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 18 Sep 2007 - 13:31) *
YES.....but thats why the 'special reasons' defence is allowed, to allow a degree of 'common sense' from the magistrates, it being impossible to write a law that would cover any and every eventaulity in enough detail, it being easier to have an absolute offence and special reasons defence!

However in this case for the OP, the permitting would have to be proven, and for that to occur the driver must not be insured, now for the driver it would be a simple case of he's not insured as he's not submitted his docs, the not showing of the Doc's being an equal offence, (much like declining a breath test) however I'm not sure if that is the case with permitting, is an absence of docs enough to prove permitting or does it have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Simon


Anyone care to give some simple advise for anyone who lends their car to a friend (and/or shares the driving with a friend on a long journey)? Before driving off, should the question "do you have a policy of insurance which allows you to drive this vehicle" be asked, and if the response is "yes" that is all that is needed.

Or is a signature in blood required?
nemo
QUOTE (jdfi @ Wed, 19 Sep 2007 - 13:59) *
Anyone care to give some simple advise for anyone who lends their car to a friend (and/or shares the driving with a friend on a long journey)?

Yes. Be 100% certain that they are insured to drive your car before you permit them to. Don't assume they are and don't take their word for it.
wolfie
QUOTE (jdfi @ Wed, 19 Sep 2007 - 13:59) *
Anyone care to give some simple advise for anyone who lends their car to a friend (and/or shares the driving with a friend on a long journey)? Before driving off, should the question "do you have a policy of insurance which allows you to drive this vehicle" be asked, and if the response is "yes" that is all that is needed.


Having been through this, my advice would be to get absolute proof of insurance before lending someone your vehicle.

It's just too much hassle otherwise.

You run a serious risk of being successfully prosecuted if your "friend" turns out to be a tosser and refuses to back up your version of events and there are no independent witnesses to the agreement.

I was lucky, you may not be.
jdfi
QUOTE (wolfie @ Wed, 19 Sep 2007 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (jdfi @ Wed, 19 Sep 2007 - 13:59) *
Anyone care to give some simple advise for anyone who lends their car to a friend (and/or shares the driving with a friend on a long journey)? Before driving off, should the question "do you have a policy of insurance which allows you to drive this vehicle" be asked, and if the response is "yes" that is all that is needed.


Having been through this, my advice would be to get absolute proof of insurance before lending someone your vehicle.

It's just too much hassle otherwise.

You run a serious risk of being successfully prosecuted if your "friend" turns out to be a tosser and refuses to back up your version of events and there are no independent witnesses to the agreement.

I was lucky, you may not be.



Wolfie/Nemo, are you saying don't let a friend drive your car unless you've seen their insurance certificate and noted the "drive other cars" clause.
nemo
QUOTE (jdfi @ Thu, 20 Sep 2007 - 13:26) *
Wolfie/Nemo, are you saying don't let a friend drive your car unless you've seen their insurance certificate and noted the "drive other cars" clause.

Whatever it takes to be certain that they are insured to drive your vehicle. In my book, this is certainly more than just taking their word for it. If they were a 'friend', then they shouldn't have a problem providing proof of cover and they would understand the reasons for such a request..
wolfie
QUOTE (jdfi @ Thu, 20 Sep 2007 - 13:26) *
Wolfie/Nemo, are you saying don't let a friend drive your car unless you've seen their insurance certificate and noted the "drive other cars" clause.


Absolutely!

I was the same as you before my experience. It just isn't worth the aggro, and it could cost you 6 points, a big fine and massively hiked insurance premiums for several years.

Like nemo says, if it is a friend, there shouldn't be a problem.

Wolfie
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.