Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: driving without insurance (supposedly)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
murphy 1066
A friend of mine wanted a lift home from the pub as he wasnt feeling well over christmas so he rang me up and asked for me to drive him home in his car. He said that as long as he was present in the vehicle i would be covered by his insurance and as i was insured on my own car i thought that i was more than covered. He only lived about half a mile away but the area the pub was is rough as hell and if he left his car over night it probably would have been smashed up so he was desperate to get his car home. I was stopped by the police near my friends house, breathalised (which read 0.00) and given a producer. went to the police station with driving licence, insurance for myself and friends car, log book and mot. copper behind desk tells me that because the insurance documents dont mention cover needed to drive the vehicle concerned so it may or may not go to court.
got a court summons 2 weeks ago so got onto my solicitor and asked a few people for advice. was told to plead guilty by mitigation and try to get the story of what happened over to the court.
just got out of court and have been given six points on my licence and a £60 pound fine plus £15 victim support. Told the court the story above but didnt take any notice , ignored the insurance paperwork and nailed me good and proper.
got a feeling ive been wrongly convicted so any help or advice would be a help
thanks
borsicorn
Should be an easy one to decide.

Does your insurance policy specifically state that you are permitted to drive another vehicle, not owned by you or held subject to a Hire Purchase agreement, with the consent of the owner?
andy_foster
Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence. The offence is complete if you drove a car on the public road without valid insurance cover. It doesn't matter whether you knew you were uninsured, or whether you reasonably believed that you were insured.
The only exception (other than duress and automatism) is if you were driving a vehicle (other than your own) as part of your employment and had no reason to believe that you were not insured).

In the eyes of the law, you either were insured or you weren't. If either of the policies covered you to drive the vehicle, then you were insured. Otherwise, you are guilty.
If you were specifically misled (rather than simply making an assumption), that might constitute special reasons not to endorse, if the court believe you, and consider that the circumstances warrant not endorsing your licence.

Does your policy state that you are covered to drive other vehicles, or does your friend's policy state that any driver is covered to drive that vehicle?
If not, they have very little bearing on the case (other than perhaps to indicate that you didn't deliberately set out to drive without insurance,which would result in you getting 6 points, rather than 8 and/or a ban.

That is the law. I'm not saying that it's fair.
murphy 1066
ive gone over both sets of insurance papers and theres no mention of being able to drive with 3rd party only cover on my policy but my friends policy gives him cover for 3rd party only on other vehicles. because i cancelled my insurance policy about a couple of months ago my insurer wont tell me if i had cover unless i reinsure with them....
my (once) friend was supposed to find out with his insurance about the situation but hasnt bothered. i even arranged with him to meet him at the court this morning with any paperwork he could get from his insurer but he didnt turn up.
found this on the opsi website

<h2 class="LegPart"> Third-Party Liabilities </h2><h3 class="LegPblockFirst" id="pt6-pb1">Compulsory insurance or security against third-party risks </h3><h4 class="LegClearFix LegP1ContainerFirst">143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks </h4> (1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

© that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.




ive proved that i dont own the vehicle, wasnt hired or loaned so do i go for a retrial or just put up with it and pay the fine?


fatboytim
Thinking a little laterally,
Your 'friend' employed you (on a voluntary basis) to drive him home.
Was he prosecuted for permitting you to drive his car uninsured?.

fatboytim
JPM1
When the old bill look at insurance they need to be able to answer three questions: Does this insurance policy cover THIS PERSON to drive THIS VEHICLE at THIS TIME.

If you were fully comp at the time then you would have had third party liability on your insurance for other cars, unless you had commercial insurance which only covers one vehicle.

You're friends insurance is a bit irrelevant in this unless it actually names you as a driver.

If you can find an old policy document it should enlighten you.
jobo
3rd party cover used to be automaticaly included, but now you find that companies are dropping it usually with out telling at renual.

it seem to have something to do with insuring a micra and driving round in a cossie

that and the insurance data base bollux
Captain A
QUOTE
If you were fully comp at the time then you would have had third party liability on your insurance for other cars


Not necesssarily, so you have to check the wording in your own policy. Perhaps Murphy should ring the quotation department of his insurers, express interest in taking out a policy like his old one, and ask if he would be insured to drive another person's car...
andy_foster
QUOTE (murphy 1066 @ Wed, 21 May 2008 - 17:38) *
<...>
found this on the opsi website


Shame you didn't read it properly. It says exactly what I said above (albeit in more detail).
The only exception is if you were using the vehicle in the course of your employment and had no reason to suspect that you were not insured.

QUOTE
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

© that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.


ive proved that i dont own the vehicle, wasnt hired or loaned so do i go for a retrial or just put up with it and pay the fine?


The exception only applies if all of the listed conditions are met. Meatloaf may have considered that 2 out of 3 ain't bad, but it will not sway a court of law.

The only issues are-
whether you were actually insured (will be stated on your insurance certificate or schedule if you were (assuming that you erstwhile friend's car wasn't insured for 'any driver'), and
whether you have a good case for special reasons. If your friend won't turn up to court and give evidence that he specifically told you that you were insured to drive his car, you will never persuade the court unless you attend the same lodge as the chairman of the bench.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.