Possible IN10

Hey Guys,

About 2 weeks ago I got pulled over and told the officer I was driving to work in my dads car thinking I had insurance.

I did have comprehensive insurance but it was only social domestic and pleasure use.

The insurance company at the time let me drive home and then we cancelled the policy as they wouldn't cover me for commuting. I took out another insurance elsewhere this time with commuting and me as the main driver. I haven't declared any points as I don't have any...yet.

I wanted to ask, will I be looking at 6 points? Just been reading around thinking I may be lucky due to the fact that if I did crash, the insurance company would still cover me for third party but chase me for the money therefore I was still covered?

This is completely my fault I know - I hardly touch the car as I train it into work but that day I was going out with friends in the evening hence I didn't take too much notice of the commuting part. I ASSUMED i was covered to drive.

Also it's been 2 weeks and I've yet to receive a court letter? Does this usually take up to 6 months?
«13

Comments

  • Car_54
    Car_54 Posts: 8,180
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    The onus will be on you to prove that you were insured. You need to speak to the insurers and ask them whether you were covered in those circumstances, and - if you were - to put it in writing.

    And yes, the police have six months to start court proceedings.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    sansax wrote: »
    About 2 weeks ago I got pulled over and told the officer I was driving to work in my dads car thinking I had insurance.

    I did have comprehensive insurance but it was only social domestic and pleasure use.

    The insurance company at the time let me drive home and then we cancelled the policy as they wouldn't cover me for commuting. I took out another insurance elsewhere this time with commuting and me as the main driver. I haven't declared any points as I don't have any...yet.

    I wanted to ask, will I be looking at 6 points? Just been reading around thinking I may be lucky due to the fact that if I did crash, the insurance company would still cover me for third party but chase me for the money therefore I was still covered?

    This is completely my fault I know - I hardly touch the car as I train it into work but that day I was going out with friends in the evening hence I didn't take too much notice of the commuting part. I ASSUMED i was covered to drive.

    Also it's been 2 weeks and I've yet to receive a court letter? Does this usually take up to 6 months?
    Clarification, please...
    You were driving it under the "somebody else's car" clause of YOUR policy?
    Your father has his own policy for the car, which doesn't cover you as a named driver?

    If that's the case, then your insurer would simply have washed their hands of any claim - you were outside the terms of your cover. End of. Your father's insurer, as the insurer of record on the central insurance database, would have covered any third-party claim - but could have passed the cost back to you. That does not mean you were not guilty of driving without insurance, though.

    Yes, 6pts and a Band B (75-125% of your weekly income) or Band C (125-175%) fine is the most likely outcome. Given that you can show you believed you were insured, and would have been but for the purpose of the journey, I'd have thought the fine would be towards the lower end of B - you've got good mitigating factors.

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/no-insurance-revised-2017/

    The fun and games may include your father, though - he could be charged with permitting you to drive without insurance. The alternative is that you took the car without his permission - theft, basically...

    Since you were warned about the impending prosecution at the time you were stopped, there's up to six months to actually start the prosecution.
  • sansax
    sansax Posts: 5 Forumite
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Clarification, please...
    You were driving it under the "somebody else's car" clause of YOUR policy?
    Your father has his own policy for the car, which doesn't cover you as a named driver?

    If that's the case, then your insurer would simply have washed their hands of any claim - you were outside the terms of your cover. End of. Your father's insurer, as the insurer of record on the central insurance database, would have covered any third-party claim - but could have passed the cost back to you. That does not mean you were not guilty of driving without insurance, though.

    Yes, 6pts and a Band B (75-125% of your weekly income) or Band C (125-175%) fine is the most likely outcome. Given that you can show you believed you were insured, and would have been but for the purpose of the journey, I'd have thought the fine would be towards the lower end of B - you've got good mitigating factors.


    The fun and games may include your father, though - he could be charged with permitting you to drive without insurance. The alternative is that you took the car without his permission - theft, basically...

    Since you were warned about the impending prosecution at the time you were stopped, there's up to six months to actually start the prosecution.

    Sorry - I am a named driver. So I'm actually shown on the policy to use the car for social domestic and pleasure purposes.

    I don't have my own insurance policy. Just named driver under dads.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    AdrianC wrote: »
    Clarification, please...
    You were driving it under the "somebody else's car" clause of YOUR policy?
    Your father has his own policy for the car, which doesn't cover you as a named driver?

    If that's the case, then your insurer would simply have washed their hands of any claim - you were outside the terms of your cover. End of. Your father's insurer, as the insurer of record on the central insurance database, would have covered any third-party claim - but could have passed the cost back to you. That does not mean you were not guilty of driving without insurance, though.

    Yes, 6pts and a Band B (75-125% of your weekly income) or Band C (125-175%) fine is the most likely outcome. Given that you can show you believed you were insured, and would have been but for the purpose of the journey, I'd have thought the fine would be towards the lower end of B - you've got good mitigating factors.

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/no-insurance-revised-2017/

    The fun and games may include your father, though - he could be charged with permitting you to drive without insurance. The alternative is that you took the car without his permission - theft, basically...

    Since you were warned about the impending prosecution at the time you were stopped, there's up to six months to actually start the prosecution.

    Really, so what was he going to do with the car?
  • forgotmyname
    forgotmyname Posts: 32,518
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    And your current insurer will have asked any prosecutions pending which you seem to have forgotten to mention.
    Censorship Reigns Supreme in Troll City...

  • sansax
    sansax Posts: 5 Forumite
    And your current insurer will have asked any prosecutions pending which you seem to have forgotten to mention.

    I was thinking about that when I got the new insurance.

    I was never asked for pending convictions on comparethemarket.

    If I get the points I will phone up the insurance and tell them.
  • bigadaj
    bigadaj Posts: 11,531
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Forumite
    Really, so what was he going to do with the car?

    That's irrelevant.

    It's the standard question to apportion blame, someone has either permitted the use or not, it's that simple.
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    bigadaj wrote: »
    That's irrelevant.

    It's the standard question to apportion blame, someone has either permitted the use or not, it's that simple.

    Either way it wouldn't be theft.
  • AdrianC
    AdrianC Posts: 42,189
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    Either way it wouldn't be theft.
    What I actually said was "theft, basically...", and you appear to have missed the deliberate distinction.

    You're right there'd be no intent to permanently deprive, but it would certainly come under taking without the owner's consent (TWOC) - a charge deliberately introduced to remove any suggestion of "Well, I was going to leave it somewhere it could be found, so I didn't intend to permanently deprive the owner of it, yeronner"

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/vehicle-taking-without-consent-revised-2017/
  • Warwick_Hunt
    Warwick_Hunt Posts: 1,179 Forumite
    AdrianC wrote: »
    What I actually said was "theft, basically...", and you appear to have missed the deliberate distinction.

    You're right there'd be no intent to permanently deprive, but it would certainly come under taking without the owner's consent (TWOC) - a charge deliberately introduced to remove any suggestion of "Well, I was going to leave it somewhere it could be found, so I didn't intend to permanently deprive the owner of it, yeronner"

    https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/vehicle-taking-without-consent-revised-2017/

    So basically not theft given that its dad's car.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards