Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • sansax
    • By sansax 2nd Oct 17, 2:16 PM
    • 5Posts
    • 0Thanks
    sansax
    Possible IN10
    • #1
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:16 PM
    Possible IN10 2nd Oct 17 at 2:16 PM
    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?
Page 1
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 2nd Oct 17, 2:41 PM
    • 2,286 Posts
    • 1,470 Thanks
    Car 54
    • #2
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:41 PM
    • #2
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:41 PM
    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
    • By AdrianC 2nd Oct 17, 2:44 PM
    • 15,255 Posts
    • 13,592 Thanks
    AdrianC
    • #3
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:44 PM
    • #3
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:44 PM
    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?
    Originally posted by sansax
    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
    • By sansax 2nd Oct 17, 2:52 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sansax
    • #4
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:52 PM
    • #4
    • 2nd Oct 17, 2:52 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    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
    • By Warwick Hunt 2nd Oct 17, 3:15 PM
    • 372 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 3:15 PM
    • #5
    • 2nd Oct 17, 3:15 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    Really, so what was he going to do with the car?
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 2nd Oct 17, 3:51 PM
    • 25,859 Posts
    • 10,293 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 3:51 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd Oct 17, 3:51 PM
    And your current insurer will have asked any prosecutions pending which you seem to have forgotten to mention.
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • sansax
    • By sansax 2nd Oct 17, 4:01 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sansax
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:01 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Oct 17, 4:01 PM
    And your current insurer will have asked any prosecutions pending which you seem to have forgotten to mention.
    Originally posted by forgotmyname
    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
    • By bigadaj 2nd Oct 17, 5:12 PM
    • 10,300 Posts
    • 6,605 Thanks
    bigadaj
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 5:12 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Oct 17, 5:12 PM
    Really, so what was he going to do with the car?
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    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
    • By Warwick Hunt 2nd Oct 17, 5:50 PM
    • 372 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 5:50 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Oct 17, 5:50 PM
    That's irrelevant.

    It's the standard question to apportion blame, someone has either permitted the use or not, it's that simple.
    Originally posted by bigadaj
    Either way it wouldn't be theft.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 2nd Oct 17, 6:59 PM
    • 15,255 Posts
    • 13,592 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Either way it wouldn't be theft.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    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
    • By Warwick Hunt 2nd Oct 17, 7:21 PM
    • 372 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    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/
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    So basically not theft given that its dad's car.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 2nd Oct 17, 7:28 PM
    • 3,309 Posts
    • 3,347 Thanks
    DoaM
    Did Dad know he was driving it and had given permission? If yes then not a TWOC; if no then TWOC hence a criminal offence.

    It could be easily argued that being a named driver on the insurance means no TWOC.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • GunJack
    • By GunJack 2nd Oct 17, 7:39 PM
    • 9,787 Posts
    • 7,292 Thanks
    GunJack
    When did SDP cover not allow you to use the car to go to work?? Isn't that partly what domestic means?
    ......Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 2nd Oct 17, 7:43 PM
    • 372 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    When did SDP cover not allow you to use the car to go to work?? Isn't that partly what domestic means?
    Originally posted by GunJack
    Not according to the oxford dictionary.

    1Relating to the running of a home or to family relations.
    ‘domestic chores’
    ‘domestic violence’

    But then you've struggled with the finer points of insurance before.
    • GunJack
    • By GunJack 2nd Oct 17, 7:50 PM
    • 9,787 Posts
    • 7,292 Thanks
    GunJack
    Not according to the oxford dictionary.

    1Relating to the running of a home or to family relations.
    ‘domestic chores’
    ‘domestic violence’

    But then you've struggled with the finer points of insurance before.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    But isn't going to work relative to running your family/home? i.e. to pay the bills?

    Maybe I'm just out of date, they never used to ask about commuting specifically, just SDP or Business use...when did it become a "specific" requirement?

    Not being obtuse, just wondering...
    ......Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 2nd Oct 17, 7:50 PM
    • 15,255 Posts
    • 13,592 Thanks
    AdrianC
    So basically not theft given that its dad's car.
    Originally posted by Warwick Hunt
    Did dad give permission for the son to commute in it?
    Yes? Then dad is on the hook for IN14.
    No? Then son is on the hook for TWOC.
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 2nd Oct 17, 7:51 PM
    • 15,255 Posts
    • 13,592 Thanks
    AdrianC
    Maybe I'm just out of date, they never used to ask about commuting specifically, just SDP or Business use...when did it become a "specific" requirement?

    Not being obtuse, just wondering...
    Originally posted by GunJack
    It's been on there for years.
    SDP
    SDP + Commute
    Business use
    • takman
    • By takman 2nd Oct 17, 7:52 PM
    • 2,700 Posts
    • 2,247 Thanks
    takman
    When did SDP cover not allow you to use the car to go to work?? Isn't that partly what domestic means?
    Originally posted by GunJack
    Domestic is any driving related to your household so should cover any household tasks such as taking rubbish to the tip and going shopping to buy supplies or new household appliances etc. It's a bit of a stretch to justify going to work as being domestic as that has almost nothing to do with your household (although i know some people say you work to pay for your household).

    But its pretty obvious it doesn't cover it otherwise there wouldn't be the option of standalone SDP and a separate option for SDP & Communting.
    • Warwick Hunt
    • By Warwick Hunt 2nd Oct 17, 8:36 PM
    • 372 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    Warwick Hunt
    Did dad give permission for the son to commute in it?
    Yes? Then dad is on the hook for IN14.
    No? Then son is on the hook for TWOC.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    I'm not arguing that, even if dad reported the car stolen after the event it wouldn't be recorded as theft.
    • sansax
    • By sansax 2nd Oct 17, 9:08 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    sansax
    Not entirely sure where "theft" is coming from. I'm a named driver on the car. I have permission to use it as and when I need to from my dad. I don't have to ask him permission to use the car or where I am taking it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

147Posts Today

1,441Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @furyboy86: @MartinSLewis I read your email, and decided to check my account interest rates. My main account = 0.0%(!) and my cash ISA =?

  • Yes. Theyre being paid. They're responsible. Especially for a scam that's been reported over 20 times andseen vulne? https://t.co/Q0pHZ7iH3W

  • Quite right.Broken system as the six week delay forces the most vulnerable into debt at a crisis moment https://t.co/951fogq5ej

  • Follow Martin