Motor insurance mess-up, legal implications :(

lincroft1710

No one is disputing his honesty and integrity, it is his naivety or even ignorance in this matter that a court will find difficult to believe. I've known several people who've been magistrates and I am certain most would have been aware of wording on insurance certificates before they took on magisterial duties.

wontfallforit

DCFC79 wrote: »

Surely as your partner works in te trade then he should have been aware of not being able to drive another persons car whatever he was told by the ins co

Again, see the reply above. Again, he is a mere mechanic. He was not aware in any way, shape or form. If he had been aware, he would've arranged cover. He is fairly conscientious when it comes to keeping his nose clean, legally, and is mortified at the prospect of having a criminal record in the near future.

Since the incident, he has been officially added to my policy for no extra cost (due to his experience, age, and as-of-yet clean driving history!).

Out of interest, he has always been a named driver on his mother's insurance policy, and this has never come at any extra cost. The reason why he's always been on this policy is because his mother's car is valuable, and he prefers to drive it on a fully-comp basis. He drives his own on a TPO basis, and (thought) he was covered to drive other cars on a TPO basis.

I don't understand why the fact that he is a mechanic means that for whatever reason he should be aware of the insurance implications you're suggesting. He was unaware of the fact that his occupation would affect his policy to this degree until literally the day the incident happened. Granted, he isn't the sharpest tool in the box (:o), but that's not what he's paid for.

I will point out again that there was no financial reason for him not being present on my insurance policy in the first place, and proof of this will be presented to the court.

starrystarry

wontfallforit wrote: »

I will point out again that there was no financial reason for him not being present on my insurance policy in the first place, and proof of this will be presented to the court.

Just out of interest then, why wasn't he on your insurance? Did he know before this incident that it wouldn't cost any extra?

wontfallforit

lincroft1710 wrote: »

No one is disputing his honesty and integrity, it is his naivety or even ignorance in this matter that a court will find difficult to believe. I've known several people who've been magistrates and I am certain most would have been aware of wording on insurance certificates before they took on magisterial duties.

Yes, totally understood. He also understands the fact that he has committed the offence, technically speaking. However, the fact that he telephoned the ins. company to me demonstrates that he was not being ignorant towards the particulars of motor insurance regulations. He had doubts in his mind that he may not be covered, and thought that he best check. He got it wrong, no doubt, and was certainly naive (my words exactly!), but did take reasonable steps to attempt to ensure he was covered, albeit (in hindsight), the completely wrong steps

dacouch

Which insurer is it

wontfallforit

starrystarry wrote: »

Just out of interest then, why wasn't he on your insurance? Did he know before this incident that it wouldn't cost any extra?

To cut a long story short, myself and my partner were both on my ins. policy when I bought the car, as we were both driving my car at the time (he was temporarily without his own car). He was removed from the policy when we had a hiatus in our relationship, a little less than a year ago.

In the meantime, whilst we were separated, he bought and insured his own car (i.e. the very policy that is in question). He was never put back on my policy, as he was a) 100% sure he was covered, now he had his own policy, and his insurer's word for it, and b) we simply didn't get round to it

Again for proof for the court, I have the old documents which state the fact that we were previously insured together on the very same car, for a good price. I realise that this is a little extreme and smacks of "clutching at straws", but it's a case of every little helps, if we're unable to get transcripts of phonecalls to the MI company.

starrystarry

To be honest, I wouldn't even bother bringing that stuff up in court. I don't think it'll make any difference whatsoever. I also wouldn't mention that fact that he has called his insurance company several times to ask whether he's covered to drive other cars. It suggests he had some doubt about whether he was covered. If he called once and they reassured him, why did he need to keep ringing to ask the same question?

wontfallforit

dacouch wrote: »

Which insurer is it

Quinn. A company I've had issues with myself in the past (though, granted, entirely unrelated, and without legal implication).

wontfallforit

starrystarry wrote: »

To be honest, I wouldn't even bother bringing that stuff up in court. I don't think it'll make any difference whatsoever. I also wouldn't mention that fact that he has called his insurance company several times to ask whether he's covered to drive other cars. It suggests he had some doubt about whether he was covered.

The doubt arose from the lack of confirmation in writing in the first place. He arranged this policy via telephone, outlined his needs, and received a rather sparse insurance certificate.

If he called once and they reassured him, why did he need to keep ringing to ask the same question?

He would periodically ring before commencement of driving another car for a period of more than a couple of days. I don't know...naivete, I assume. Covering his back, and belief in the assumption that if he rang them, calls would be recorded as proof?

I realise that calls are not always recorded, yet this seems to have only just dawned on my partner. He doesn't have much experience in dealing with call centres and the likes. As I arrange payment of bills, dealing with the bank, etc., his motor insurer and his mobile phone issuer have been pretty much the only two companies he's ever had to contact in this manner.

Again, another lesson to be learned

Without actually slandering my beloved OH, he has some fairly simplistic views on how the world works sometimes!

starrystarry

I do sympathise with you both, it's a hard lesson to learn.

I know I'm probably stating the obvious here, but don't forget to let all the insurance companies know when he gets his 6 points. Otherwise he could end up in a similar pickle. Might be best if you supervise him doing this