Motor insurance mess-up, legal implications :(

lincroft1710

Whatever he says in mitigation won't help him. If he says he understood he was covered, magistrates will just say he should have checked his insurance certificate. If he says he didn't check the certificate........bad move!!!

It seems to have been an honest but costly mistake. Only comfort can be that it was discovered in time. Had he been in an accident even a no fault one.............

wontfallforit

starrystarry wrote: »

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

LOL. I'm torn between totally taking over, and making him find his own way in this complicated world. Off-topic, recently he received a phonecall from his bank inviting him to take a credit card with them (something I've been nagging for him to get, in the interest of building up credit). He came home and excitedly told me that the bank had offered him a credit card, but that it was a "limited offer" for one day only, and that he had to act fast. Only after my explanation that the bank employee was chasing commission did it dawn on him that he could actually get a credit card at pretty much any time.

Believe it or not, he is of normal intelligence level, I swear

Oh well, I guess there's not a great deal that would mitigate his situation, then, never mind - thanks to everyone for their input x

Proc

I still stand by what I say that insurance proposal forms should have an IQ test attached.

dacouch

A private motor policy would not cover your husband (Even if he had driving other cars) for driving vehicles in "Connection with the motortrade eg test runs , driving to mot centre driving it around in between him working on it. This would apply to his "Private" work where money changes hands.

If your husband had rung an Insurer to ask specifically if he was covered to drive other peoples car it should ring alarm bells to anyone who has any experience

wontfallforit

dacouch wrote: »

A private motor policy would not cover your husband (Even if he had driving other cars) for driving vehicles in "Connection with the motortrade eg test runs , driving to mot centre driving it around in between him working on it. This would apply to his "Private" work where money changes hands.

Not husband, but thats irrelevant

If your husband had rung an Insurer to ask specifically if he was covered to drive other peoples car it should ring alarm bells to anyone who has any experience

That's the point, really. He purchased the policy upon the (verbal) stipulation that he could drive other cars. Always has done, always will do. So when the certificate arrived without this specific clause in writing, he thought nothing of it, as he had no intention of using that clause anyway, at the time (stupid mistake #1).

However, as I've stated ad nauseam, when he did come to drive other cars (including mine, but also in relation to other cars), he rang the insurance company to check he was covered, given the fact that the insurance certificate conflicted with the verbal agreement he (thought) he'd made upon purchase.

The sticking point is that the insurance company have stated time and time again that yes, he is covered on a TPO basis, to drive other cars. Sure, it may well be a mistake (probably is), but where my OH has made his own foolish mistake in not obtaining written proof, the ins. company has also made (repeated) mistakes by assuring him he was covered.

Another thing is that he does not do private work for which money changes hands. For reasons of time constraint, he gave up doing "foreigners" a few years ago, and sticks to helping out friends and family. But again, that doesn't seem relevant. He was driving my car to commute, and also happened to be working on a couple of niggling issues bit-by-bit, both within and outside the workplace.

As stated in my original post, we have proof that the phonecall relating to driving my car took place - just no proof as of yet of an actual recording/transcript. We'll be chasing it up tomorrow, when everything re-opens.

After some thought, we've come to the conclusion that he's unlikely to "get anywhere" with this, especially without a transcript of that crucial phonecall. I'll keep this thread updated if we manage to get hold of it.

Naturally, it's just incredibly frustrating that he did attempt to ensure he was covered - albeit in completely the wrong way :-S

Anihilator

Why exactly does your husband need the DOE so often? Whose cars is it he is driving.

Tbh I wouldnt waste your time. You have no legal defence at all and if you drag this to court they will hammer him more. It didnt state on his policy hence he wasnt insured.

wontfallforit

Anihilator wrote: »

Why exactly does your husband need the DOE so often? Whose cars is it he is driving.

A couple of occasions that spring to mind in the last few months:

- collecting cars that my brother and sister bought (both are inexperienced drivers, and "don't do" motorways yet)
- returning my brother's car (highly dodgy purchase, refund obtained)
- re-tyring his own brother's car, which for the reason of laziness (on his brothers part!), my OH did the driving back and to for
- collecting and returning my sisters car following a minor paintwork job

Having a mechanic in the family circle is unfortunately something that has been heavily taken advantage of over the years. Due to his expertise, all car issues seem to defer automatically to my OH...even those that could be easily sorted out without the input of a trained mechanic.

For me, this lack of cover we've only recently become aware of is a blessing in disguise. OH is one of those types who "just can't say no"...

Anihilator

so the DOE is being used in relation to his trade as a mechanic which would suggest to me even if it did apply would be void.

Btw your examples are exactly why it isnt allowed. to prevent mechanics driving everyone's cars as a "homer"

badger247

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb

wontfallforit

Update - calls to motor insurance company were located, yet were not needed.

The 'case' has been dropped, as it transpired that the officer who stopped my OH had my car seized unecessarily. What he should've done (apparently, according to two of his senior colleagues) is asked my OH to ring myself - or another insured driver - to come and collect the car, on the basis that the car did have the min. 3rd party only insurance in place, despite the fact that my OH wasn't personally authorised to drive it. This could've been easily arranged, yet the option wasn't even offered, the officer had the car seized without question.

Seemingly, the officer opted for the usual course of action for when a car has no insurance whatsoever in place.

Additionally, the booking slip he handed to my OH was filled out incorrectly (and handed to my OH a week after the incident - the officer actually turned up at my OH's house to present the forgotten item!). He specified an incorrect offence code, and also written a date for insurance/licence production that made my OH unintentionally 7 days late in 'producing'.

Apparently, the officer in question is known for his gaffes along these lines, and the decision to prosecute was left to him - which he has decided against (probably in case his multiple mistakes were pointed out in court?).

Thank heavens that's over! We're not going to bother pursuing the recovery costs we incurred (as we do still acknowledge that OH was technically in the wrong, and we don't want to take advantage of the officer's mistakes), we're just thankful we got a 'result'.

Lesson learnt...moving on