Pulled on way home with new car.

MORPH3US

Wig wrote: »

I have never read a "young driver" policy, can you link to some?

Its not on "young driver" policies, its on most (all?) policies that anyone covered on the policy, if under 25, are not covered to drive other cars.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

100% incorrect IMHO

I have never read a "young driver" policy, can you link to some?

Can you link to some of them? I haven't seen them.

There's no policy specifically for a young driver, although some companies may specialise in younger drivers as a target group, but if you ask a young driver they will have a policy they can show you.

dacouch

DirectDebacle wrote: »

The facts are it is alleged he was driving without insurance provided he was the owner of the car.

He is not guilty of anything until convicted.

If the police officer had done his job correctly then he would have not been allowed to continue driving the car.


The police allowed him to continue driving.

It is unlikely that the CPS would prosecute given that,

1. There was no intent to commit any offence. Having no intention to cause an offence does not make you immune from the laws of the road. People drive in bus lanes, they generally don't do it intentionally but will receive a fixed penalty irrespective of whether it was intentional or not.

2. He thought his insurance was valid This is not a excuse in the eyes of the law, it might be seen as a mitigating factor that may influence the severity of a sentance a judge gives (If it went in front of a magistrate).

If someones insurance is cancelled because of a problem say their bank caused and the Insurer cancelled it due to payment problems. They will still normally receive an IN10 conviction. They thought their insurance was valid but still receive convictions

3. The police confirmed to him that his insurance was valid. The policeman rang the Insurers to confirm whether the driver had the DOC extension. However they also gave him a seven day wonder. If they were absoloutly certain he was covered to drive they would not have given the HORT. (I would not be surprised if they have ticked "Record" on the HORT rather than the normal "Check")

4. The vehicle was not involved in any accident nor were there any other offences committed. This makes no difference in the eyes of the law, the vast vast majority of people who are convicted of an IN10 offence have not been involved in an accident. They have simply been stopped by the police or more often now days stopped due to the car flagging up on the ANPR camera that there is no insurance in place. An accident occuring can sometimes influence the severity of the sentance if it goes in front of a magistrate (Unless your name is Harriet Harman)

5. The CPS would have to consider prosecuting the chief constable for aiding and abetting. No they would not, the police let guilty people through the hands every day, it's the nature of the job. Did the Chief Constable who was in charge when the Yorkshire Ripper was let go get prosecuted?

6. The police officer would have to be investigated for neglect of duty. See 5

It is not a question of whether he has a defence or not but the likelihood of a prosecution being continued should one be made. As Annihalter has mentioned, no insurance is an absolute offence, you either have insurance or you don't. When the person does not produce the document they will either receive a fixed penalty or a court summons automatically.

In the unlikely event of this coming to court then of course there is a defence that the police told him he was insured to drive. Had he known he was not insured then he would not have driven. I work in Insurance and have seen dozens of people receive IN10 convictions in the same circumstances. The drivers situation is not at all unusual as a lot of people make this mistake. The traffic police know how insurance works, if you ever watch any of the police shows, when they stop a driver who has just bought a car and tells them they are driving it under their DOC they realise they is a good chance they are not covered by their DOC. This is why they ask specific questions in these cases about ownership.

People will often also receive an IN10 if their broker made a mistake and did not issue cover for their replacement car / new police.


It is up to a court whether or not they accept this as a defence. If not, then given the circumstances, any punishment would be as lenient as could be.

If I were to receive a summons for this then I would at least seek some proper advice and not just 'roll over' as you suggest.

A court will normally not prosecute for aiding and abetting no insurance if you allowed another driver to drive your vehicle and you had reasonably believed they had insurance in place to cover eg they told you they were covered by their own policy to drive other cars (Not assuming your own policy covered them as a driver).

Wig

mikey72 wrote: »

There's no policy specifically for a young driver, although some companies may specialise in younger drivers as a target group, but if you ask a young driver they will have a policy they can show you.

So it's just not showing up on their certificates. I can understand that. It's probably a lot to do with the fact that young drivers are more likely to be irrisponsible on the road, so this is one risk they are not prepared to cover young drivers for. Nothing to do with them having their mate keep a car for them I suspect.

"fronting" I know what fronting is generally understood to be (because that is it's most common manifestation in the car insurance industry, not many people go down the Ferrari route), but it can be correctly used to describe any similar illegal fraudulent activity, which is what was suggested with the Ferrari would be - illegal activity.
originating from.....
front noun (APPEARANCE)
/frʌnt/ n [C usually singular]
[C usually singular] the character or qualities which a person or organization appears to have in public which is different from their real character, and whose purpose is often to deceive people or hide an illegal activity

Exemplar

I got done by this scenario. Six points and £400. My fault completely and I shouldered all the blame. Now if I buy a car I simply MAKE SURE I RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY!!

Wig

alcot33uk wrote: »

I got done by this scenario. Six points and £400. My fault completely and I shouldered all the blame. Now if I buy a car I simply MAKE SURE I RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY!!

Care to expand on what happened?

Bikertov

Wig wrote: »

I already know my policy wording and that of the last 8 (different) insurers I have had.
I seriously suggest YOU check YOUR policy on this.

In response to the Ferrari issue, you would only be insured TPO so any bump would be expensive to repair. You would also fall foul of the rules on "fronting" and if discovered could lose your cover completely. Your 'friend' might also decide to sell 'his' Ferrari where would you be then?

Interestingly, I checked my policy (with More Th>n) ... and it does not appear to require the 'other' vehicle to be insured

However, it does only cover drivers over 25 years of age.

What I would say to everyone is not to RELY on this clause unless you are absolutely certain of your policy wording in this area, just to protect yourself and your license.

So, my mate - must persuade him to get that Ferrari now !

Exemplar

Not really Wig, its all a bit embarassing to me and that's why I, for once in my life, used the CAPS!! now about that Ferrari.........

Bikertov

dacouch wrote: »

A court will normally not prosecute for aiding and abetting no insurance if you allowed another driver to drive your vehicle and you had reasonably believed they had insurance in place to cover eg they told you they were covered by their own policy to drive other cars (Not assuming your own policy covered them as a driver).

It is also NOT a valid defence to say to the court:

'... but someone on the MSE Forum said it was OK'

Notwithstanding everything that has been said here, I think the moral is CHECK your Policy, and with your insurance company FIRST

dacouch

Bikertov wrote: »

Interestingly, I checked my policy (with More Th>n) ... and it does not appear to require the 'other' vehicle to be insured

However, it does only cover drivers over 25 years of age.

What I would say to everyone is not to RELY on this clause unless you are absolutely certain of your policy wording in this area, just to protect yourself and your license.

So, my mate - must persuade him to get that Ferrari now !

That very good advice.

If anyone wants to check the specific wording for their own Insurer, it is actually very easy. You simply look at your Policy Booklet (Many are on the Insurers websites). You look in the index for a heading along the lines of "Your Liability to Others" and you will find a subsection for "Driving Other Cars". It will contain any specific restriction etc in there.

Be aware that a few Insurers exclude you from driving a car belonging to a spouse or partner.

Very very few Insurers (I know of only four) specify the other vehicle has to hold it's own Insurance but it is best to check.

Also be aware that quite a few Insurers specify that your own car eg the one covered by your policy must be still beloing to you / be useable on the road. This is designed to prevent people insuring a non driving wreck car to get the driving other cars benefit. Be carefull as this can mean your driving other cars is not covered if your own car is written off in an accident (Until you reinsure a replacement with them). Lots of people get caught out by this.

Insurers do not cover everyone for driving other cars and some Insurers do not offer it to anyone, it is typically just for policyholders aged 25 or over. They do exclude certain occupations from this eg people in the motortrade and sometimes people in the transport industry. Either check with your Insurers and / or check the certificate of Insurance. If it is not on your Certificate then you are almost certainly not covered to as the Certificate is a legal document that declares whether it is covered