Pulled on way home with new car.

DirectDebacle

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).

Your post shows that

1. You have completely missed the point of my previous posts. No matter, if the driver is unlucky enough to be prosecuted then no doubt a solicitor will try a similar course of action as outlined in those posts.

2. It would seem that your basic knowledge of the judicial system is mainly drawn from T.V. shows which are transmitted for entertainment purposes. These shows are not intended as training material.

Courts do not bring prosecutions in this type of case, they hear them. The CPS will prosecute them. Normally magistrates, either stipendary or lay sit at magistrates courts. It is rare for a judge to sit at a magistrates court.

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")

So you are saying that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect the someone was driving without insurance and issued an HORT 1 which allowed him to continue his jouney. I am sure you know an HORT 1 is not a cover note:rotfl: being an insurance expert an' all.

I won't go on. Most of your comments are T.v show/heard it down the pub snippets and are irrelevant to my points.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

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

No, it's not fronting, as you say, fronting is illegal.
Driving a car not belonging to you isn't illegal provided your own insurance allows it.
As for being more irresponsible, how is that affected by who's car you're driving? If they're irresponsible they'll not bother getting insurance anyway.
It's more down to the fact you can insure your own £250 micra for £800, and drive your mum's uninsured £1500 saxo gti, rather than the £4000 TPFT it would cost you. You don't even need tax on the micra.
Doesn't matter if you crash, or if it's stolen, as you wouldn't be able to afford the claim on your own policy anyway, and you've saved more than the cost of the car on the policy premium to pay for the next one, but you're still insured for third party damage.

Mum can even drive her own people carrier on her own insurance. Just declares she owns another car on her insurance proposal.

dacouch

DirectDebacle wrote: »

Your post shows that

1. You have completely missed the point of my previous posts. No matter, if the driver is unlucky enough to be prosecuted then no doubt a solicitor will try a similar course of action as outlined in those posts.

2. It would seem that your basic knowledge of the judicial system is mainly drawn from T.V. shows which are transmitted for entertainment purposes. These shows are not intended as training material.

Courts do not bring prosecutions in this type of case, they hear them. The CPS will prosecute them. Normally magistrates, either stipendary or lay sit at magistrates courts. It is rare for a judge to sit at a magistrates court.



So you are saying that the police officer had reasonable suspicion to suspect the someone was driving without insurance and issued an HORT 1 which allowed him to continue his jouney. I am sure you know an HORT 1 is not a cover note:rotfl: being an insurance expert an' all.

I won't go on. Most of your comments are T.v show/heard it down the pub snippets and are irrelevant to my points.

My knowledge is from many years in Insurance and having seen and advised people in similar situations as to the OPs friend.

As stated in the eyes of the law you either have insurance or you do not have insurance.

My references to tv shows were to remind people of instances they may have seen the police deal with similar situations as this type of situation is surprisingly regular as alcot33 appears to have been involved in a similar situation.

I fully understand what a HORT is and also fully understand what a Covernote is thank you.

This is the relevant section from the RTA

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.


As I have stated before I personally know of many many people who have been convicted on an IN10 in exactly the same circumstances as the OP. They sometimes get a more lenient penalty but with very few exceptions they always get convicted

custardy

cajef wrote: »

Why would the Police pull a car over just because of where it is registered that does not add up, if they did that as routine they would be pulling millions of cars over every day.

i have been pulled 'as it wasnt a local car' before
so it does happen
as for the op's friend
theres no need to drive uninsured
you can call your present insurer and have the policy changed over there and then(after paying any fee's)
i usually phone up and give them the details ahead of time of a car i maybe buying
if i buy i just call up before driving home and get the cover activated

Wig

Bikertov wrote: »

But surely that would allow ANYONE to get their 'friend' to by a Ferarri, their 'friend' not insure it, and then drive it around via the DOC clause on a cheap TPO policy on their 20-year-old-Mini insurance for a pittance

mikey72 wrote: »

No, it's not fronting, as you say, fronting is illegal.
Driving a car not belonging to you isn't illegal provided your own insurance allows it.

If you read the quote above where this was first suggested, it implies to me that you buy a Ferrari that belongs to you in your friends name, the implication is that it is your vehicle really. If this is the case it is fronting. If your friend has their own Ferrari and they don't mind lending it to you uninsured against any damage to it, that would not be fronting. But I don't know many people who are willing to let their friends have such free (uninsured) reign over the use of their vehicles let alone a Ferrari - do you? In addition to this there would I'm sure be an argument of 'material facts and declarations' The insurance is quoted on the basis that you would normally drive the insured car, if you normally drive another car (regardless of who owns it) without informing your insurer that could be seen as fronting.

As for being more irresponsible, how is that affected by who's car you're driving? If they're irresponsible they'll not bother getting insurance anyway.
It's more down to the fact you can insure your own £250 micra for £800, and drive your mum's uninsured £1500 saxo gti, rather than the £4000 TPFT it would cost you. You don't even need tax on the micra.

An insurer knows young people are more likely to be irresponsible they want to minimise their risk and that means knowing what car they will be driving at all times. They don't want them to have the temptation to borrow someones car which is more powerful and have a "lets see what she can do" moment. What you suggest is really just a small part of a bigger picture - that of knowing what they are insuring the muppets for.

mikey72

Wig wrote: »

If you read the quote above where this was first suggested, it implies to me that you buy a Ferrari that belongs to you in your friends name, the implication is that it is your vehicle really. If this is the case it is fronting. If your friend has their own Ferrari and they don't mind lending it to you uninsured against any damage to it, that would not be fronting. But I don't know many people who are willing to let their friends have such free (uninsured) reign over the use of their vehicles let alone a Ferrari - do you? In addition to this there would I'm sure be an argument of 'material facts and declarations' The insurance is quoted on the basis that you would normally drive the insured car, if you normally drive another car (regardless of who owns it) without informing your insurer that could be seen as fronting.




An insurer knows young people are more likely to be irresponsible they want to minimise their risk and that means knowing what car they will be driving at all times. They don't want them to have the temptation to borrow someones car which is more powerful and have a "lets see what she can do" moment. What you suggest is really just a small part of a bigger picture - that of knowing what they are insuring the muppets for.

I remember Statler and Waldorf, or do you mean muppets have an age limit?
As my example, mum quite often lets her kids drive the car.
My insurance asks if I am the main driver, answer yes, do I own other vechicles, answer yes, have I access to other vechicles, answer yes.
No where does it ask if I normally drive the insured car in preference to any other.
And before you make assumptions, my kids don't drive, and when they do they're getting the micra.

socks_uk

To be honest I have only skim read this thread but I just wanted to say that before I bought my car I did one of those HPI checks that covered me for the insurance if I bought the car (with the AA I think).

It doesn't help the OP's husband's friend but might help someone else.

Bikertov

socks_uk wrote: »

To be honest I have only skim read this thread but I just wanted to say that before I bought my car I did one of those HPI checks that covered me for the insurance if I bought the car (with the AA I think).

It doesn't help the OP's husband's friend but might help someone else.

Very useful to know that - and gives some 'value' to the price of the check.

Definately worth checking out the Terms and Conditions of this to make sure.