Getting caught driving without a licence

vaio

vaio wrote: »

The insurance is the big one and will probably attract 6 points and a sizable fine for both of them. The licence is less so, probably 3 points and a small fine.

One very important point to check, if she is either a named driver on his policy or has the DOC extension on a policy of her own then, the way I read it, S151(3) of the Road Traffic Act prevents insurance companies getting out of third party claims because of licence irregularities

In deciding for the purposes of subsection (2) above whether a liability is or would be covered by the terms of a policy or security, so much of the policy or security as purports to restrict, as the case may be, the insurance of the persons insured by the policy or the operation of the security by reference to the holding by the driver of the vehicle of a licence authorising him to drive it shall be treated as of no effect.

If that is the case then she was actually insured and obviously the BF is also not guilty of any insurance offence.

raskazz wrote: »

That Section of the Act is not relevant to a charge of using a vehicle whilst uninsured against third party liabilities. That Section just defines the insurer's obligations to third parties.

The offence is under Section 143 of the Act which states in part (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"

There was no policy inforce in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person so the driver can certainly be charged and convicted of the offence.

The Act then goes on to state in part (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"

So clearly the driver's partner can be charged and convicted of this offence.

That’s why I prefixed my post with “if she is either a named driver on his policy or has the DOC extension on a policy of her own”

By my reading S151(3) as quoted above prevents insurance companies voiding otherwise valid third party insurance just because the driver doesn’t hold the correct licence.

Obviously if she isn’t a named driver and/or doesn’t have the DOC cover then they are both guilty.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

That’s why I prefixed my post with “if she is either a named driver on his policy or has the DOC extension on a policy of her own”

By my reading S151(3) as quoted above prevents insurance companies voiding otherwise valid third party insurance just because the driver doesn’t hold the correct licence.

Obviously if she isn’t a named driver and/or doesn’t the DOC cover then they are both guilty.

I think it is highly, highly unlikely that she would have been granted the driving other cars benefit as a provisional licence holder.

If the driver was named on the policy with a Provisional licence disclosed, then Section 151 is not relevant because the driver is then insured against third-party risks as required by Section 143 as there is inforce a policy in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road by that person.

If the driver was named on the policy with a Full licence disclosed, then the insurer could still obtain a court declaration of voidance under Section 152. It would escape any strict Road Traffic Act liabilities, (but would in all probability remain the MIB's "Article 75" insurer) thus still leaving the driver open to prosecution under Section 143. Plus, the fact that licence status is not prescribed in Section 148 means that in law the incident can be deemed an offence under Section 143, despite the insurer not being able to repudiate third party claims in the absence of declaration proceedings.

A parellel to illustrate my point is the case of a policyholder with a cancelled policy who has not returned the Certificate of Insurance. If the driver is caught using the car, the policy is cancelled therefore there is no policy inforce in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road by that person. The offence has been committed under Section 143. However, if that driver had had an accident, then Section 151 may prevent the insurer from repudiating third-party claims.

Wee_Willy_Harris

amcluesent wrote: »

Surely in court it would be better for her to swear she took the car without hubby's knowledge, i.e. cough to TWOKing, so she takes the heat. If she blubs and shows some leg, I'm sure the ageing male magistrates will be understanding.

Sounds to me like decent people make a tiny mistake and because they are easy targets the bizzies then throw the book thrown at them. Plenty of TV programmes show yoofs raising merry hell in stolen motors and they get a £50 fine and 10 minute 'community order'.

I think the word you are looking for is "perjury"...... a very serious word.

Hammyman

Wee_Willy_Harris wrote: »

I think the word you are looking for is "perjury"...... a very serious word.

Apart from that, TWOC carries a possible custodial sentence and "Theft of a Motor Vehicle" looks a damned sight worse on the list of declared convictions on a job application form or CRB check.

wattywattwatt

Don't know why anyone comes on here to dish out advice, let them suffer the consequences and hopefully they won't do it again. Chances are though if they were stupid enough to think they could get away with it once, no doubt it will happen again! Just pity the other law abiding road users who get in the way when it all goes pear-shaped. No sympathy.

maninthestreet

amcluesent wrote: »

Surely in court it would be better for her to swear she took the car without hubby's knowledge, i.e. cough to TWOKing, so she takes the heat. If she blubs and shows some leg, I'm sure the ageing male magistrates will be understanding.

Sounds to me like decent people make a tiny mistake and because they are easy targets the bizzies then throw the book thrown at them. Plenty of TV programmes show yoofs raising merry hell in stolen motors and they get a £50 fine and 10 minute 'community order'.

The offenders in this case knew full well they were breaking the law, but took the risk that they wouldn't be caught. Well, they were caught, and quite rightly so. No one should have any sympathy for them. We have driving tests and insurance requirements for very good reasons.

gordikin

amcluesent wrote: »

Surely in court it would be better for her to swear she took the car without hubby's knowledge, i.e. cough to TWOKing, so she takes the heat. If she blubs and shows some leg, I'm sure the ageing male magistrates will be understanding.

Sounds to me like decent people make a tiny mistake and because they are easy targets the bizzies then throw the book thrown at them. Plenty of TV programmes show yoofs raising merry hell in stolen motors and they get a £50 fine and 10 minute 'community order'.

The above is wrong on so many levels!

happyandy63

Its not a tiny mistake its complete disregard for the law and other peoples safety. I don't know what will happen but in my view they should remove both there licences, removethe car, fine them and give comunity service. She would have been stopped for a reason, so she obviously does not know how to drive and does not care. Was she going to fast, did not stop at a light?

the182guy

amcluesent wrote: »

Plenty of TV programmes show yoofs raising merry hell in stolen motors and they get a £50 fine and 10 minute 'community order'.

I saw one where an underage driver (16 i think), got caught and was let off with no fine or anything. Was funny because when caught the two officers were talking like it was the end of the world for him, loads of points, big fines, ban as soon as gains licence. Then at the end of the show it said "....and the underage driver was let off".