Insurance & Test driving a privatly bought used car

Rolandtheroadie

You are giving your consent for them to drive the car. That cannot be taken away again after the event.

newbie007_2

Agreed with viao and pretty much what I said, It should be upto the other party to ensure they have cover to drive other cars.

If they get pulled and done for 6 points and fined, thats their problem not the car holder's.

Car owner also gets done for 6 points and fined where they are not the one committing the offence is a new one to me.

For those who say that the law will also penalise the owner please can you show me some evidence to enlighten me.

vaio

scotsman4th wrote: »

You are giving your consent for them to drive the car. That cannot be taken away again after the event.

Nope, it's conditional consent which is no consent if the conditions are not fulfilled

Quentin

newbie007 wrote: »

For those who say that the law will also penalise the owner please can you show me some evidence to enlighten me.

Google!

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drivingwithoutinsurance.htm#I_allowed_a_friend_to_drive_my_car_believing_they_were_insured_when_they_were_not._Where_do_I_stand

vaio

Because insurance is absolute (in that it either exists or doesn’t) the way it goes is:

If the owner gives consent in ignorance of whether the driver is insured and it subsequently turns out he isn’t then the owner is guilty of the allowing offence and the driver is guilty of the using offence.

If the owner gives consent in the belief that the driver is insured and it subsequently turns out he isn’t then the owner is guilty of the allowing offence and the driver is guilty of the using offence.

If the owner gives consent conditional on the driver holding or arranging insurance and it subsequently turns out he isn’t covered then the owner is not guilty of the allowing offence and the driver is guilty of the using offence and of taking the car without consent.

Rolandtheroadie

I suppose it would then be down to the court believing that you genuinely thought the driver was insured.

The offence code for no insurance is IN10. Aiding, Abetting, Counceling or Procuring would be IN12 and Causing or Permitting would be IN14. (thats the light)

KillerWatt

vaio wrote: »

If the owner gives consent conditional on the driver holding or arranging insurance and it subsequently turns out he isn’t covered then the owner is not guilty the allowing offence and the driver is guilty of the using offence and of taking the car without consent.

Do you have a link to the relevant legislation that allows whoever is in charge of the vehicle to give "conditional" consent to it's use?

The reason I ask is because right now the law states that whoever is in charge of the vehicle is also responsible for ensuring it is used legally when on a public highway and there is no visible "get out" clause that I can see.

vaio

scotsman4th wrote: »

I suppose it would then be down to the court believing that you genuinely thought the driver was insured.

The offence code for no insurance is IN10. Aiding, Abetting, Counceling or Procuring would be IN12 and Causing or Permitting would be IN14. (thats the light)

No, it's got nothing to do with you believing he was insured, the insurance is either in place or not.

Rolandtheroadie

vaio wrote: »

No, it's got nothing to do with you believing he was insured, the insurance is either in place or not.

You've just went full circle then.
The insurance is in place yes or no. Ok, no problem with that. But that excludes your "I gave permission but withdrew it when I found out he wasnt insured" defence.
It is then down to whether YOU have satisfied yourself they are insured or not. And whether a court of law believes this also.
The link from Quentin suggests you were shown a valid insurance document(that is subsequently found to be invalid).
Otherwise YOU have commited an offence (probably IN12)

vaio

scotsman4th wrote: »

You've just went full circle then.
The insurance is in place yes or no. Ok, no problem with that. But that excludes your "I gave permission but withdrew it when I found out he wasnt insured" defence.
It is then down to whether YOU have satisfied yourself they are insured or not. And whether a court of law believes this also.
The link from Quentin suggests you were shown a valid insurance document(that is subsequently found to be invalid).
Otherwise YOU have commited an offence (probably IN12)

You are not reading my posts properly, I’m not taking about withdrawing consent after the event or consent given in the mistaken belief that insurance exists. Neither would provide a defence.

I’m taking about giving consent conditional on the driver holding the required insurance, if the condition is fulfilled the consent exists, if the condition isn’t fulfilled then there is no consent.

If there is no consent then there is no allowing offence.