Insurance & Test driving a privatly bought used car

Rolandtheroadie

vaio wrote: »

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.

How would you prove to a court of law that this discussion had taken place?
Thats before you even get into the legalities of such an un witnessed spoken "contract".

bigjl

KillerWatt wrote: »

The law does not require the car itself to be insured (if it did, then the spotty 17 year old would pay exactly the same as someone who has 30 odd years of experience for the same type of car), it is the driver who needs insurance to use a motor vehicle on a public highway.

Did you read that before you posted as it makes no sense.

The car would be insured and then the policy would have the drivers that where permitted to drive added on unless the policy covered any drivers licensed to drive the car, subject to age restrictions.

And you can also be charged for having an uninsured car on the public highway.

As far as all this rubbish about I gave him permission because he said he had insurance and now he doesn't have it I remove my consent.

If the old bill pull you over and somebody is driving your car, then you have given consent, you can't change your mind unless you want the driver charged with TWOC, which may be difficult if you are sitting beside them.

The case would go to court and you would answer to the charges, if, as I said you had checked that the driver had insurance to drive your car with minimum liabilty, 3rd party, but this turned out to be forged or cancelled, then you have commited the offence of allowing your vehicle to be used on the public highway without insurance, your mitigation would be that you took all reasonable steps to make sure that the driver was insured, it would be up to the court to decide if you are guilty.

dacouch

For the record, if you loan your car to say a friend and they advise you they are insured to drive the car and it subsequently turns out they were not insured, there is case history of the courts not convicting the owner for aiding and abetting no insurance.

Raskazz has posted case histories for the above.

It is obviously best practice to ask to see insurance documents and check they are covered eg mid etc though

vaio

scotsman4th wrote: »

How would you prove to a court of law that this discussion had taken place?
Thats before you even get into the legalities of such an un witnessed spoken "contract".

I suppose the same way as any other discussion is dealt with in court, maybe written down, maybe witnesses, maybe cctv, maybe the driver confirms it.

Whatever, it doesn’t alter the basis of what I am saying, conditional consent will protect against a “allowing” offence

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

For the record, if you loan your car to say a friend and they advise you they are insured to drive the car and it subsequently turns out they were not insured, there is case history of the courts not convicting the owner for aiding and abetting no insurance........

Yep, in those circumstances I can see they might have a defence to aiding and abetting but they would have no defence to allowing uninsured use

bigjl

vaio wrote: »

I suppose the same way as any other discussion is dealt with in court, maybe written down, maybe witnesses, maybe cctv, maybe the driver confirms it.

Whatever, it doesn’t alter the basis of what I am saying, conditional consent will protect against a “allowing” offence

If I went to look at a used car and the buyer asked if I was insured and I produced Insurance, then the seller asked me to sign a written statement, I would laugh and walk away, plenty more cars to buy that aren't being sold by bedroom solicitors and people that are just plain mad to bother.

missile

vaio wrote: »

I agree, “I didn’t know” is no defence but that’s nothing to do with what I said.

I said “if I give you permission to drive my car as long as you arrange (or have) insurance then surely if it subsequently transpires that you don't then you are guilty of the no insurance and also of taking my car without consent.”

If my car is driven without my consent then there is no requirement on me to ensure the driver is insured

Ignorance of the law is no excuse either :rotfl:

vaio

Absolutely right

But I can’t seem to see who is suggesting that it is?

sassy_one

OP, you do have the option to request the buyer that maybe interested to obtain 'Day Insurance' which can be quite easily provided via looking on Google.

Hope you manage to have a easy sale

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

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.

This post is spot on and very well explained.