Car Insurance for Convicted Driver - TT99 - advice needed

dacouch

http://www.roadsafebusinessdrivingtoolkit.co.uk/5021/pdf/LegalCases.pdf


http://www.fleetdirections.com/Features/CorporateManslaughter.html

http://www.motortradenews.com/news/automotive-news/28836-fleet-bosses-risk-prosecution-over-unlicenced-drivers.html

vaio

yep, but do you know of any other cases where a director or senior manager personally got points because the company couldn't disclose who was driving under s172?

Keeping a log of drivers, whilst probably a good idea, isn't a legal requirement.

As I said above, I suspect there is more to this case then we have been told

dacouch

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/news/1218/103/Can-we-get-penalty-points-if-the-company-has-been-summonsed.php

http://www.pepipoo.com/Section_172.htm

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

yep, but do you know of any other cases where a director or senior manager personally got points because the company couldn't disclose who was driving under s172?

I've seen at least a dozen or so in cases that have been presented to me by brokers for quotation.

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/news/1218/103/Can-we-get-penalty-points-if-the-company-has-been-summonsed.php

http://www.pepipoo.com/Section_172.htm

Shocking spelling & grammar from the Patterson Law one, you'd have though you'd get beeter from a law firm. Both those state the law and confirm that for a director to personally get points the police have to prove that he actively or deliberately caused or connived in failing to disclose. Passivly not keeping a log isn't enough, there must be mens rea

I and at least one other small company I know have protected company drivers from points by not disclosing and letting the company take the fine. In both cases the plea was guilty, lack of driver log was advanced as mitigation (rather than defence) and the fine was under £300 plus a promise to the magistrate that a log would be kept in future.

Had the police known the full circumstances they could have gone to get points on directors or maybe even more serious charges (like that lib dem MP) but the only way they could find out is if one of the people involved was stupid enough to tell them.

Same logic would apply to the OP, hopefully the full details will come out as there must be more that we have yet to hear

vaio

raskazz wrote: »

I've seen at least a dozen or so in cases that have been presented to me by brokers for quotation.

does that equate to really rare or really common?

Google couldn't find any (or at least Google couldn't find any using the search terms I could think of)

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

Shocking spelling & grammar from the Patterson Law one, you'd have though you'd get beeter from a law firm.

Sorry could not resist...Freudian slip

vaio

fill your boots mate, fill your boots

My only defence is I have an engineering rather than a law degree

forgotmyname

dacouch wrote: »

It's to try and ensure you supply them with up to date date, but more so that as an employer you have a duty under law to ensure company vehicle drivers and even employees driving their own vehicles for your business purposes have a valid licence and are not banned.

It's technically possible that if you do not check licences and drivers using their own vehicles for business purposes. That the company directors or sole trader or if they are sensible and make an employee responsible eg transport manager could be convicted of with a similar conviction to culpable homicide if the have not been checking licences and Insurances if a driver with who is banned or whose licence is invalid causes an accident involving a death.

It's wise as well to give any of your drivers a "Drivers handbook" which outlines their duties eg ensure car is roadworthy each time they use it, path to report damage, explain how to deal with accidents, advice on safe driving etc. If you do this get each driver to sign to acknowledge receipt of the book and any updates.

Their insurance no longer covers vehicles not owned by the company. And not allowing people on the insurance until a copy of their licence is not a problem anyway. The way i see if only people bending the rules or total fraud seem to be affected.

Many years back a firm i worked for hired a HVG driver, He made excuses for not bringing his licence in. He slipped up when chatting to another driver saying he had not been for a HGV test.
Escorted from the premises with him saying he will be back his dads some bigwig solicitor. He wasnt.
But the company stepped up after that.

RedSlayer

Quote wrote: »

If you haven't been convicted of speeding then you can afford to be holier-than-thou. I don't object to people convicted of speeding, per se, it's just just the attitude they have on here. Moaning about the price of their insurance. Should they pay the same for insurance as someone who hasn't been caught speeding? No.

So S T F U.

I agree totally, but I have a caveat - ban the grannies, and Sunday drivers - for life - that have 3 mile tail-backs in a 50 zone - doing 30 (believing that they are safe drivers - but causing head-ons from people trying to adhere to the safe driving speed indicated on sign-posts).
I know so many crazies: gripping their steering wheel, their backs away from their seats - hunched in terror - when they go above 20mph - unbelievable lack of confidence / driving skill - ban 'em forever!

Now THAT would stop a lot of speeders (cos they wouldn't be delayed by these brain-dead) ;-)