fathers car impounded help

johnson293

jackieb wrote: »

But are you over 25? My son and husband are both covered for driving other cars (again, 3rd party on borrowed car) as standard on their own insurance. I'm only a named driver on both their policies so I can't.

Unfortunately, yes... and I passed 25 just over 12 years ago!!! :eek:

However, I can always remember that cover being on my policies which I've arranged (bar my first which dad arranged/paid for when I passed my test at 17) and have never had to add it as an extra, and as such always checked it and knew I'd be covered to drive my dad's car if/when needed, and of course, allowed to.

bigjl

I think you will find in the little booklet of smallprint it will state that the driving other vehicles cover is only for drivers over 21.


From memory there is normally a disclaimer such as subject to terms and conditions, so what is actually written on the certificate can be a little bit misleading.

I Solicitor might be expensive, so before doing that read the terms and conditions of the policy in detail.

The reason why the age clause exists is due to young drivers insuring a Group 1 or 2 car Full Comp and then driving their dads £60k Merc on 3rd party only cover, East London and Ilford was full of young lads doing this a few years ago, as it was made difficult to put down the dad as main driver and the son/daughter would use the car all the time as a named driver, can't remember the name for this, but it was a common scam. As this was made more difficult the above cheap car on full comp scam was used, this isn't directed at the OP, as obviously he was just using the car when the owner was in hospital, but some less scuprulous people would do it and use the big fancy car all the time.

When you speak to a solicitor they may well point out the simple fact that ignorance isn't a defense in law, and going by the way that Insurance companies these days are so beloved of the small print I would expect the clause withdrawing any car 3rd party use to be in there in black and white, the reason they like small print is because they know that nobody will read it, and unless the insured party records the conversation then there is no proof that 3rd party cover without an age limit was ever mentioned, but all they need to do is mention a disclaimer about subject to terms and conditions in the conversation then the person on the phone can be totally wrong in thier advice and you have no legal defense as it would be a case that you never read the terms and conditions.

Another example of this terms and conditions malarky is the automatic cancelling of policies without notification by recorded delivery, as they state that proof of postage is proof of service under the commiunications act, interestingly when you quote the same regulation against the DVLA when they lose your SORN or V5 then the magistrate will still fine you, because they know that the average british person will just pay the fine and moan about it rather than risk more expense by appealing to a higher court.

bigjl

Quentin wrote: »

You need to check the certificate (not what it says in the policy) to see whether or not you have cover to drive other cars.

No, you need to check the terms and conditions of the policy as anything written on the certificate is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, in other words it may say you are covered to drive any car 3rd party, but on the certifiacte there will be a reference to terms and conditions, or words to that effect.

Quentin

If your certificate doesn't say you have DOC cover, then whatever the policy conditions say are irrelevant!

Gene_Hunt_2

patman99 wrote: »

Whats the likelyhood of his insurers finding-out about the points?

You have a legal duty to tell them.;)

Quentin

bigjl wrote: »

When you speak to a solicitor they may well point out the simple fact that ignorance isn't a defense in law.

The fact is that there is no defence to driving without insurance (it's an "absolute offence")

MrRedundant

Quentin wrote: »

The fact is that there is no defence to driving without insurance (it's an "absolute offence")

Well there is - being insured.

That said the OP has no leg to stand on; the entire fee is payable as well as at least 6 points and a fine for the son.

Furthermore the car owner might be lucky to escape prosecution as well as I think they would struggle to justify thinking or checking the driver was insured.

Gene_Hunt_2

Quentin wrote: »

The fact is that there is no defence to driving without insurance (it's an "absolute offence")

There is but the OP's son hasn't got one.

Gene_Hunt_2

MrRedundant wrote: »

Well there is - being insured.

!!!!!!?

How is that a defence, there isn't an offence to defend against.

The only defence I can think of off the top of my head is if an employee is stopped in a company vehicle and their belief that a company vehilce was insured.

Quentin

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

The only defence I can think of off the top of my head is if an employee is stopped in a company vehicle and their belief that a company vehilce was insured.

It's an absolute offence - you can claim mitigating circumstances, but you would still be found guilty!