Car insurance whilst people test-drive car I am selling

Yorkie1

vaio wrote: »

Which section of RTA are you referring to?

I thought that lack of insurance (and causing or permitting) is an absolute offence and doesn’t need intent or knowledge, so it doesn’t matter whether you thought it was insured, either it is insured and you are not guilty or it’s not insured and you are guilty.

There is one defence but that only applies to driving vehicles owned by your employer and in the course of your work.

It's the case of Newbury v Davis. If the owner gives express conditional permission to the user, the owner is not 'permitting' the uninsured use of the vehicle within the meaning of the section.

vaio

Yep and that case makes exactly to "conditional permission" point I am making, if you check someone’s documents and let them drive because you believe they are covered then if they aren’t (for any reason), you are guilty of causing or permitting as you have given them unconditional permission which remains unconditional even if the documents were forged or otherwise invalid.

If you give conditional permission by saying “you can drive it IF you are insured” then if no cover is in place your permission is not given and so you are not guilty of causing or permitting.

Ignorance, mistake or even being tricked with forged documents is no defence under the RTA so George Michaels post is wrong.

George_Michael wrote: »

The RTA clearly states that you are not commiting an offence if you allow a vehicle to be driven without 3rd party insurance in place providing that you didn't know, and didn't have reason to belive that this was the case

If someone had shown you what appeared to be a genuine certificate, which had been forged or cancelled , you could legitimately claim that you were unaware that it was invalid, hence under the RTA, you were not guilty of anything

I think the judge in Newbury -v- Davis summed it the difference between the two quite well……..

“……..permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all. It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to my mind there is a difference and it is one of legal substance……..”

Yorkie1

OK, see what you mean; I didn't understand the particular point you were making in your previous post.