permit use of vehicle with no insurance

paddedjohn

the driving other vehicles clause only appears on certain fully comp policies, when traveling abroad (unless otherwise arranged) the full comp becomes third party only.

Scooby_Doo.

paddedjohn wrote: »

the driving other vehicles clause only appears on certain fully comp policies, when traveling abroad (unless otherwise [STRIKE]arranged[/STRIKE] stated) the full comp becomes third party only.

Some policies give so many days fully comp abroad.;)

vikingaero

aagill wrote: »

Being taken to court by Herts Constabulary for
permit to use vehicle with no insurance.

I do not understand what the heck.

I did let a friend of mine (his Spaniard) to drive my car and he did exceeded a speed limit. No problem with it.
I have provided all his details, he wrote a letter as well
I to Herst Constablary explained that MY insurance covers ME, not my car.
It also covers ME to drive any other car with the owners permission.
So does HIS insurance, fully comp.
He has HIS insurance cover, he had MY permission to drive MY car.
They did not accepted this and taking me to court.

Prosecutor reference:
On 14/12/2010 at Hertfordshire permitted Antonio......... to use a motor vehicle on a road when there was not in force
in relation to that use such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complied with requirements of Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Contrary to section 143(2) of the road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.
This ofence carries penalty points.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Based on the information you have given I think that you did (albeit unknowingly) permit your vehicle to be used with no insurance.

In the UK we sometimes have Driving Other Cars (DOC) extension where you an drive another vehicle with 3rd party cover. There are restrictions such as permission, occupation and age (generally over 25).

In "most" other foreign countries the policy covers any driver even if not named on the documents/insurance. There generally is no "driving other vehicles" extension.

Your friend may be mistaken in that he thinks he could have vehicle based cover. If the Police have seen his documents they may agree with what I have said which is why you are being charged.

You really need to have sight and translation of his documents.

Outpost

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

Some policies give so many days fully comp abroad.;)

I think that applies to your own vehicle though. Like taking your car across to France for a week for example.

aagill

The point is they were not interested in his insurance at all.

In "most" other foreign countries the policy covers any driver even if not named on the documents/insurance

Exactly but not in the UK.
Three previous letters from Herts police demanded my insurance.
When I got the first one, the notice to owner I provided all the delails requested, who drove the car, his driving licence and insurance details (policy no, insurer name) but they requested my insurance?

If he was British holding a british policy
would they request MY insurance as well?

Hammyman

!!!!!!...THEY REQUESTED YOURS TO ASCERTAIN IF HE WAS COVERED TO DRIVE YOUR CAR UNDER YOUR POLICY, i.e was he a named driver?

I have a really sneaky feeling that what he told you about his insurance cover and what he told/showed the Police are two different things entirely if they're not requesting his documents. How do you know they're not requesting his insurance documents? After all, they'd ask him direct, not you.

Yorkie1

If Antonion held a British insurance policy, he would be shown on the insurance database which the police could check (irrespective of his nationality).

It would appear that the police are not satisfied that Antonio held a policy of insurance which covered him to drive in this country a car not belonging to him. If he doesn't hold a UK insurance policy then he won't show up on their database.

The offence is indeed strict liability - the prosecution has to show beyond reasonable doubt that he used a vehicle on a road or other public place. The defendant then has to show on the balance of probabilities (i.e. more likely than not) that he was insured to drive that vehicle on that road at that time. The same principle would apply to you; i.e. you'd need to show that Antonio was covered by a policy etc.

Most 'permit' offences are committed when the owner lends their car to another person on a verbal assurance of the insurance cover, which later proves to be untrue (whether deliberately or inadvertently so). A verbal assurance isn't enough to relieve you from liability.

As others have said, you will need a copy of his insurance certificate, translated by a registered interpreter so that the court can be satisfied of the accuracy of the translation - or a letter from the Spanish insurance company confirming that there was a policy of insurance in force which provided 3rd party cover for him to drive in the UK with the owner's permission a car not owned by him / to drive any car in the UK.

dacouch

A lot of Police Forces use this tactic eg checking Insurance if they send out a letter re speeding and a foreign driver's name is given.

OP did you ask the other driver if he was insured to drive your car before you loaned him the car ?

Is he resident in the UK or was he here on a holiday

Ian_W

aagill wrote: »

The point is they were not interested in his insurance at all.
Three previous letters from Herts police demanded my insurance.
When I got the first one, the notice to owner I provided all the delails requested, who drove the car, his driving licence and insurance details (policy no, insurer name) but they requested my insurance?

Stop getting hung up on what the police asked for.
AFAIK the police in the UK have no access to Spanish insurance records so supplying his Spanish insurance details was futile.

You have said he was driving. He isn't insured on your insurance. To avoid being convicted of permitting him to drive your car with no insurance YOU MUST PROVE he was insured on his own insurance.

To do that you will need to produce to the court his Spanish insurance showing that and probably a letter in English from his Spanish Insurer confirming it.

Whilst it may not be common I know of at least one UK insurer who allows DOC in the EU, Spanish insurers may do the same.

Antonio says he's insured, isn't enough. You need documentary proof that he is, same as you need proof that you're insured when you drive.

NB. Regards Hammy's comments. I'm assuming Antonios back in Spain and the cops haven't asked him anything given it sounds like a camera ticket from the OP.

aagill

Hammyman wrote: »

!!!!!!...THEY REQUESTED YOURS TO ASCERTAIN IF HE WAS COVERED TO DRIVE YOUR CAR UNDER YOUR POLICY, i.e was he a named driver?

I have a really sneaky feeling that what he told you about his insurance cover and what he told/showed the Police are two different things entirely if they're not requesting his documents. How do you know they're not requesting his insurance documents? After all, they'd ask him direct, not you.

Because he was a driver I was a passenger at the time.
He got caught on a camera, no police present at the time.

Few weeks later I got a 'notice to owner'
I provided all the details requested, eg his name, passport, address, driving licence etc.
Next letter they requested MY insurance details, so I send them + explained he was NOT cover by my insurance but his. Provided his insurance details and asked whether he should fax/email a copy.
Third letter and again they demanded MY insurance.
Posted a copy of my insurance as requested + explained again.

did you ask the other driver if he was insured to drive your car before you loaned him the car ?

Yes
Am I supposed to be the European insurance law expert
and study a copy of his insurance, all clauses, small print etc
before I let him drive my car?

Last time I took my car to a local garage they did a road test
after they fixed the engine. I did not study their policy.
Does it mean I have committed an offense for letting them drive my car?