permit use of vehicle with no insurance

KillerWatt

aagill wrote: »

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?

You don't have to be an expert to read the section on his insurance certificate that says what he can & can't drive, that is in plain view for all to see and is written in plain english so that even a Jeremy Kyle guest can understand it.

aagill wrote: »

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?

If you don't know they are driving it, then no (although it's odds on they have more insurance than you will ever buy in your life).

In your particular case, you handed the keys over without ascertaining whether your friend was insured or not.
That mistake will cost you 6 points and £200 as it is an absolute offence.

dacouch

You have a duty to check they are insured, unfortunately it does not sound like you can use this defence.

"Newbury -v- Davis [1974] RTR 367
1974
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J Road Traffic, Insurance Casemap

The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner's absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance. Held: The appeal against conviction was allowed: "the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant's permission. In other words, 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. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence."
Road Traffic Act 1972"

For the record, as an earlier poster mentioned, in Europe the vehicle itself is insured and covers any driver. The chances of the Spainish driver being covered to drive cars not belonging to him in the UK are remote if his own car is insured in Spain

Gloomendoom

KillerWatt wrote: »

You don't have to be an expert to read the section on his insurance certificate that says what he can & can't drive, that is in plain view for all to see and is written in plain english so that even a Jeremy Kyle guest can understand it.

Unfortunately, it was written in plain Spanish.

asbokid

dacouch wrote: »

You have a duty to check they are insured, unfortunately it does not sound like you can use this defence.

"Newbury -v- Davis [1974] RTR 367
1974
QBD
Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J Road Traffic, Insurance Casemap

The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner's absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance. Held: The appeal against conviction was allowed: "the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant's permission. In other words, 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. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence." Road Traffic Act 1972"

Are you sure that case law isn't obsolete now?

Otherwise it would serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone nailed for permitting no insurance.

"You're welcome to borrow my car, I told him, officer, but I stressed that he had to promise me that he'd got insurance before he took the keys."

The courts will consider the keeper to be negligent for failing to check - before the car is borrowed - that the borrower was definitely insured.

Companies have been prosecuted for permitting no insurance, simply because they trusted the word of an employee who told the boss that he was licensed to drive the company artic, etc.

As for the specifics of this case...

Under the Prüm Convention (sometimes known as Schengen III Agreement) which "New" Labour signed in 2007, data sharing of driver details may already be taking place across national borders.

Our DVLA records can wing their way to and fro the Atlantic to the cesspit Euro nations of Bulgaria, Israel and Romania, and onto the laps of Stasi-like Private Parking Companies in former Soviet-bloc countries.

In time, our records in the Motor Insurance Database (MID) will also be oozing out of the country, for every Tomas, Diego and Harriet to snoop.

asbokid

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Unfortunately, it was written in plain Spanish.

Scan it in and post it to imageshack, then!

You might as well post your sorry tale to pepipoo.com you will get more help there..

thenudeone

asbokid wrote: »

Otherwise it would serve as a get-out-of-jail-free card for anyone nailed for permitting no insurance.

It is a get out of jail card (more or less) for the vehicle owner.

But most people are reluctant to use it because the driver who borrowed the card will then be arrested and charged with TWOC, which is a bit more serious!

KillerWatt

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Unfortunately, it was written in plain Spanish.

Doesn't matter what language it was written in, the OP had a duty to check their friend was insured prior to handing over the keys and failed to do so.

HappyMJ

thenudeone wrote: »

It is a get out of jail card (more or less) for the vehicle owner.

But most people are reluctant to use it because the driver who borrowed the card will then be arrested and charged with TWOC, which is a bit more serious!

I think in this case if the OP gave consent if insured if it then transpired that the driver did not actually have this insurance then I'd rather Antonio was done for TWOC rather than the OP done for consent for allowing use of motor without insurance. He's in Spain anyway he won't be extradited over a minor offence. What's the penalty for TWOC anyway?

asbokid

thenudeone wrote: »

It is a get out of jail card (more or less) for the vehicle owner.

But most people are reluctant to use it because the driver who borrowed the card will then be arrested and charged with TWOC, which is a bit more serious!

It's not a theft though...

the borrower of the car will say "i thought i was insured to drive it, officer... I got an online insurance quote, and I was damn sure i clicked [Buy the Policy].. but seemingly not.. oh well, my bad!"

"There is a defence where the defendant believes that he has the lawful authority to [borrow the car] or that he would have the owner's consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it." -- from wonkypedia..

asbokid

HappyMJ wrote: »

What's the penalty for TWOC anyway?

I'm pleased to say that I've never been caught for it, yet, so couldn't tell you.

What's the penalty for beating your wife with a poker these days, HappyMJ?