permit use of vehicle with no insurance

KillerWatt

asbokid wrote: »

It's not a theft though...

TWOC (Taking Without the Owners Consent) & theft are 2 different offences.

TWOC is the old TDA (Taking & Driving Away, aka Joyriding), whereas theft means you permanently intend to deprive the owner of their property.

asbokid

HappyMJ wrote: »

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?

The only reason that the OP is being nailed is because The Yard are miffed that Antonio has slipped off to the Costa del Crime.

asbokid

KillerWatt wrote: »

TWOC (Taking Without the Owners Consent) & theft are 2 different offences.

I meant that TWOC is an offence under the (1968) Theft Act, rather than a Road Traffic Act offence.

Even if Antonio was extradited back to Blighty, the Rozzers could never get a TWOC charge to stick on him.

johnatho

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.

How do the police know that Antonio......... was the driver of the car?

Perhaps the police are thinking that the OP is using this as an excuse to avoid a speeding ticket.

HappyMJ

asbokid wrote: »

I meant that TWOC is an offence under the (1968) Theft Act, rather than a Road Traffic Act offence.

Even if Antonio was extradited back to Blighty, the Rozzers could never get a TWOC charge to stick on him.

Just been googling it....even if they did he would only get according to the sentencing guidelines 40-80 hours community service and/or a curfew of 12 hours per night lasting for a few weeks. It's a very minor offence.

asbokid

HappyMJ wrote: »

Just been googling it....even if they did he would only get according to the sentencing guidelines 40-80 hours community service and/or a curfew of 12 hours per night lasting for a few weeks. It's a very minor offence.

That's bad enough. Driving with no insurance would only be a fine of a few hundred pounds.. Have you ever done community service? You have to work with some dreadful people. Some of them are no better than criminals.

aagill

johnatho wrote: »

How do the police know that Antonio......... was the driver of the car?

Perhaps the police are thinking that the OP is using this as an excuse to avoid a speeding ticket.

1. He's on the picture, his 40 kg heavier than me and he is black
2. He admitted speeding and provided all the details

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

get-out-of-jail-free card for me
get-into-jail-card for him?

asbokid

aagill wrote: »

1. He's on the picture, his 40 kg heavier than me and he is black
2. He admitted speeding and provided all the details

get-out-of-jail-free card for me
get-into-jail-card for him?

inspector knacker of the yard knows that the slippery spaniard has sailed away, so he's coming to nail you instead.

dacouch

asbokid wrote: »

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.

The law still applies, the car use was allowed on the basis of the other person having or arranging the relevant insurance.

It is not 100% possible to always check the Insurance is in place and the car was lent on the basis there would be cover. It does would not apply where the car owner was clearly reckless though.

The sharing of Insurance details eg our police anpr cameras being able to check cover for european vehicles comes under the EU Insurance directive (CBA to check which one). The MID is part of this directive and the UK is well ahead of other countries on this eg we have a working database on UK insurance but a lot of other countries don't yet.

The example of an employer checking an employees insurance is why a prudent employer would request (At regular intervals) to see an employees certificate and driving licence and retain copies. If they don't do this there are possibilities they can be convicted other aiding and abetting for no insurance and also culpibility for death conviction.

There is a specific defence written into the RTA for an employee driving an employers vehicle that does not hold insurance

alastairq

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?

yes and yes...a reason why garages display insurance details for customers to see. It's one of the responsibilities of being a 'registered keeper'?

Plead 'not guilty'...go to Court...see what happens??