permit use of vehicle with no insurance

maninthestreet

OP, the lesson you have learn't, or will learn the hard way, is to NEVER let a 'friend' borrow or drive your car - EVER, regardless of circumstances.

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

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......

My first though was “conditional permission” but I suspect that the OP might struggle as he was sitting next to the driver and in the precedent case I think the fact that the driver took the car in the owners absence was a salient point. Having said that, if I was the OP and it was all I had I’d certainly get representation and give it a try

dacouch wrote: »

......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.........

Got any links to this?

My thought is that there is no duty to make sure an employee using his own vehicle for business is insured & licensed in the criminal sense and the advice is more to do with avoiding the vicarious civil liability that might follow if the employee has an accident and it turns out he wasn’t insured.

thenudeone

HappyMJ wrote: »

It's a very minor offence.

The offence of TWOC was created because it is difficult to prove that someone who dishonestly takes a car intends to permanently deprive the owner of it (as required for Theft). They would just say that after driving around for a while they were going to park it up and leave it; and that eventually it would probably be returned to the owner.
As such it has similar weight to a conviction for Theft.

TWOC is an offence involving dishonesty and would probably bar the person from a large number of regulated professions in a way that a mere driving offence wouldn't; as well as making obtaining any type of insurance much more difficult.

benjus

Why do people assume that comprehensive insurance and Driving Other Cars (DOC) cover go hand in hand?

You can get non-comprehensive policies that include DOC. You can get comprehensive policies that do not include DOC. The two concepts are completely separate, as far as I can see. Maybe sometime in the past they were related, I don't know.

He possibly assumed that UK insurance worked the same way as in Spain, where (AFAIK) most policies cover the car and allow any qualified driver to drive it.

The idea that a Spanish insurance policy would provide DOC cover in the UK seems a bit far-fetched.

Scooby_Doo.

aagill wrote: »

Because he was a driver I was a passenger at the time.

In that case you're also guilty of using the vehicle without insurance too. That day in court could get rather expensive for you.;)

bigjl

I think you will need a translation of the policy to take to the court, personally i would doubt his policy covers driving a car in a different EU country.

Sadly there is no defence in law for ignorance, which is unfortunately what the court will say.

It is your responsibility to ensure those you allow to drive your car are insured to do so.

I have every sympathy as your friend is, in my opinon, nothing of the kind.

My only advice is phone your insurer and find out if you have legal cover, check.you home insurance asell or any union you are a member of. They can give you some good legal advice.

I think you are going to get some points. Not fair, and an expensive lesson to learn.

Nest of luck at court.

Scooby_Doo.

bigjl wrote: »

I think you will need a translation of the policy to take to the court, personally i would doubt his policy covers driving a car in a different EU country.

Sadly there is no defence in law for ignorance, which is unfortunately what the court will say.

It is your responsibility to ensure those you allow to drive your car are insured to do so.

I have every sympathy as your friend is, in my opinon, nothing of the kind.

My only advice is phone your insurer and find out if you have legal cover, check.you home insurance asell or any union you are a member of. They can give you some good legal advice.

I think you are going to get some points. Not fair, and an expensive lesson to learn.

Nest of luck at court.

Would you have had the same veiw had he have hit you?

vaio

Doubt it would make much difference because, even if it turns out the driver wasn’t insured, then someone would pay third party costs.

Either the vehicle owners insurance (I think under RTA S151 or article 75?) or failing that, the MIB would pay.

vaio

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

In that case you're also guilty of using the vehicle without insurance too. That day in court could get rather expensive for you.;)

Nah, I thought that as a passenger you are only guilty of an offence if you do it knowingly.

It’s one of those offences where ignorance is a defence, unlike driving without insurance which is an absolute offence (apart from the s143(3) defence)

bigjl

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

Would you have had the same veiw had he have hit you?

Don't you have homework to do?

Run along now and let the adults talk.

Or why not get yourself a few more log in name sorted out for future use., as it won't be long till your unhelpful and petulant posts gets this username banned aswell.:rotfl: