permit use of vehicle with no insurance

Scooby_Doo.

vaio wrote: »

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)

Driving and using are the same thing, you never get summonesed or charged with the offence of driving, always using.

Yorkie1

As the owner being driven by someone else you are 'using' the vehicle and that is strict liability. There is no offence of 'driving' without insurance. The offences are 'using', 'causing', 'permitting'.

As regards the defence for an employee if they drive an employer's vehicle which they mistakenly believed to be insured, it's in s.143(3) RTA 1988:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143

As regards an employer whose employee uses a vehicle on work business, and the vehicle isn't insured, it's an offence of causing ...

Scooby_Doo.

bigjl wrote: »

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:

Now now no need to be rude.;)

And don't abuse your report button.:rotfl:

vaio

HappyMJ wrote: »

Who is "we"? Wouldn't a claim by an insured idiot be covered by exactly the same "we"?

Fair point but the MIB “we” excludes the uninsured idiot whereas the insured idiot “we” includes the idiot or rather the premium he has paid.

Taking it a bit further, if there is a S151/MIB claim then the full costs can be recovered from the at fault individual so the net cost to the rest of us is zero whereas if he is insured the rest of us make a contribution to the claim via the premium pool.

bigjl

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

Now now no need to be rude.;)

And don't abuse your report button.:rotfl:

Who has been using their report button then?

Anybody that reads the forum can tell how unhelpful your posts are, whats the matter getting bored with having to reregister.

Why not do three or four at a time, would save you some downtime.

But as you always tend to slip in references to posts from many months ago accidentaly everybody can easily see you for what you are.

A keyboard warrier that has no interest in providing anything positive for forum users.

George_Michael

Driving and using are the same thing, you never get summonesed or charged with the offence of driving, always using.

In which case, when refering to offences, why does the RTA state "driving" and not "using", and the offence codes given on driving licences also refer to driving?

Scooby_Doo.

George_Michael wrote: »

In which case, when refering to offences, why does the RTA state "driving" and not "using", and the offence codes given on driving licences also refer to driving?

The RTA refers to use,cause or permit for insurance.

kaya

unless they have recently changed the law in this country it's not your responsibilty to check other peoples insurance is valid, i had a similar incident a few years ago with herts police, i gave them the details of my friend who was driving my car at the time of the alledged offence , he lives in australia, as far as i know your obligation under law is to provide them with the details of the driver, i recieved a similar reply to you , i responded in writing telling them that it was not my responsibility to check anybody's insurance is valid apart from my own, that was the end of the matter, sounds like they are trying it on with you

Scooby_Doo.

Only if you're the owner of the vehicle.

A company can be summonsed to court for using a vehicle usually the transport manager who may never have driven the vehicle yet the 'company' are still convicted.

vaio

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

Driving and using are the same thing, you never get summonesed or charged with the offence of driving, always using.

Nah, under RTA “users” are required to have TP insurance so if all passengers are “users” then they should all need TP insurance which patently isn’t the case.

The decision in http://www.mibclaim.co.uk/resources/library/cases/omahony-joliffe-motor-insurers-bureau-1999/ sheds some light on when passengers become users but it’s far from clear cut with many things that need to be considered.