permit use of vehicle with no insurance

Scooby_Doo.

kaya wrote: »

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

It is if you're going to allow them to drive your car.

pendulum

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

It is if you're going to allow them to drive your car.

It shouldn't be.

What if the person not only assures you they have insurance, but also shows you a Certificate of Insurance, which later turns out to have been cancelled, hence invalid - should the owner still be prosecuted for "permitting"? Even though they have carried out reasonable checks?

(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road ... unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

Perhaps it can be argued he permitted his vehicle to be used on the condition his friend was insured, a condition which was broken, hence he did not give a valid permit for his friend to use the vehicle. I hope so. I think OP needs legal advice.

Scooby_Doo.

But in the case of the OP he never saw a certificate of insurance.

pendulum

Scooby_Doo. wrote: »

But in the case of the OP he never saw a certificate of insurance.

I know - I asked you "What if?". However, he still had the assurance of a close friend. Generally, you can trust your friends to tell you the truth; it is not usual to demand proof when a close friend is giving you his word.

Asking to see a Certificate of Insurance would be more usual if you did not know the person particularly well (for example, a potential buyer wanting a test drive).

Scooby_Doo.

pendulum wrote: »

I know - I asked you "What if?". However, he still had the assurance of a close friend. Generally, you can trust your friends to tell you the truth; it is not usual to demand proof when a close friend is giving you his word.

Asking to see a Certificate of Insurance would be more usual if you did not know the person particularly well (for example, a potential buyer wanting a test drive).

It would make for a better defence if you saw a certificate but sadly people do tell lies and the authorities have had enough of the my friend from abroad was driving defence.

dacouch

vaio wrote: »

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



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.

An employer has the same duty of care towards an employee who uses their own car for business as they do an employee who uses a company car.

The chances of a Corporate Manslaughter / Homicide are quite remote but it is feasible in certain circumstances.

There is now also a specific law on causing death whilst driving a vehicle uninsured, I'm not sure whether this could be extended to an employer under aiding and abetting though

http://businessdatabase.indicator.co.uk/article.php?nlid=UKTACDAR_EU100902&domid=74&src=related

vaio

pendulum wrote: »

It shouldn't be.

What if the person not only assures you they have insurance, but also shows you a Certificate of Insurance, which later turns out to have been cancelled, hence invalid - should the owner still be prosecuted for "permitting"? Even though they have carried out reasonable checks?


Perhaps it can be argued he permitted his vehicle to be used on the condition his friend was insured, a condition which was broken, hence he did not give a valid permit for his friend to use the vehicle. I hope so. I think OP needs legal advice.

The case dacouch posted above covers it, if you check the insurance certificate or accept the word of the driver that he is insured and it subsequently turns out he's not then you are guilty.

If you give permission conditional on the driver having insurance then you have a defence if it subsequently turns out he doesn't.

Scooby_Doo.

dacouch wrote: »

An employer has the same duty of care towards an employee who uses their own car for business as they do an employee who uses a company car.

The chances of a Corporate Manslaughter / Homicide are quite remote but it is feasible in certain circumstances.

There is now also a specific law on causing death whilst driving a vehicle uninsured, I'm not sure whether this could be extended to an employer under aiding and abetting though

http://businessdatabase.indicator.co.uk/article.php?nlid=UKTACDAR_EU100902&domid=74&src=related

Interesting point, under section 3ZB you don't even have to be the vehicle at fault for the collision to be conviceted. Being involved in a collision without insurance and some on dies is enough.

Yorkie1

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?

Depends on the offence. For insurance it's 'using'. For other offences it is driving. It depends on the mischief that the offence is aimed at.

aagill

kaya wrote: »

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

That was my point.
Thank you.
I might have checked his policy throughly and stiil it could turn up it was not valid for some reason. I agree Its my responsibility to do my best and I did as far as I am concerned.
European directives states that an insurance policy purchased in one of the EU states is valid throughout the EU at the minimum level of cover
eg third party for a motor insurance

Insurance companies use all possible ways to get away
when they need to pay out, thousands have been missold Payment Protection Insurance (yeah they were written in plain English, understood by everyone who bought it, right?)