permit use of vehicle with no insurance

aagill

For the record

Found not guilty on both offenses
Points on my licence: 0
Penalty: 0
Total costs: £ 1.80 for parking near the Magistrate Court

Provided the Court a copy of his insurance, (original documents - in Spanish), and said exactly what I said here.





PS. special thanks go to Outpost for a free English tuition

mikey72

aagill wrote: »

For the record

Found not guilty on both offenses
Points on my licence: 0
Penalty: 0
Total costs: £ 1.80 for parking near the Magistrate Court

Provided the Court a copy of his insurance, (original documents - in Spanish), and said exactly what I said here.





PS. special thanks go to Outpost for a free English tuition

Good result.

Glad the justice sytem worked, innocent until proven guilty, and that you can have faith in what your mate says without demanding to see a certified translation of every thing he has told you signed in blood.

vax2002

How much costs did you apply for ?
£180 is the norm.

aagill

what do you mean?

thenudeone

mrbadexample wrote: »

a copy of the Spanish insurance policy. Take that to court and hope to show that you believed insurance to be in force, and did not therefore knowingly permit the offence.

That is no defence. Some offences require intent or recklessness, but not this one.

mrbadexample wrote: »

The offence is for the police to prove,

No it's not. It's up to the owner to produce a certificate of insurance to prove that the driver using it with his permission was insured. No valid insurance certificate = guilty.

In this case, they must have accepted that your friend's policy covered him to drive.

I have DOC cover on my policy but if I visited a friend in France I wouldn't expect my insurer to cover me to drive his car.

dacouch

thenudeone wrote: »

That is no defence. Some offences require intent or recklessness, but not this one.



No it's not. It's up to the owner to produce a certificate of insurance to prove that the driver using it with his permission was insured. No valid insurance certificate = guilty.

In this case, they must have accepted that your friend's policy covered him to drive.

I have DOC cover on my policy but if I visited a friend in France I wouldn't expect my insurer to cover me to drive his car.

"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"