Just heard a terrific tale

worried_jim

The matter has been passed on to the bus companies insurance company. The bus co loss and insurance manager is an ex police officer and he has spent all day yesterday dealing with it, if I find out more I'll keep you all posted.

Tilt

raskazz wrote: »

Yes, if you leave an uninsured vehicle on the road or in a public place, you can be prosecuted under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act. The offence is "to use" and as per case law such as Elliott v Gray, Andrews v Kershaw etc, leaving a vehicle parked in the road/public place is "using" the vehicle in terms of section 143. It's not a question of cause or permit.

Tilt's post is not correct as it has always been on offence to leave an uninsured vehicle on a road. The new offence is to leave a vehicle uninsured when it has not been declared off-road to the DVLA, which is a different matter.

There is so much nonsense on this thread. I wish people would not post on what are quite technical topics despite not knowing anything factual about the topic.

Christ! Another nit-picker. I know it has always been an offence, maybe I worded my post wrongly. What I meant was under the new rules, leaving/parking (not actually driving) now attracts an automatic fine (apparently) of £100. Some people were suggesting that because the car wasn't actually being driven, then the driver couldn't be done for 'driving without insurance'. Whether that is correct or not, the car can still attract a penalty.

Tilt

worried_jim wrote: »

The matter has been passed on to the bus companies insurance company. The bus co loss and insurance manager is an ex police officer and he has spent all day yesterday dealing with it, if I find out more I'll keep you all posted.

Can you perhaps try and find how the car came to be taxed/released by the dealer without insurance?

anotherbaldrick

Tilt wrote: »

Can you perhaps try and find how the car came to be taxed/released by the dealer without insurance?

As I have posted on this thread three times already the whole thing is an impossibility . If in the remote event that the dealer taxed it on his own insurance the car would then be registered in the dealers name which I am not aware is the suggestion.

Wig

The topic of it being brand new in the OP is possibly incorrect.

The BMW owner if he finds himself in court, could ask for special reasons for no penalty points, special reasons could be it was driven home insured either by the guy himself or his mate actually drove it home, it was only on the road for 20 mins parked as uninsured (thus there was no danger to other road users) and the owner was during those 20 mins in the process of arranging insurance cover.

Gavin83

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

and you're assuming that they would.

are they an offence or a criminal offence?

To be honest I'd hope the police would be interested if a crime has taken place.

I don't see what difference the time makes either, why should an offence which has been committed for 20 minutes be any better than a crime which has been committed for 20 days?

All the bus driver should have done was call the police and tell them they hit a parked car which is uninsured and taken their advice.

scheming_gypsy

With RTA's (as far as i'm aware) the police don't turn up unless they need to; ie injury or a dispute etc. If a bus drives into a parked car and nobody is injured then it's unlikely the police would come out to it.

With regards to the insurance for twenty minutes... no idea! if he was in the process of getting it insured, would the police prosecute? if they were following the letter of the law then they might do but if they turn up and the bloke was on confused.com with a half done search; would they accept that he wasn't trying to avoid getting it insured and it was a badly timed accident?

Wig

Gavin83 wrote: »

To be honest I'd hope the police would be interested if a crime has taken place.

Unfortunately the police pick and choose what crimes they police.

I don't see what difference the time makes either, why should an offence which has been committed for 20 minutes be any better than a crime which has been committed for 20 days?

Because it reflects the intent of the person. And then makes the crime less severe. and therefore a more lenient punishment would be justified, but still a punishment nonetheless. Same as if you were speeding 5mph over the limit or you were doing more than double the allowed limit, one is punished more than the other.

All the bus driver should have done was call the police and tell them they hit a parked car which is uninsured and taken their advice.

Why would the bus driver be inclined to call the police?
Why take the police advice?
All they need to do is establish who was at fault (the bus driver was) & then establish the cost of repairs and pay up. Nothing else comes into the equation which would reduce their liability.

scheming_gypsy

if the bus driver called the police, could he be done for driving without due care and attention? seeing as he drove into a parked car

clangnuts

All seems a bit fishy to me.

Whenever I've bought a car, I've had to provide proof of insurance to the dealers before they would hand over the car. Last time I took out the 7 day insurance, and had to give the dealership all the details the day before.