allowing someone to drive my car when the person doesn't have insurance

oscarward

That's interesting

A local driving school does driving lessons for under 17's in the Rugby club car park. (also the IAM does lessons elsewhere in a public car park)

Presumably that is public access in the same way?

missile

oscarward wrote: »

That's interesting

A local driving school does driving lessons for under 17's in the Rugby club car park. (also the IAM does lessons elsewhere in a public car park)

Presumably that is public access in the same way?

AFIK, you cannot be prosecuted for a driving offence on private ground e.g. a carpark owned by Tesco.

Weird_Nev

missile wrote: »

AFIK, you cannot be prosecuted for a driving offence on private ground e.g. a carpark owned by Tesco.

No, you can. If it's publically accessible then it's a 'road' under the terms of the Road Traffic act, and you must have insurance. Only private farms etc. get away with this clause.

Be VERY careful when allowing others to drive your car, even on test drives:
Not only do they commit an offence of driving without insurance, but YOU commit an offence of permitting them to drive without insurance if you haven’t taken reasonable steps to ensure that they have insurance. You could also be liable to exactly the same penalty.

It's a minefield.


As for the OP - I think your frined needs to get their own car! It looks very doubtful that they will be insured, or insurable, to drive yours!

marlot

missile wrote: »

AFIK, you cannot be prosecuted for a driving offence on private ground e.g. a carpark owned by Tesco.

Yes you can. Kris Marshall was done this week (found asleep in his car in a tesco car park, whilst over the limit).

Wig

oscarward wrote: »

That's interesting

A local driving school does driving lessons for under 17's in the Rugby club car park. (also the IAM does lessons elsewhere in a public car park)

Presumably that is public access in the same way?

Maybe they have insurance cover for it, if they don't and it is a public place, -a place to which the public have access- then they are breaking laws.

vaio

Weird_Nev wrote: »

No, you can. If it's publically accessible then it's a 'road' under the terms of the Road Traffic act, and you must have insurance. Only private farms etc. get away with this clause.

Be VERY careful when allowing others to drive your car, even on test drives:
Not only do they commit an offence of driving without insurance, but YOU commit an offence of permitting them to drive without insurance if you haven’t taken reasonable steps to ensure that they have insurance. You could also be liable to exactly the same penalty.

It's a minefield......

Don’t know about minefield, I think the law is perfectly clear.

RTA insurance is needed to drive on road “or other public place”.

As far as the causing or permitting other to drive your car without insurance, it’s no defence that you took reasonable steps. It’s an absolute thing based on facts. Either they are insured or they aren’t and even if you thought they were, say because they produced a forged or invalid certificate, then if it turns out they weren’t then you are guilty.

There is the concept of conditional permission where I say to you “you can drive my car as long as you have insurance”. This covers me as you are only have my permission if you have insurance, no insurance = no permission and no offence by me.

On the other hand, if you show me a certificate that purports to cover you (but is fake or otherwise invalid) and, on the basis of that, I let you drive then that is unconditional permission and I’m guilty of causing or permitting. The unconditional permission isn’t removed because it was based on a mistake or fraudulent evidence.

Weird_Nev

Can you honestly state that the CPS or a court would proceed with a prosecution on that basis?

It's an absolute offence, but provided you can say you have taken such steps as are reasonable to verify that the driver has insurance (such as checking their licence and insurance certificate) then you have done all you can do. I think it is highly unlikely that you would be prosecuted should those documents turn out to be incorrect/fraudulent.

If you think traffic law is perfectly clear and stragihtforward, then you obviously haven't studied/practiced it enough!

Car Insurance is a minefield - and one which the average punter has NO idea that they are walking through on a daily basis.

vaio

yep, they will prosecute, and as it's an absolute offence the reasonable steps bit might act as mitigation but isn’t a defence.

I couldn't remember the actual cases but a quick google comes up with the following from our friends over at Pepipoo: http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t43953.html

......The main case is Newbury v Davis [1974] RTR 367

Giving the leading judgment of a Divisional Court presided over by Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J stated, at page 370:

"In my judgment 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 defendants 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."

following cases have refined newbury

macdonald v howdle (1995) expanded it so that the condition need not be express but could be implied from the exchange between the owner and driver

lloyd-wolper v moore (2004) held that mere misrepresentation by the driver could not create a conditionality

so under newbury

'can I borrow your car'
'yes if you are insured'
= no permission if not insured

from macdonald

'can I borrow your car'
'are you insured'
'yes'
'ok'
= no permission if not insured

from moore

'can I borrow your car, I am insured'
'ok'
= unconditional permission....