Speed camera no insurance

rev_henry

missile wrote: »

If your friends colleague is from another EU country, he may have insurance to drive any vehicle? I do on my spanish insurance.

To drive a vehicle registered in any EU country?!

vaio

Lum wrote: »

And how do you prove or disprove that?

If the conversation goes something like "Do you have insurance that covers my car?", "Yes I do", "Ok then I will let you drive it". Does that make it conditional on having insurance, or do you have to say "Ok, you can drive it as long as that insurance remains valid".

How do you prove this conversation happened?

Same as you prove any conversation happened, anything from a recording, written record or just standing up in front of a judge and telling him it happened

If you check someone’s documents and let them drive because you believe they are covered then if they aren’t (for any reason), you are guilty of causing or permitting as you have given them unconditional permission which remains unconditional even if the documents were forged or otherwise invalid.

If you give conditional permission by saying “you can drive it IF you are insured” then if no cover is in place your permission is not given and so you are not guilty of causing or permitting.

Ignorance, mistake or even being tricked with forged documents is no defence under the RTA.

I think the judge in Newbury -v- Davis summed it the difference between the two quite well……..

“……..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……..”

dacouch

Paperbird wrote: »

Just give them the name and address of the driver, the police know the car was insured so won't bother checking if that driver was covered. They didn't when I got a ticket in a friends car.

They have a habit of checking Insurance out if you give a foreign (Non UK resident) drivers name. This is because it used to be a well known dodge for getting out of a speed camera ticket. The police cottoned onto it so they normally thoroughly check these out now.

How far they can go eg whether they can force the foreign driver to prove he held insurance I don't know

bris

It's been done before and the police will charge you with trying to pervert the course of justice if the foreign friend can't be tracked or produced by you in court, be carefull.

http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/news/1027/103/I-intend-to-name-a-friend-from-abroad.php

Lum

So if the OP goes to court (and this is currently hypothetical since they aren't currently being done for allowing their friend to drive, only the foreign person) and says "Yes, I allowed my friend to drive, but only if he insured himself to do so" then that is the end of the matter?

Gavin83

Did they provide a photo with the letter and also did they tell you what speed the car was travelling?

vaio

Lum wrote: »

So if the OP goes to court (and this is currently hypothetical since they aren't currently being done for allowing their friend to drive, only the foreign person) and says "Yes, I allowed my friend to drive, but only if he insured himself to do so" then that is the end of the matter?

that's up to the judge/jury as always

the point I was making is that insurance is absolute, so your earlier post that an honest but mistaken belief that insurance is in place is a defence is incorrect, either it is in place which case no offence or it's not in which case guilty.

Honest belief might work as mitigation but not a defence

Lum

Fair enough,

But the OP could basically say "I told my friend he could drive it, providing he had insurance. He said this was ok and even showed me his insurance certificate covering my vehicle. I later found out that he did not renew this insurance, breaking the conditions under which I lent him the vehicle. I responded to this by no-longer allowing him access to the keys until he obtained insurance"

...and it would be impossible to prove or disprove that these conversations ever took place.

Of course, this would also make the friend liable for TWOC, but to be honest the OP's friend sounds like a bit of a jerk, what with letting a stranger who the OP doesn't know drive a car that he has been trusted to look after.