Minor incident but im not insured!

Sgt_Pepper_2

htrj wrote: »

"On many occasions the third party offers to pay themselves (broken wing mirror etc) If so we invoice them directly and have no dealings with their insurance company"

Is that even after the insurance companies have been contacted. Is there still a chance I could avoid this if I pay to repair the third parties car?

Don't forget to factor in the cost of their hire car too.

htrj

"Hire car" I still think it would be preferable to both of us getting in to trouble.

Will the insurance companies still prosecute me and my mate if I repair the car even though the damage has now been reported?

Sgt_Pepper_2

htrj wrote: »

"Hire car" I still think it would be preferable to both of us getting in to trouble.

Will the insurance companies still prosecute me and my mate if I repair the car even though the damage has now been reported?

Insurance companies don't prosecute.

TrickyWicky

Just to add, with motor insurance you really to have to be hot on your knowledge to know what you are and are not covered for. They'll try to catch you out on anything these days over the most trivial clause in your policy.

My insurers tried to stitch my right up a few years ago, I often used my driving other cars extension to use my partners car but when I pranged my car they suspended the policy without telling me. That wasn't a problem but what it did bring up was the issue that I'd been driving our other car that wasn't permanently insured but was kept taxed as a backup. They stated that it wasn't insured under my extension unless it had permanent insurance on it. I knew this was crap and asked them to point it out in the policy which they did and it said nothing like what they were telling me on the phone.

You gotta know your stuff with car insurers, they're a sneaky bunch.

htrj

"Insurance companies don't prosecute."

Sorry, my nerves are going and im not making as much sense as I would like.

If I pay for the damage to be repaired is the insurance company likely to pursue this matter to such a degree that it will result in me being prosecuted for driving without insurance.

"You gotta know your stuff with car insurers, they're a sneaky bunch"

I dont doubt that for a second but on this occassion they made it quite clear. Assumption is the mother of all screw ups. My mate and I were working on assuption .

Nicki

dacouch wrote: »

There a defences for driving without Insurance written into the RTA, there is also case law

Such as ?

Sgt Pepper is correct that there is one circumstance where you have a defence, which is if you are an employee driving an employers vehicle having been told by the employer that they have a valid certificate of insurance which covers you. But that clearly isn't the case here.

There are not so far as I am aware ANY other defences because driving without insurance is a strict liability offence.

All of these UK solicitors agree with me

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drivingwithoutinsurance.htm

http://www.olliersmotorlaw.co.uk/other-offences/driving-with-no-insurance.html

http://www.norriewaite.co.uk/driving-without-insurance.html

http://www.roadtrafficlaw.com/No_Insurance.htm

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/driving_without_insurance.htm

..need I go on, there are hundred of websites stating exactly the same thing?

kingstreet

htrj - if the Police investigate and find you were uninsured, they will charge you with it and may also seek to prosecute the vehicle owner for permitting.

The insurance company does not bring an action against you, or him. The Police investigate and the CPS prosecute if they believe it is in the public interest and there's a reasonable prospect of a conviction.

This may be the best place for clear guidance on this issue;-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

Tilt

Nicki wrote: »

Such as ?

Sgt Pepper is correct that there is one circumstance where you may have a defence, which is if you are an employee driving an employers vehicle having been told by the employer that they have a valid certificate of insurance which covers you. But that clearly isn't the case here.

Fixed that for you.

Nicki wrote: »

There are not so far as I am aware ANY other defences because driving without insurance is a strict liability offence.

There is if you can show that your insurers have made an administration error which results in cover not being provided.

Nicki wrote: »

All of these UK solicitors agree with me

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drivingwithoutinsurance.htm

http://www.olliersmotorlaw.co.uk/other-offences/driving-with-no-insurance.html

http://www.norriewaite.co.uk/driving-without-insurance.html

http://www.roadtrafficlaw.com/No_Insurance.htm

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/driving_without_insurance.htm

..need I go on, there are hundred of websites stating exactly the same thing?

Your last example suggests that both driver and employer could face prosecution;

QUOTE: 'I use a company vehicle. My employer forgot to renew the insurance and now I am being prosecuted. Surely it is my employer who should be in Court, not me?

Although the offence was committed without your knowledge, as driver of the vehicle, it is your obligation to be 100% certain that insurance cover is in place. Whilst your employer has a duty to you, and indeed to other road users, their failure to provide insurance does not provide you with a defence and in the circumstances, both you and your employer face conviction'.

UsernameAlreadyExists

Despite all the small print readers here, and the pedants, I don't think that being over 25 with FC insurance giving 3rd party cover on other people's vehicles is an unreasonable assumption to make. It's been like that for years. I'd even assume it myself (although having said that will be looking at my own policies now).

If I were sat in a Jury (not that it'll ever get that far) I think I'd find "not guilty". Good luck to the OP, and screw the insurance companies.

rdwarr

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

Despite all the small print readers here, and the pedants, I don't think that being over 25 with FC insurance giving 3rd party cover on other people's vehicles is an unreasonable assumption to make. It's been like that for years. I'd even assume it myself (although having said that will be looking at my own policies now).

If I were sat in a Jury (not that it'll ever get that far) I think I'd find "not guilty". Good luck to the OP, and screw the insurance companies.

Possibly for you (if you actually have insurance) but not universally true. And the OP wasn't even driving another car but a pickup which is a totally different class of vehicle to insure.