Minor incident but im not insured!

Nicki

UsernameAlreadyExists wrote: »

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.

Only problem with that is that driving without insurance is not an indictable offence so is never heard by a jury

And the magistrates will be directed by their clerk on what the law is and what they are allowed by law to take into account. The only discretionary element will be on sentence.

UsernameAlreadyExists

Nicki wrote: »

Only problem with that is that driving without insurance is not an indictable offence so is never heard by a jury

And the magistrates will be directed by their clerk on what the law is and what they are allowed by law to take into account. The only discretionary element will be on sentence.

Indeed. but even so.

rdwarr wrote:

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.

Yup, turned 40 this year. I've had 3rd party cover on other people's vehicles with their consent since 25 myself. I wouldn't bat an eye at borrowing a mate's pickup (if I had a mate with one), so I myself might have ended up being just as "guilty".

dacouch

Nicki wrote: »

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?

There is a defence which might (Depending on the exact circustances) apply for the OP's friend. This being if his permission to drive his vehicle was "Conditional" on the OP having Insurance.

vikingaero

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).

DOC has been withdrawn left right and centre by Insurers. Partly as a cost cutting measure with internet policies and partly because scumbags were using DOC to recover mates cars from car pounds.

vikingaero

TrickyWicky wrote: »

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.

Some Insurers do insist on cars being insured in their own right before you use DOC extensions. Otherwise what happens when you park up on a public road, supermarket car park, petrol station, other place where the public have access? What happens when you leave the car if it breaks down? It automatically becomes uninsured!

prowla

It was a mistake, but as the OP says fortunately nobody was hurt.

I would be looking not to get insurance companies involved if at all possible; it may work out expensive to do the repair, but once the insurance companies are in it will be a heck of a lot more.

It all depends upon whether the other party agrees to it.

I think the "insured 3rd party for all vehicles" add-on for insurance is on its way out; my policy states I am for cars loaned by a garage and one other circumstance I don't recall.

Paradigm

Tilt wrote: »

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'.

I'm not sure this advice is accurate after reading the law.....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

The bit in red seems to suggest that the driver of a company vehicle has no obligation to ensure that it's insured & that it's the employers responsibility/liability.

If conditions a, b, & c are met then the driver can't be convicted.

Aretnap

Nicki wrote: »

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.

Not that they apply here, but duress, duress of circumstances, marital coercion and automatism could all be defences to driving without insurance - or indeed any other offences except (AFAIK) murder and treason.

Nicki

No - it is a strict liability offence which means that intent to commit the offence is not required. These may all be special circumstances which would lead the court not to impose points on the license or any other penalty but would not prevent a conviction.

Aretnap

Nicki wrote: »

No - it is a strict liability offence which means that intent to commit the offence is not required. These may all be special circumstances which would lead the court not to impose points on the license or any other penalty but would not prevent a conviction.

Nope, they're general defences which (if established) can prevent a conviction for virtually all offences - strict liability or not. Strict liability means that an intent to drive without insurance or the knowledge that insurance was not in place are not elements of the offence. It doesn't mean that other defences cannot apply. The statute on marital coercion, for example, says

...on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband.

Duress, duress of circumstances and automatism are common law defences which can likewise apply to strict liability offences - it's well established for example that DoC can apply to speeding, drink driving and careless driving, so there's no reason it couldn't apply to driving without insurance (eg if you had to get a seriously ill person to hospital, and the only way to do so was to drive without insurance).