just stoped by police driving borrowed car with no insurance .what will happen

brat

There is nothing unusual about your story Sarah, or the way you have been treated by the police. I would have expected them to ensure that you were going to get away from the car before they left the scene, and what better way than to give you a lift home, or ensure you were in a taxi.

Did the police leave you with a "Traffic Offence Report" (TOR) form?

How did the police establish that you hadn't taken the car without your mother's consent?

duchy

prowla wrote: »

So, a woman in her 40s hasn't driven for over a year, and chose to go out late at night in somebody else's car.

And your point is ?

I'm in my fifties and hadn't driven for the last five years until this month. I drive a car owned by someone else. I even <gasp> drive late at night -probably the least stressful time to drive as the roads are quiet with little traffic.

Nothing illegal in doing so ............so again -what is your point ? After 25 years of driving -a break of five years is of little consequence -you soon get back into the swing of driving again-a year is nothing.

I certainly don't condone the OP's actions but basically she did something stupid out of concern for her daughter as she percieved a risk. It was an error of judgement -no-one was hurt and no property was damaged. The OP now (rightly) has consequences from her badly thought out act in the form of a fine and higher insurance when she gets a job and wants to drive again. Hardly justifies the public flogging though.

(Oh and before anyone asks yes I *am* insured as a named driver)

As for why the car wasn't impounded - Christmas night-limited cover-length of time for the impound truck to come out tying up at least one policeman-was probably a matter of prioritization and a whiff of Christmas charity if they believed it was a genuine one off error of judgement........ It happens.

Good luck telling your mum Sarah !!

duchy

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

sarahh66 Last Activity: Yesterday 12:25 AM - is no longer commenting, but is reading the thread dialy.



The crew at that point were cleared to use digression, !

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

I know threads here wander off topic a bit but this made me giggle

prowla

Clioterus wrote: »

I truly believe it should be printed on Your policy that you are not covered to drive a van and it should be in big print not hidden away in the terms and conditions.

The certificate says what you are insured to drive.

I don't see why they should list all of the exclusions, and indeed that could open up other legal issues.

If they specifically said you aren't allowed to drive vans, then how about a flat loader? Perhaps some might argue that they should also state not flat loaders, and so-on.

So, it's up to you to read the policy, or alternatively ask them to include other vehicles when you next renew.

Indeed, an insurer may well give you temporary insurance for another vehicle if you phone them (I've done that once for a courtesy car).

studio_two

brat wrote: »

Off the top of my head, I believe there are stats that say that uninsured drivers are 9 times more likely to be involved in a collision than insured drivers.

Presumably, they collide with other uninsured drivers?

spacey2012

Two classes of vans:
Car derived van (car) Escort/ Fiesta/ astra/ type van, basically a van which is also available as a car version
Commercial van (commercial vehicle) Transit/ sprinter/ boxer, a van that is built as a van.
Will be on the registration certificate which it is.
Commercial vans have to adhere to different speed limits, different MOT tests and above a certain weight be fitted with a tachograph for commercial travelling.
If in doubt, when using other vehicles both the driver and keeper should inspect the certificate and be ascertain that cover is in force, the driver should then keep the covering certificate on their person whilst driving the borrowed vehicle, for inspection.
An officer only needs reasonable suspicion that no insurance is held to seize the vehicle in to the custody of the registrant .
Any calling around your insurance company is a favour.

Tilt

spacey2012 wrote: »

Two classes of vans:
Car derived van (car) Escort/ Fiesta/ astra/ type van, basically a van which is also available as a car version
Commercial van (commercial vehicle) Transit/ sprinter/ boxer, a van that is built as a van.
Will be on the registration certificate which it is.
Commercial vans have to adhere to different speed limits, different MOT tests and above a certain weight be fitted with a tachograph for commercial travelling.
If in doubt, when using other vehicles both the driver and keeper should inspect the certificate and be ascertain that cover is in force, the driver should then keep the covering certificate on their person whilst driving the borrowed vehicle, for inspection.
An officer only needs reasonable suspicion that no insurance is held to seize the vehicle in to the custody of the registrant .
Any calling around your insurance company is a favour.

Not really. They have to exhaust (or attempt to exhaust) all possibilities of the car being insured. Otherwise the seizure maybe unlawful. Just because the car isn't showing on the MIB data base, dosn't necessarily mean that the driver at the time, isn't covered.

Richie-from-the-Boro

sarahh66 wrote: »

thankyou all for answering.
i am going to tell my mum tomorrow what happened.
i regret what i have done and it was the only time (not that that makes any difference)
i notice a few people think i am not giving the full story..i don,t understand why??...
here is what happened again
i was driving car in a housing estate to drop my daughter off
police stopped me
asked if they could have a word
gave me a breath test . i was not driving fast or wobbly or anything so i guess the test is just routine..i do not drink or take drugs (or smoke) except medication for depression. the medication does not affect driving in any way.
police asked if i was insured , i said no.
they took details such as my address and mums details.
they told me i will receive a summons for court /fine about end of January
they said they could take car if they want which will cost me extra etc..they said can they trust me not to redrive car .
they then asked me if i wanted a lift home. i said yes and was given one.

i think police might have stopped me as i was dropping daughter off in a area where they have had trouble with a drug taker/seller and maybe they keep an eye on the area.
i have just got up the courage to answer again today as the negative replys really upsets me.
i am annoyed with myself and wish i had not done it.
thankyou again for all replys.

HiYa Sarah.

That better explains why the police were 'particularly' helpful to you, and took you home safe, and congratulations to the police fo keeping you safe, however :

except medication for depression. the medication does not affect driving in any way

- clearly the drugs do affect your driving, you may be able your point the car in the right direction, that of itself is not safe driving
- clearly as no alcohol was affecting your decision, something impaired so severely your judgement that you drove knowingly uninsured
- you are required by law to inform both the insurer and the DVLA if the drugs being used affect your driving
- you say the drugs don't, I assume you are not qualified to make that decision
- so can I assume by your answer that you have a qualified signed medical opinion on that ?
- did you complete a D1 and send it to the DVLA ? listing your illnesses and medication ?
- your personal GP will then be contacted by the DVLA for a formal opinion on your capacity to drive a motor vehicle

'Ignorantia juris non excusat' is a fact in this country. Whether it should be so in a society like ours with millions of laws is for another debate, the fact of the matter is it is current law.

Clioterus

prowla wrote: »

The certificate says what you are insured to drive.

I don't see why they should list all of the exclusions, and indeed that could open up other legal issues.

If they specifically said you aren't allowed to drive vans, then how about a flat loader? Perhaps some might argue that they should also state not flat loaders, and so-on.

So, it's up to you to read the policy, or alternatively ask them to include other vehicles when you next renew.

Indeed, an insurer may well give you temporary insurance for another vehicle if you phone them (I've done that once for a courtesy car).

I think it should be made clear that you are not covered for commercial vehicles(including car derived vans). I had loads of people tell me they had borrowed friends vans in the past under the same circumstances even the police officer said they caught loads of people this way. If it is such a common issue why are people not made aware of the issue?

prowla

Clioterus wrote: »

I think it should be made clear that you are not covered for commercial vehicles(including car derived vans). I had loads of people tell me they had borrowed friends vans in the past under the same circumstances even the police officer said they caught loads of people this way. If it is such a common issue why are people not made aware of the issue?

Well, if you buy a ticket for the movies you wouldn't expect it to get you into a football match (and ad-infinitum for other plausible whyshouldtheys).

So why would insurance for a car allow you to drive a van?

That said, it might be a worthwhile exercise to promote awareness though.