URGENT. Does anyone know any insurance company that insures impounded cars?

Rover_Driver

The relationship between the driver and the RK is not relevant as far as the offence is concerned - either there is insurance or there is not.


It may help in mitigation in respect of the sentence.

AdrianC

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The relationship between the driver and the RK is not relevant as far as the offence is concerned - either there is insurance or there is not.

Which offence?

You seem to be talking about the driver's IN10. I'm talking about the RK's potential IN14 causing/permitting.

Rover_Driver

AdrianC wrote: »

Which offence?

You seem to be talking about the driver's IN10. I'm talking about the RK's potential IN14 causing/permitting.

Either offence, the driver may think they have insurance because of the relationship. The RK may think that the driver has insurance because of the relationship.

It would depend on the circumstances that the RK causes/permits the use of the vehicle, as in vaio's post, there are not many as a defence against the offence, but could be given in mitigation when sentencing.

AdrianC

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Either offence, the driver may think they have insurance because of the relationship. The RK may think that the driver has insurance because of the relationship.

It would depend on the circumstances that the RK causes/permits the use of the vehicle, as in vaio's post, there are not many as a defence against the offence, but could be given in mitigation when sentencing.

Causing/permitting certainly _requires_ the driver to have been driving without insurance, and that offence is certainly black/white. The RK can't possibly be convicted of causing/permitting something that never happened. We're agreed there.

BUT where we differ is that I don't think that's where it ends. An IN14 conviction would require the court to believe the RK - beyond reasonable doubt, remember - caused or permitted the driver to drive uninsured.

Did the RK _cause_ it? No. No suggestion of that.
Did the RK, beyond reasonable doubt, permit it? He says not. He says there's no way he would have allowed the driver to drive if he'd even suspected he was uninsured. And that's where I'm suggesting the strength of relationship and trust between the driver and RK comes into play.

Would it be reasonable for you to claim you trusted the word of some random bloke who'd phoned you up from an ad for your car for sale? Of course it wouldn't.
Would it be reasonable for you to claim you trusted the word of your bestest mate who you've known for decades? Of course it would.

Would a court accept that distinction was relevant to reasonable doubt as to whether you'd "permitted" either of them to drive uninsured? Very likely, yes.

Rover_Driver

AdrianC wrote: »

Would it be reasonable for you to claim you trusted the word of some random bloke who'd phoned you up from an ad for your car for sale? Of course it wouldn't.
Would it be reasonable for you to claim you trusted the word of your bestest mate who you've known for decades? Of course it would.

Would a court accept that distinction was relevant to reasonable doubt as to whether you'd "permitted" either of them to drive uninsured? Very likely, yes.

Unfortunately, for a 'not guilty' causing/permitting no insurance verdict, the requirement is quite high. You would need a lot more than the word of a best mate. The court would want to know what steps etc.were taken to check their insurance status.

dacouch

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Unfortunately, for a 'not guilty' causing/permitting no insurance verdict, the requirement is quite high. You would need a lot more than the word of a best mate. The court would want to know what steps etc.were taken to check their insurance status.

"Newbury v Davis"

A. FACTS
The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner's absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.

B. DECISION (LORD WIDGERY CJ, MACKENNA J)
The appeal against conviction was allowed: "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 defendant's 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

AdrianC

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Unfortunately, for a 'not guilty' causing/permitting no insurance verdict, the requirement is quite high.

It is. But not in the way you mean. The burden of proof lies in exactly the same way as for ANY other criminal conviction.

The prosecution have to prove that the accused committed the offence, beyond reasonable doubt.

The defence have to do no more than show that that reasonable doubt exists.

Is there reasonable doubt that the RK _permitted_ the driver to drive without insurance? If it's reasonable for the RK to trust the driver's word, then - yes, there is reasonable doubt.

It's that simple.

Do you find it reasonable to accept the word of somebody you know well and who you trust? I certainly do.

Rover_Driver

dacouch wrote: »

"Newbury v Davis"

A. FACTS
The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner's absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.

B. DECISION (LORD WIDGERY CJ, MACKENNA J)
The appeal against conviction was allowed: "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 defendant's 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

That is one of the valid defences mentioned by dacouch in post 45 - making the permission conditional that the driver had their own insurance.

Rover_Driver

AdrianC wrote: »

Do you find it reasonable to accept the word of somebody you know well and who you trust? I certainly do.

You might, but unfortunately the courts don't necessarily see it that way.


Did the RK cause or permit the driver to use the vehicle without insurance?

Yes he did - the reason he did so, because the driver said he had
insurance, could be given in mitigation but does not alter the fact that the RK caused/permitted the driver to use the vehicle and there was no insurance cover for that driver.

AH32477

Hintza wrote: »

They don't want any chargebacks etc after the car has been released.

That's fine but lots of people suggest that Bank Transfer is not secure as there is NO "Money Back/Investigation/Inquiry" is possible if the insurance company website is a SCAM and you ended up by PAYING THEM AS BANK TRANSFER INTO THEIR ACCOUNT. Really want to ask fellow forum members to Suggest any Insurance Company which can help to get an impounded/Seized car back from the yard. " There Must Be A Number Of Cars Taken Back From Seizure/Impound And Thats Only Possible By An Insurance Certificate Shown To Police " Any Help Please !