Consequences of a unisured driver

Qwerty87

Hi folks just want to ask you a question as a mate of mine is in a deal of bother; basically my friend has car insurance in his own name on a car that is not registered in his name; the car is registered in his friends name; anyway hes friend drove the car without my friends knowledge; he came back home all safe and sound but what would have been the consequences if hes friend had got stopped by police or had an accident? Who would have been to blame? My friend who has the insurance? Or hes friend who drove the car even though the car is in his name, his friend has only got a provisional licence and my friend drives the car to go to uni as hes saving up for his own, my friend wants to cancel the insurance as he cant trust his mate anymore, whats your take on this

tykesi

The person who drove the car would be the one punished if your 'friend' did not know the car was being used. If he knew and still let the guy drive then he is equally at fault and both would be punished. Punishment for no insurance I think is £300 and 6-8 points, the car will also be seized if it is pulled by the police.

If an accident had occured, a third party could claim from your 'friend's' insurance which would affect 'his' no claims and need to be declared in future. This would be on top of the punishment described above.

InsideInsurance

I am confused as too many people simply known as "friend".... assuming its a driving without insurance question then the driver is certainly in trouble.

The owner would be in trouble if they had allowed them to take the car and the police may well want the owner to press charges of theft against the driver to substantiate it is actually without consent rather than lying to get out of bother.

tykesi wrote: »

If an accident had occured, a third party could claim from your 'friend's' insurance which would affect 'his' no claims and need to be declared in future. This would be on top of the punishment described above.

Its more complex than that and would depend on if the vehicle is reported as stolen or not.

The insurer would remain the RTA insurer of the vehicle and so can be forced to deal with any claims that happen. If the vehicle is reported as stolen it actually counts as a theft claim and the insurer has a right of recovery against the thief/ driver. If a recovery is made then its a non-fault claim and doesnt impact NCD. If a recovery isnt made its a fault claim and impacts NCD subject to protection.

If a theft isnt claimed then the insurer has a right of recovery both against the driver but also the policyholder. Again, if recovery is made its non-fault/ no NCD impact. If no recovery is made then its fault and impact on NCD subject to protection. In this case you may well find your policy also cancelled for breach of terms which causes you another host of problems.

rexmedorum

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The owner would be in trouble if they had allowed them to take the car and the police may well want the owner to press charges of theft against the driver to substantiate it is actually without consent rather than lying to get out of bother.

Sounds like the person who drove it is in fact the owner of the car. But it is unsured in somebody else's name and his name isn't on. SO the person who insured it should be in the clear??? or...?

Designed1987

The owner of the vehicle drove the car but isnt insured on the policy so if something happened like getting stopped by police etc the owner should be liable not policyholder, it has nothing to do with him because hes only insured to drive the car and isnt the owner of it?

rexmedorum

Designed1987 wrote: »

The owner of the vehicle drove the car but isnt insured on the policy so if something happened like getting stopped by police etc the owner should be liable not policyholder, it has nothing to do with him because hes only insured to drive the car and isnt the owner of it?

In that case the owner can't be changed with 'taking without the owners consent' I would have thought. I wouldn't hazard a guess whether the insured person would be liable for anything. (s)he may have 'allowed an uninsured person to drive' but then again it's the driver's car so how could you disallow it?

However it doesn't really matter as nothing happened, just get the owner added to the insurance!

Herzlos

The owner only has a provisional by the sounds of it too. Hence the convoluted set-up.

So the owner would be guilty of driving without an appropriate license AND without insurance. I believe that'd result in them getting a ban before even getting a full license.

Inch_High_2

Herzlos wrote: »

The owner only has a provisional by the sounds of it too. Hence the convoluted set-up.

So the owner would be guilty of driving without an appropriate license AND without insurance. I believe that'd result in them getting a ban before even getting a full license.

6-8 points won't see them banned.

rexmedorum

Herzlos wrote: »

The owner only has a provisional by the sounds of it too. Hence the convoluted set-up.

So the owner would be guilty of driving without an appropriate license AND without insurance. I believe that'd result in them getting a ban before even getting a full license.

Why on earth is the owner not on the insurance though? It's hard to think of any good reason, unless they haven't got a license at all. You can be on the insurance with a provisional.

InsideInsurance

rexmedorum wrote: »

Sounds like the person who drove it is in fact the owner of the car. But it is unsured in somebody else's name and his name isn't on. SO the person who insured it should be in the clear??? or...?

From a police point of view yes.

From an insurance point of view that would be really messy if there was a claim. Legally they probably would still have a right of recovery from the Policyholder however given the unorthodox situation that they may waive that right but then if they dont make a recovery from the driver its a fault claim plus no cover for the vehicle

You'd need to look at the situation that led rise to the owner lending a car to someone else who insurers it but doesnt cover the owner to drive it but then the owner presumably uses a retained key to drive it anyway

dacouch

rexmedorum wrote: »

Sounds like the person who drove it is in fact the owner of the car. But it is unsured in somebody else's name and his name isn't on. SO the person who insured it should be in the clear??? or...?

InsideInsurance wrote: »

From a police point of view yes.

From an insurance point of view that would be really messy if there was a claim. Legally they probably would still have a right of recovery from the Policyholder however given the unorthodox situation that they may waive that right but then if they dont make a recovery from the driver its a fault claim plus no cover for the vehicle

You'd need to look at the situation that led rise to the owner lending a car to someone else who insurers it but doesnt cover the owner to drive it but then the owner presumably uses a retained key to drive it anyway

Do you not mean unsurance