Uninsured driver - company car

natnat99

Please may you conform who would be liable if the employer doesn't insure the company car? Would it be the employer (the owner of the company)? Who is responsible?

Any advise on this matter would be most appreciated.

discat11

Both are responsible -Driver and company.
Driver will be the one endorsed with the points however.

If the driver was told that the company insurance covers him to drive then he may have a legal case against the employer if he can prove that however?

cajef

Unfortunately is the drivers responsibility to make sure they are insured to drive the vehicle.

molerat

Some misleading replies above. The owner should be liable. The grey area in this case is the term "employment" and "self employed" but IMO he should be in the clear. He needs to argue his case.

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.

discat11

Whilst that's true it's proving the driver was told that insurance was in place that will the difficult thing IMHO.

dacouch

discat11 wrote: »

Whilst that's true it's proving the driver was told that insurance was in place that will the difficult thing IMHO.

He doesn't need to be told the vehicle is insured, he just needs reasonable belief the vehicle is insured.

It's more a case of the court proving he should reasonably have known the vehicle was uninsured and / or there's proof he knew the vehicle was not insured eg he was the person in charge of handling the insurance

Aretnap

dacouch wrote: »

He doesn't need to be told the vehicle is insured, he just needs reasonable belief the vehicle is insured

He does't even need that - he just needs NOT to have any reason to believe that it isn't insured.

While Nelsonian blindness to an obviously dodgy situation would probably not be enough to provide a defence, he is not under any obligation to make inquiries or check his works van's insurance status unless he has a particular reason to suspect that it's not insured.

MEM62

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the car is insured. There are also, of course, consequences for the company in the event of a non-insured vehicle but the driver will be prosecuted. It is also the drivers responsibility to ensure any vehicle he is given to drive is in a roadworthy condition. Again action will be taken against the driver if it is found to be unsafe.

tempus_fugit

MEM62 wrote: »

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the car is insured. There are also, of course, consequences for the company in the event of a non-insured vehicle but the driver will be prosecuted. It is also the drivers responsibility to ensure any vehicle he is given to drive is in a roadworthy condition. Again action will be taken against the driver if it is found to be unsafe.

Did you not read posts 4, 6 & 7 or did you choose to ignore them?

MEM62

tempus_fugit wrote: »

Did you not read posts 4, 6 & 7 or did you choose to ignore them?

Neither. Based on my experience my opinion is different.

Quentin

MEM62 wrote: »

Neither. Based on my experience my opinion is different.

"Opinions" are irrelevant (and dangerous to post when they are wrong) over matters of fact concerning laws