Caught driving without insurance

astonsmummy

well thats what i meant.

LandyAndy

astonsmummy wrote: »

well thats what i meant.

I know you did and I wasn't, at all, trying to put you down. It was just that there has been a lot of ambiguity in the words used by many posters in this thread.

dawnydee73

I was in a similar situation a few years ago, I was selling a car - sold as seen. However I went out one day when someone enquiring about it and my partner took them out for a test drive. Police stopped the car and neither of them were insured to drive it.

When the police questioned me, I was the one who is responsible for the car and it was me that was cautioned. The only way I could not of been responsible was to say it had been stolen - which it hadn't so i couldn't really say that.

The police were not interested in my partner because he wasn't driving, and it was me and the driver who both got taken to court, the driver was prosecuted for driving with no insurance and got 8 points and I was prosecuted for permitting someone to drive with no insurance and I got 6 points on my licence

claire23

Thanks to all posters for your advice. I was confused about the theft charge because i was told that if he was driving without insurance it was an automatic charge. However, i have just found out he has been bailed to appear again in october and has been charged with driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance. I have also been told that i might have to appear in court, not sure why yet.

Again thanks to all and sorry if i wasnt too clear.

Claire
xx

pompeyrich

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

It's not uncommon for insurance to offer this. My latest policy allows anyone to drive fully comprehensive as long as they have my permission, and as long as they're over the age of 30 and have had a full clean licence for 5-years. I specifically requested it. Two of the drivers are named, my Mother and my Partner. The insurance also allows me only to drive other vehicles with the owners permission. I'm paying £255 for a 2003 Ford Focus 1.6.

Usually the "driving other vehicles" insurance cover for the policy holder is 3rd party only, perfectly legal but if you smash the car you are using it's you that pays.

Happychappy

ts_aly2000 wrote: »

The Police are being awkward, simply so that they can achieve their quota and an entry into their monthly prize draw for a free holiday.

Tell the Police that as you understood it he was covered either by his own insurance as a third party or by yours as an additional driver. There is no mass crime of genocide or gang rape as they see it. It's nothing more than an innocent oversight.

It's not uncommon for insurance to offer this. My latest policy allows anyone to drive fully comprehensive as long as they have my permission, and as long as they're over the age of 30 and have had a full clean licence for 5-years. I specifically requested it. Two of the drivers are named, my Mother and my Partner. The insurance also allows me only to drive other vehicles with the owners permission. I'm paying £255 for a 2003 Ford Focus 1.6.

Knew somewhere along the line someone would blame someone else, wasnt expecting it to be the police at fault, but you live and learn :rolleyes:

So with you well reasoned thoughts, what would happen if the driver had been involved in an RTC and seriously injured another person, or wrote off another car which was only third party cover, who would cover the injury or damage ? would it come from the police holiday quota fund ? get a life.

If the owner did not the car insured for any other driver or if the guy driving it was not a named driver and he had no insurance himself which allowed him to drive any other vehicle not owned or hired to him, then the vehicle is uninsured.

Just to make something up to suit like "I thought he was insured" doesnt wash in grown up's world, and being hit by an uninsured driver is very serious and isnt "an innocent oversight"

If the OP gave him permission to drive but her insurance didnt cover him, and he had none of his own, she would be prosecuted for use, cause,permit. If she didnt give him permission to drive, he is prosecuted for no insurance and TWOC ?

How the "police are being akward " is beyond me, hopefully next time you are involved in an accident the other driver turns out to be uninsured, interesting to see if you would have the same stupid not a problem attitude.

custardy

i think the OP needs to give more background.
the very fact he was detained overnight leads me ot believe there is more to this.
he obviously commited some other offence of a more serious nature or am i wrong?
i dont see someone being locked up for 'just' no insurance

consultant31

custardy wrote: »

i think the OP needs to give more background.
the very fact he was detained overnight leads me ot believe there is more to this.
he obviously commited some other offence of a more serious nature or am i wrong?
i dont see someone being locked up for 'just' no insurance

Quoted by claire23:-

However, i have just found out he has been bailed to appear again in october and has been charged with driving whilst disqualified and driving without insurance.

He should have stayed locked up in my opinion :mad:

mjr600

This is a very simple issue which seems to have been confused by earlier posters who have little or no knowledge of the Theft Act the Road Traffic Act and its practical application.

If A takes a car belonging to B without the consent of B and without the intention of permanently depriving B of the car (by returning the car or leaving it somewhere) then A commits a summary offence of TWOC, taking without the owners consent. Whilst it is an offence under the Theft Act it is not theft as there is no intent to permanently deprive. A simple TWOC carries up to 6 months in prison, penalty points and/or a fine.

If A takes a car belonging to B and A says 'don't worry I'm insured' but A is not insured then A commits an offence of using a vehicle on a road without insurance and B also commits an offence of using/permitting A to drive without insurance. The fact that B thought A was insured in irrelevant, insurance offences are absolute offences, there is no get out clause, there is no defence. Not having insurance is also a summary offence which attracts a fine/points.

The point where the two meet is known as a 'technical twoc' and this oftens occurs when a young lad takes his Dads car for a spin and gets stopped by the Police. Dad has a choice, he says 'I did not give son permission to take the car' and the lad is prosecuted for the more serious offence of TWOC, the Dad commits no offence.

OR

The Dad says 'I did give my son permission to take the car' and both the son and Dad are prosecuted for using/permitting the use of the car on a road without insurance. A less serious offence but one which hits Dads licence, NCD and insurance quotes.

In the case of the 'technical twoc' the Police will often ask the parties involved which offence they are going to accept, the lad on his own for TWOC or both of them for no insurance.

In my experience the Dad normally leaves the son to suffer a TWOC and protect his licence etc.

Relating this to the OP, since the person who drove the car was also disqualified from driving, the Police are working on the assumption that you would not have given a disqualified drive permission to drive your car.

I suggest you be more careful in future, learn to spell correctly and be thankful you are being treated as a victim of crime rather than a party to it.

custardy

the courts really need to hit disqualified drivers.
endorsments are no deterrent and given the fact even with a licence the insurance is of biblical proportions the chances of them driving legally are even slimmer