Uninsured Car involved in RTC

Yazan

Hi, this is my first time on any Forum, so here is my story:
Early hours in the morning I’ve heard a Big Bang, went outside to check and it’s only my car been hit by another car and ended up 2 houses down. The driver of the other car stopped and we called the police, the driver admitted his fault and found to be 3 times over the limit drinking, and on a provisional license. The police told me that the other driver told them that he was insured on his Mother’s insurance.
Here is the issue, I’ve cancelled my car insurance 5 days ago as I’ve sold it and the new owner was supposed to collect this weekend. Nothing has been exchanged with the new owner but he agreed to testify that he agreed to buy it and collect on the weekend.
Where do I stand in terms of claiming? If the other driver was insured and if he wasn’t insured.
Appreciate your thoughts on this. Thanks

waamo

Just to clarify was your car sat on the road and uninsured?

a.turner

You claim off his insurance in the normal way. You may also have six points coming your way for no insurance.

waamo

a.turner wrote: »

You claim off his insurance in the normal way. You may also have six points coming your way for no insurance.

The car may be seized and crushed....oh hang on

Yazan

I got advised by the police officer that worst case scenario regarding the car not being insured is £100 fine, I’m bothered about the claiming side of it coz the damage I’m sure is a write off...

AdrianC

Yazan wrote: »

I got advised by the police officer that worst case scenario regarding the car not being insured is £100 fine

If he did, then he was simply wrong.

The absolute minimum fixed penalty is £300 and six points. It doesn't matter that you weren't actually driving it. It doesn't matter that somebody may or may not have agreed to buy it at some point in the future. You are the registered keeper - you are responsible.

unholyangel

AdrianC wrote: »

If he did, then he was simply wrong.

The absolute minimum fixed penalty is £300 and six points. It doesn't matter that you weren't actually driving it. It doesn't matter that somebody may or may not have agreed to buy it at some point in the future. You are the registered keeper - you are responsible.

You're thinking of uninsured driver. Its a different offence.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

You do not need to insure your vehicle if it is kept off the road and declared as off the road (SORN). This rule is called ‘continuous insurance enforcement’.

If not, you could:

get a fixed penalty of £100
have your vehicle wheel-clamped, impounded or destroyed
face a court prosecution, with a possible maximum fine of £1,000

Next page covers driving while uninsured and says:

The police could give you a fixed penalty of £300 and 6 penalty points if you’re caught driving a vehicle you’re not insured to drive.

If the case goes to court you could get:

an unlimited fine
disqualified from driving

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

You're thinking of uninsured driver. Its a different offence.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles



Next page covers driving while uninsured and says:

Not for the first time, the gov.uk website is wrong, or at least does not tell the ful story.

The offence [Road Traffic Act 1988, section 143 (1(a))] is "using", not "driving", and is committed by parking the vehicle on the road.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

Not for the first time, the gov.uk website is wrong, or at least does not tell the ful story.

The offence [Road Traffic Act 1988, section 143 (1(a))] is "using", not "driving", and is committed by parking the vehicle on the road.

They're not wrong, the continuous insurance is covered by section 144....not 143

ETA: just realised you might have meant their use of the word driving. IMO driving includes parking (how else do you park if not by driving?) but the requirements for a s143 offence would be higher than that of s144 - they'd need to prove it had no insurance at the time it was parked and also who the driver was that parked it. s144 only requires that the car isn't sorn and has no insurance.

I would also point out the term using is in reference to the motorvehicle, not the road.

waamo

IIRC the precedent is Elliot vs Grey. It was held that a car jacked up on a road was being used and therefore required insurance.

AdrianC

unholyangel wrote: »

You're thinking of uninsured driver. Its a different offence.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/uninsured-vehicles

Next page covers driving while uninsured and says:

He's committed both a CIE offence - which is relatively trivial - and a using-whilst-uninsured offence, just the same as if it were being driven.

If the car was off the public road, it would only be the CIE. But since it was on the public road...

If it was SORNed - he doesn't say - then there would be no CIE offence, but the more serious would still stand.