Uninsured Car involved in RTC

Aretnap

waamo wrote: »

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.

Indeed


http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Elliot-v-Grey.php


It has been the case for decades that keeping a car on a public road without insurance carried the same penalty as actually driving it without insurance - it long predates the continuous insurance requirements. However it's fair to add that it is unusual for it actually to be prosecuted in this way, especially since continuous insurance came in, so getting 6 points is more of a theoretical risk for the OP than a real risk. If he were charged with anything it's more likely to be the continuous insurance offence, which carries a small fine and no points


To go back to the original question, his own lack of insurance doesn't absolve the at fault driver of his liabilities, so the OP can still claim from the driver, or his insurers. The main difference is that he obviously won't have an insurer of his own to help him with the process, so he'll have to do alll the work himself.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

They would only need to prove it was uninsured when the offence was reported, not at the time it was put there. And presumably proof of the driver would be by way of an s172 request.

Aretnap

unholyangel wrote: »

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.

No, IIRC the ruling in Eliot v Grey was that "use" should be read as "have use of" to give the statute the widest possible interpretation - which means that the s143 offence can be committed with no driving whatsoever. Merely keeping the car on a road without insurance is enough to commit the offence. Which makes a certain amount of sense - if you leave your knackered old car on the street unmaintained for months and the handbrake cable eventually snaps and it rolls into my car, I'm going to want you to have insurance for it.

Yazan

what about claiming against the other driver?

AdrianC

Yazan wrote: »

what about claiming against the other driver?

Yes, you can claim for your car from their insurance.

You were told this in post 3

This does not affect the chances of you being prosecuted for keeping an uninsured car on the highway, or for any CIE offences.

Scrapit

Yazan wrote: »

what about claiming against the other driver?

If they are insured the minimum cover provided is third party only. You are the third party.

unholyangel

And such is the problem of judgements. You can think that because something was said on a judgement, that it should apply in all cases. But what may seem like a small difference in facts can make all the difference in judgement.

Elliot v Grey the CJ applied the mischief rule because the car had its battery removed, no petrol, the engine didn't work (it had broken down months before) and was jacked up - on a hill. So represented a real danger in which the car owner could have been liable for damage - even if it just rolled down the hill. This was what the statute was meant to prevent and thus, the mischief rule was applied rather than the literal or golden rules. I believe its possibly an offence (in england at least) to leave a car jacked up anyway.


But anyway, I was actually stating that parking would be covered by the gov websites use of the word driving rather than saying parking isn't using. I just made the additional points that its a lot easier for them to prosecute under 144 as there is no doubt to who the RK is.

a.turner

unholyangel wrote: »

And such is the problem of judgements. You can think that because something was said on a judgement, that it should apply in all cases. But what may seem like a small difference in facts can make all the difference in judgement.

Elliot v Grey the CJ applied the mischief rule because the car had its battery removed, no petrol, the engine didn't work (it had broken down months before) and was jacked up - on a hill. So represented a real danger in which the car owner could have been liable for damage - even if it just rolled down the hill. This was what the statute was meant to prevent and thus, the mischief rule was applied rather than the literal or golden rules. I believe its possibly an offence (in england at least) to leave a car jacked up anyway.


But anyway, I was actually stating that parking would be covered by the gov websites use of the word driving rather than saying parking isn't using. I just made the additional points that its a lot easier for them to prosecute under 144 as there is no doubt to who the RK is.

It's easy to prove 143 it's on a road and there's no insurance.