Still insured?

Car_54

452 said:

Car_54 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

I'm sure that the smallprint of your husband's policy will state something such as this:

You must tell us straight away if anything changes to the information you provided as per the statement of insurance. The changes include the following and if you do not tell us about these changes, this may result in increased premiums, refusal of a claim or not being fully paid, your policy being cancelled or being made null & void and treated as if it never existed.

Anyone who drives the car passes their driving test or has their driving licence revoked. 

Anyone who drives the car gets a motoring conviction or has a prosecution pending (including fixed penalty offences).

and by not telling them and driving the vehicle, you are risking being prosecuted for driving with no insurance, your husband being prosecuted for permitting you to drive with no insurance and should you be involved in an accident, becoming liable for all of the costs involved.

The insurer cannot avoid its obligations to third parties, so no criminal prosecutions are possible.

Are you sure that's correct?

If your car was stolen tonight and involved in an accident where the driver of that car was at fault then who would pay the innocent party?

How does that relate to the OP's situation?

KimJongUn88

Car_54 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

I'm sure that the smallprint of your husband's policy will state something such as this:

You must tell us straight away if anything changes to the information you provided as per the statement of insurance. The changes include the following and if you do not tell us about these changes, this may result in increased premiums, refusal of a claim or not being fully paid, your policy being cancelled or being made null & void and treated as if it never existed.

Anyone who drives the car passes their driving test or has their driving licence revoked. 

Anyone who drives the car gets a motoring conviction or has a prosecution pending (including fixed penalty offences).

and by not telling them and driving the vehicle, you are risking being prosecuted for driving with no insurance, your husband being prosecuted for permitting you to drive with no insurance and should you be involved in an accident, becoming liable for all of the costs involved.

The insurer cannot avoid its obligations to third parties, so no criminal prosecutions are possible.

Yes the insurer must pay out and settle their liabilities to third party but they may not do do as insurer concerned. They may settle in their reduced capacity as RTA insurer or Article 75 insurer which would leave them the option to seek recovery from the OP in which case the OP can still be criminally prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Car_54

KimJongUn88 said:

Car_54 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

I'm sure that the smallprint of your husband's policy will state something such as this:

You must tell us straight away if anything changes to the information you provided as per the statement of insurance. The changes include the following and if you do not tell us about these changes, this may result in increased premiums, refusal of a claim or not being fully paid, your policy being cancelled or being made null & void and treated as if it never existed.

Anyone who drives the car passes their driving test or has their driving licence revoked. 

Anyone who drives the car gets a motoring conviction or has a prosecution pending (including fixed penalty offences).

and by not telling them and driving the vehicle, you are risking being prosecuted for driving with no insurance, your husband being prosecuted for permitting you to drive with no insurance and should you be involved in an accident, becoming liable for all of the costs involved.

The insurer cannot avoid its obligations to third parties, so no criminal prosecutions are possible.

Yes the insurer must pay out and settle their liabilities to third party but they may not do do as insurer concerned. They may settle in their reduced capacity as RTA insurer or Article 75 insurer which would leave them the option to seek recovery from the OP in which case the OP can still be criminally prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

452

Car_54 said:

KimJongUn88 said:

Car_54 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

I'm sure that the smallprint of your husband's policy will state something such as this:

You must tell us straight away if anything changes to the information you provided as per the statement of insurance. The changes include the following and if you do not tell us about these changes, this may result in increased premiums, refusal of a claim or not being fully paid, your policy being cancelled or being made null & void and treated as if it never existed.

Anyone who drives the car passes their driving test or has their driving licence revoked. 

Anyone who drives the car gets a motoring conviction or has a prosecution pending (including fixed penalty offences).

and by not telling them and driving the vehicle, you are risking being prosecuted for driving with no insurance, your husband being prosecuted for permitting you to drive with no insurance and should you be involved in an accident, becoming liable for all of the costs involved.

The insurer cannot avoid its obligations to third parties, so no criminal prosecutions are possible.

Yes the insurer must pay out and settle their liabilities to third party but they may not do do as insurer concerned. They may settle in their reduced capacity as RTA insurer or Article 75 insurer which would leave them the option to seek recovery from the OP in which case the OP can still be criminally prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

The question is would the policy still be valid?

facade

452 said:

Car_54 said:

KimJongUn88 said:

Car_54 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

I'm sure that the smallprint of your husband's policy will state something such as this:

You must tell us straight away if anything changes to the information you provided as per the statement of insurance. The changes include the following and if you do not tell us about these changes, this may result in increased premiums, refusal of a claim or not being fully paid, your policy being cancelled or being made null & void and treated as if it never existed.

Anyone who drives the car passes their driving test or has their driving licence revoked. 

Anyone who drives the car gets a motoring conviction or has a prosecution pending (including fixed penalty offences).

and by not telling them and driving the vehicle, you are risking being prosecuted for driving with no insurance, your husband being prosecuted for permitting you to drive with no insurance and should you be involved in an accident, becoming liable for all of the costs involved.

The insurer cannot avoid its obligations to third parties, so no criminal prosecutions are possible.

Yes the insurer must pay out and settle their liabilities to third party but they may not do do as insurer concerned. They may settle in their reduced capacity as RTA insurer or Article 75 insurer which would leave them the option to seek recovery from the OP in which case the OP can still be criminally prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

The question is would the policy still be valid?

If you are driving outside the terms of your policy, you are not insured, and can be prosecuted for no insurance*. The Law forces Insurers to cover 3rd party damage caused by a vehicle with an insurance policy, but they will seek to recover from the driver or policy holder- the only defence is theft.

The OP really needs to ask their insurer. I was a named driver on my late father's insurance, and when he died his insurer was happy for me to run the policy out without any changes, although I cancelled it for a refund.

*People are prosecuted all the time for no insurance when delivering pizzas without the correct business cover, and if the mere existence of an insurance policy in someone else's name magically covered any driver, very few people would be prosecuted, and the pounds would go out of business. 

shaun_from_Africa

Car_54 said:

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

The vehicle may well be insured but this doesn't mean that the driver of that vehicle is also insured to drive it.
Here's how the government put it:
https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance

Even if the vehicle itself is insured, if you’re not correctly insured to drive it you could get penalised.

Penalties for uninsured drivers:

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

KimJongUn88

Car_54 said:

KimJongUn88 said:

Car_54 said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

I'm sure that the smallprint of your husband's policy will state something such as this:

You must tell us straight away if anything changes to the information you provided as per the statement of insurance. The changes include the following and if you do not tell us about these changes, this may result in increased premiums, refusal of a claim or not being fully paid, your policy being cancelled or being made null & void and treated as if it never existed.

Anyone who drives the car passes their driving test or has their driving licence revoked. 

Anyone who drives the car gets a motoring conviction or has a prosecution pending (including fixed penalty offences).

and by not telling them and driving the vehicle, you are risking being prosecuted for driving with no insurance, your husband being prosecuted for permitting you to drive with no insurance and should you be involved in an accident, becoming liable for all of the costs involved.

The insurer cannot avoid its obligations to third parties, so no criminal prosecutions are possible.

Yes the insurer must pay out and settle their liabilities to third party but they may not do do as insurer concerned. They may settle in their reduced capacity as RTA insurer or Article 75 insurer which would leave them the option to seek recovery from the OP in which case the OP can still be criminally prosecuted for driving without insurance.

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

You're wrong. 

Car_54

We are drifting away from the OP's query.

The OP's partner hasn't told the insurer yet about the loss of licence. Until he does, the policy is in force, and the OP as named driver is not committing an offence. There may be horrible consequences if a claim arises, but a criminal charge is not one of them.

George_Michael

Car_54 said:

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

Surely if that was the case, there would be no need for the DOC (driving other vehicles) that is often included with motor insurance policies.
It would mean that any vehicle that had valid insurance on it could legally be driven by any other person and those other people could never be prosecuted for driving without insurance even if they didn't have a licence entitling them to drive the vehicle concerned. 

Car_54

George_Michael said:

Car_54 said:

Yes, they can seek recovery. No, he/she can't be prosecuted - there was RTA insurance in place.

Surely if that was the case, there would be no need for the DOC (driving other vehicles) that is often included with motor insurance policies.
It would mean that any vehicle that had valid insurance on it could legally be driven by any other person and those other people could never be prosecuted for driving without insurance even if they didn't have a licence entitling them to drive the vehicle concerned. 

Entireley different. The OP is a named driver on a policy which is still in force.