Still insured?

George_Michael

Car_54 said:

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.

Why is it entirely different?
You clearly stated that if there was a valid policy covering a vehicle, the insurer was required to cover any third party liabilities so if I didn't have DOC on my insurance and my neighbour allowed me to drive their car which was only insured for them to drive, there would still be a valid policy on the vehicle so using your logic, I could not be prosecuted for driving whilst uninsured.
This link to the government website posted by shaun from africa sums it up perfectly. Just because a vehicle has a policy covering it, doesn't mean that someone driving that vehicle can't be prosecuted for driving uninsured.

Car_54

George_Michael said:

Car_54 said:

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.

Why is it entirely different?
You clearly stated that if there was a valid policy covering a vehicle, the insurer was required to cover any third party liabilities and if I didn't have DOC on my insurance and my neighbour allowed me to drive their car which was only insured for them to drive, there would still be a valid policy on the vehicle so using your logic, I could not be prosecuted for driving whilst uninsured.
This link to the government website posted by shaun from africa sums it up perfectly. Just because a vehicle has a policy covering it, doesn't mean that someone driving that vehicle can't be prosecuted for driving uninsured.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I did say that. The point here is not that the vehicle is covered, but that the OP is insured to drive it, and continues to be so until it is cancelled.

That is not to say that the OP and/or partner are not committing any other offences by failing to advise the insurer. Fraud?

KimJongUn88

Terms and conditions from Zurich regarding the continuous duty of disclosure placed on their policyholders.  I'm sure most other insurers have the same duty.
"Important notice: Material facts and non-disclosure

You have a continuous duty to disclose all Material Facts to us. Your failure to disclose a Material Fact(s) could result in your contract being invalidated or cancelled, a claim not being paid or difficulty in obtaining insurance in the future. Material Facts are those facts which might influence our acceptance or assessment of your application for motor insurance. If you are in doubt as to whether a fact is material you should disclose it to us."

Failure to advise the motor insurer of the revocation of the licence would be a fair to disclose a material fact.  This would have rendered the policy cancelled or void and therefore the OP would not be in a position to legally drive the vehicle and have the benefit of motor insurance cover.  

Car_54, you need to learn about the different levels of cover motor insurers work to when there are indemnity issues.  Even though an insurer may pay out to third parties, this could be as:

i.  Insurer concerned.

ii.  RTA insurer.

iii.  Article 75 insurer.  

I've mentioned these in my previous post but I don't think you understand what each term means.  

born_again

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.

Correct. They will have to pay the 3rd party. They then can claim it back from the policy holder.

So Shaun is correct, He made no mention of Insurance co not paying the 3rd party.

452

Car_54 said:

George_Michael said:

Car_54 said:

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.

Why is it entirely different?
You clearly stated that if there was a valid policy covering a vehicle, the insurer was required to cover any third party liabilities and if I didn't have DOC on my insurance and my neighbour allowed me to drive their car which was only insured for them to drive, there would still be a valid policy on the vehicle so using your logic, I could not be prosecuted for driving whilst uninsured.
This link to the government website posted by shaun from africa sums it up perfectly. Just because a vehicle has a policy covering it, doesn't mean that someone driving that vehicle can't be prosecuted for driving uninsured.

I may be wrong, but I don't think I did say that. The point here is not that the vehicle is covered, but that the OP is insured to drive it, and continues to be so until it is cancelled.

That is not to say that the OP and/or partner are not committing any other offences by failing to advise the insurer. Fraud?

You're out of your depth and guessing now. 

TooManyPoints

This has been interesting!

The principle is straightforward. Whether a driver is insured to drive a particular vehicle in particular circumstances and whether an insurer is bound to meet TP claims are independent issues. A driver may not be insured (and so face prosecution and probable conviction bar any unrelated defence) but the insurer may still be liable to meet TP claims. A simple way to understand this is when a vehicle is used for business purposes but business cover is not in place. The driver faces prosecution for no insurance but the insurer will almost certainly be liable to meet TP claims. Extending it a little, TP claims are sometimes met by the MIB as a last resort. This does not make the driver immune from prosecution for No Insurance because "cover" (of sorts) is in place..

However, back to the OP, what we don't know (and probably won't since the OP has not been back for 24 hours) is what she means by"...he lost his licence". He could have lost it down the back of the settee; it could have been revoked by the DVLA (for medical reasons, under the "New Drivers" legislation or because he failed to surrender it following a conviction), or he could have been disqualified from driving by a court.