Speeding fine, no idea who was driving

Keep_pedalling

blackbirdxx said:

Just to clarify....
My wife's sister (the cars owner) has been sent the 'notice of intended prosecution' form to complete and I will be noted as the named driver. There is no problem with naming the other driver with the foreign driving licence from Trinidad. The car was always going to be driven by the both of us for the entire road trip and insurance was set up accordingly although I am the only named driver. I do understand that naming a foreign driver to take the wrap can be a common ploy to avoid prosecution but in this case it was an arranged road trip with b&b accommodation around the country. All the named people in the car are clearly documented as staying in various b&b's. Not sure if this helps my case but who knows?

  

How could the insurance be set up appropriately if you were the only named driver? 

Bigphil1474

OP, you're story has a few holes in it? Who was on holiday - your wife or her sister? How does her sister own a car in the UK if she lives in Trinidad? Why is your wife on holiday here if you live here?  How was her husband driving the car legally if he wasn't a named driver?

If he was a a named driver on the insurance, you could provide that along with names on any bookings etc. in some way to show who was driving. However, given you have form for speeding, maybe just accept it was probably you and move on? (Not wanting to sound judgey but a speeding ticket every 7 or so years is a tad excessive).

Car_54

blackbirdxx said:

Just to clarify....
My wife's sister (the cars owner) has been sent the 'notice of intended prosecution' form to complete and I will be noted as the named driver. There is no problem with naming the other driver with the foreign driving licence from Trinidad. The car was always going to be driven by the both of us for the entire road trip and insurance was set up accordingly although I am the only named driver. I do understand that naming a foreign driver to take the wrap can be a common ploy to avoid prosecution but in this case it was an arranged road trip with b&b accommodation around the country. All the named people in the car are clearly documented as staying in various b&b's. Not sure if this helps my case but who knows?

  

If the other driver wasn't named. how was he insured? A Trinidadian policy isn't valid here.

TooManyPoints

 It's a penalty offence in itself for an insured driver to knowingly allow an uninsured driver to drive a vehicle. 

But there is no indication of that. Quite the reverse, in fact. 

As above, the Registered Keeper would almost certainly not be seen as "the person keeping the vehicle" in this case. And that's what determines what information she has to provide. She knows who she lent the car to and that is the only information she has. So she must name that person (blackbirdxx, the OP). He will then get his own "request for driver's details". As "the person keeping the vehicle" he has the duty to provide them.

The law says he has a statutory defence (that is, one provided specifically under the law)  "...if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was."

So before we get too bogged down, blackbirdxx, what efforts have you made to determine which of the two of you was driving?

blackbirdxx

I note that a number of people are saying the other driver was effectively uninsured. This may be the case but I thought that being a 'named driver' gave me the same level of insurance and the car owner? I also thought that allowing someone else to drive on a licence legally in the uk would make them insured also. This may in fact not be the case and both of us should have been 'named drivers.'   
Grateful if someone can confirm this fact? 


Apologies to Bigphil for my poor description of events.

GrumpyDil

Being a named driver would generally give you the same level of cover as the policy holder. 

However, letting someone else drive the vehicle without making sure they were insured is not good and no they don't get some sort of magical insurance so if they were not named on the policy they were uninsured. 

Okell

Bigphil1474 said:

OP, you're story has a few holes in it? Who was on holiday - your wife or her sister? How does her sister own a car in the UK if she lives in Trinidad? Why is your wife on holiday here if you live here?  How was her husband driving the car legally if he wasn't a named driver?

If he was a a named driver on the insurance, you could provide that along with names on any bookings etc. in some way to show who was driving. However, given you have form for speeding, maybe just accept it was probably you and move on? (Not wanting to sound judgey but a speeding ticket every 7 or so years is a tad excessive).

I think you've got completely the wrong end of the stick - althought the Op's narrative is unnecessarily confusing.

I think the position is that the OP's brother and his wife are on holday in the UK  from T&T and they have visited the OP.  The OP and his wife live in the UK.  The Op's wife has borrowed her sister's car so that the four of them can go for a touring holiday in the UK.  Apparently only the OP and his brother drove the car during that touring holiday.  It would appear that the OP was the only person insured to drive the vehicle...

Kim_13

blackbirdxx said:

I note that a number of people are saying the other driver was effectively uninsured. This may be the case but I thought that being a 'named driver' gave me the same level of insurance and the car owner? I also thought that allowing someone else to drive on a licence legally in the uk would make them insured also. This may in fact not be the case and both of us should have been 'named drivers.'   
Grateful if someone can confirm this fact? 


Apologies to Bigphil for my poor description of events.

It gives the named driver the same cover (comprehensive, third party or third party fire and theft) as the car owner, if they are driving the car. They cannot transfer that cover to anyone else, that’s why it’s called a named driver. The insurance company has assessed and accepted the risk in allowing the named driver to drive, not anyone else. Anyone not named is not insured unless they had a temporary policy covering them from one of the companies who offer them. If such a certificate cannot be produced for the foreign licence holder, do not name him. Accept the points yourself and see if he will agree that as neither of you know who was driving and could open another can of worms, he will reimburse you for the cost of the ticket while you take the points.

A policyholder may have third party cover to drive other cars, but this never applies to a named driver. Nor would such an extension from Trinidad be valid in the UK. Make sure you know how things work before borrowing someone else’s car in future, and get confirmation from the insurance company in advance if you are unsure.

Okell

blackbirdxx said:

I note that a number of people are saying the other driver was effectively uninsured. This may be the case but I thought that being a 'named driver' gave me the same level of insurance and the car owner? I also thought that allowing someone else to drive on a licence legally in the uk would make them insured also. This may in fact not be the case and both of us should have been 'named drivers.'   
Grateful if someone can confirm this fact? 


Apologies to Bigphil for my poor description of events.

Only if they were insured to drive it.  It's extrememly unlikely that they were unless they were a named driver on the UK insurance policy.  Their own insurance from T&T would not cover them.   Were they named on the UK policy?

What were the actual insurance arrangements in place to cover this vehicle while the four of you were touring the UK?

(NB - when you uses the term "named" I think you need to make it clear what you are talking about.  When you first used it I thought you were talking about your wife's sister "naming" or nominating you as the person keeping the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence, not about insurance)

Car_54

Kim_13 said:

blackbirdxx said:

I note that a number of people are saying the other driver was effectively uninsured. This may be the case but I thought that being a 'named driver' gave me the same level of insurance and the car owner? I also thought that allowing someone else to drive on a licence legally in the uk would make them insured also. This may in fact not be the case and both of us should have been 'named drivers.'   
Grateful if someone can confirm this fact? 


Apologies to Bigphil for my poor description of events.

 Accept the points yourself and see if he will agree that as neither of you know who was driving and could open another can of worms, he will reimburse you for the cost of the ticket while you take the points.

That sounds terribly like a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.