Cancelled Insurance

Aretnap

Goudy said:

You're argument, if it comes to it (which it won't) is what sort of moron expects you to pay for their motor insurance after you've broken up? 

Why on earth would she have to make any argument at all?

In the unlikely event that she's called to give evidence he's the one on trial and she is just there as a witness to give evidence on matters of fact (not opinion). She describes the facts as she's told us here - she used to insure the van but cancelled the policy when they broke up, and told him that she'd cancelled it. She might be asked a few questions about exactly when and how she told him, or what the arrangements around the van we're before they broke up. Job done, what happens next is not her problem. 

It's not her job to argue about what is or isn't expected of a driver when it comes to making sure that they are insured - that's for the lawyers to argue (or the defendant is he's representing himself) and she likely wouldn't be allowed to make such arguaments even if she wanted to.

I say unlikely because it's the job of the defence to present evidence if special reasons not to endorse, and it's unclear why they'd want a witness who is just going to give evidence that completely undermines their case. Sounds like a bit of a non-starter tbh.

MEM62

faye1979 said:

A van he was using had the insurance in my name with him as a named driver 

@faye1979 Was this some kind of multi-vehicle / driver insurance is there a possibility that you were fronting?  

TooManyPoints

And what relevance does that have to this question?

Her partner drove knowing that the policy had been cancelled. That's that.

MEM62

TooManyPoints said:

And what relevance does that have to this question?

Her partner drove knowing that the policy had been cancelled. That's that.

@T@TooManyPoints That's that?  It certainly is, but bearing in mind that this situation may come under the scrutiny of the insurers, if it was fronting then the OP may have additional problems to deal with.  

TooManyPoints

Indeed. But I see no reason why it should be drawn to the insurers' attention and even less why they would be concerned (especially as the policy has been cancelled).

The issue of "fronting" would be of no concern to the Magistrates' Court when dealing with her ex who drove without insurance and I think that's her main concern. 

What is more relevant is

(a) whether the OP is the Registered Keeper (in which case she could find herself facing a penalty or prosecution under s144A of the RTA which deal with Continuous Insurance requirements and

(b) whether she was the person keeping the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence (in which case she might find herself facing  a "permitting" charge, depending on the exact circumstances of that "keeping").

Unfortunately the OP has not been back to let us know the answers to those two questions so I guess we'll never know.