Company Car

[medicineman]

Hi folks

Advice please.

Friend has a company car. 8 days ago he was hit by another driver, his car was written off. He wasn't badly injured in accident, police attended and other driver was found at fault.

Now 8 days later the police have asked for the documents for his (company car). It turns out the company cars MOT has expired 2 months earlier. Where does he stand?

Thanks

MM

[chaparral]

Him - fine - he'll even get compensation for his injuries.

His company - firing feces clear through their pants and all the way to the HVAC system.

[gh0st]

AFAIK its the compaies / leasing company responsibility to keep the car taxed / MoT'd / whatever. They will be in very deep ...

When my company car tax ran out and they forgot to send out a new disc, they sent me a rental car to drive until they sorted it out and begged me to leave it on private land!

[gone]

He and the company MAY be prosecuted for using the car without an MOT.

If the car was not being used on company business, then your friend is likely to subject of a summons for using and the company for permitting No MOT.

No points but a fine!

[Mad Moggie]

gone said:

He and the company MAY be prosecuted for using the car without an MOT. If the car was not being used on company business, then your friend is likely to subject of a summons for using and the company for permitting No MOT. No points but a fine!

Think you are right - gone.

Seem to vaguely recall reading or seeing something on TV on this.

Basically this involved someone hiring a car, and being stopped whilst driving the hire car. Anyway the hired vehicle was found to be defective and it was the driver who got done for the illegal tyre and dodgy wipers.

The justification for this is becuase it is driver's responsibility to check POWER before setting off. Similarly - he would be required to check that company and hire car had carried out MOT etc. In fact, asked Wildy about this - and she says that whilst the company keeps all documentation for their cars in the offices and the admin staff send out routine memo/e-mails to their reps - the onus is on them to take car which is under their "stewardship" to garage for services and MOTs, and the onus is on them to check with admin when tax disc/insurance is up for renewal and complied with.

So - both driver and reg keeper (company) are in bother here - but driver is likely to be fined for not checking as well.

[miniman]

Mad Moggie said:

The justification for this is becuase it is driver's responsibility to check...

This is fine in an ideal world, but what lengths is a driver expected to go to to check this kind of thing? When I was a company car driver, I would regularly ask the MD (small company) about things like insurance - for example, if a colleague wanted to use my car, I would double-check that they were covered. If the MD tells me "yes", is that a sufficient check on my part? Or should I have demanded to see all the paperwork?

In my situation, I could easily have gained access to the insurance doco, but in a large company, how would a driver ever be able to conclusively prove that everything was in order with the vehicle before driving it.

I would argue that if the company provides the keys to a vehicle to an employee, the employee should be within their rights to assume that the vehicle is suitably taxed, insured etc.

[Fat Audi 80]

Mad Moggie said:

gone said: He and the company MAY be prosecuted for using the car without an MOT. If the car was not being used on company business, then your friend is likely to subject of a summons for using and the company for permitting No MOT. No points but a fine! Think you are right - gone.

I think you will find Gone IS right. He knows what he is talking about...

[Streetcop]

Fat Audi 80 said:

I think you will find Gone IS right. He knows what he is talking about...

Street

[Dibble]

Driver - using vehicle without MOT

Company - cause/permit use of vehicle without MOT


It's the driver's responsibility to make sure he is "legal". Exactly what steps he should take are to be determined by the Court - they will have to define what is reasonable.

[loaf]

There is a statutory defence against using a motor vehicle without insurance IF the driver did not know and had no reason to believe that no policy was in force (s143(3)(c) RTA 1988).

Surely the same would apply for an MOT? A company car driver has no reason to believe that the company has not complied with the law...

[medicineman]

So I would guess this comes down the discression of the officer, so boys what would you do?

[Flat in Fifth]

Any decent company will have a policy in place, copies given to any driver, declaring whose responsibility it is to check certain issues.

I know we have one, and personally (ahem!) I think it's a damn good one.

[mcflurry]

loaf said:

There is a statutory defence against using a motor vehicle without insurance IF the driver did not know and had no reason to believe that no policy was in force (s143(3)(c) RTA 1988). Surely the same would apply for an MOT? A company car driver has no reason to believe that the company has not complied with the law...

If the company car was yours, wouldn't you expect for it to disappear for servicing, MOT etc from time to time??

[^Slider^]

loaf said:

There is a statutory defence against using a motor vehicle without insurance IF the driver did not know and had no reason to believe that no policy was in force (s143(3)(c) RTA 1988). Surely the same would apply for an MOT? A company car driver has no reason to believe that the company has not complied with the law...

As far as i am aware it ONLY applies as a defence to the insurance aspect.

The offence is driver USING the vehicle with expired MOT
The company could be use, cause, permit the vehicle use with no MOT if it was used on company business. If it was personal use provided he has permission to use the vehicle for personal use then they would be liable too.

Gareth



>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Tuesday 21st September 18:22

[gone]

Using a vehicle with no MOT is an offence of strict liability.

Whether the driver knows about the MOT being invalid does not matter. He is guilty of using it without one.

If he is not responsible for the management of documents in relation to the car he could be sentenced to an 'Absolute Discharge' at court with the aid of a good Solicitor.

(Absolute Discharge is finding of guilt by the court but with no penalty attached)

[Mad Moggie]

miniman said:

Mad Moggie said: The justification for this is becuase it is driver's responsibility to check... This is fine in an ideal world, but what lengths is a driver expected to go to to check this kind of thing? When I was a company car driver, I would regularly ask the MD (small company) about things like insurance - for example, if a colleague wanted to use my car, I would double-check that they were covered. If the MD tells me "yes", is that a sufficient check on my part? Or should I have demanded to see all the paperwork? In my situation, I could easily have gained access to the insurance doco, but in a large company, how would a driver ever be able to conclusively prove that everything was in order with the vehicle before driving it. I would argue that if the company provides the keys to a vehicle to an employee, the employee should be within their rights to assume that the vehicle is suitably taxed, insured etc.

Wildy wife tells me that her company issues all its company car drivers with copy of the company's car insurance certificate which they are contractually required to keep in the glove box etc at all times. They also keep buy vehicles outright (not leased) and replace every 4 years or x thousand miles whichever comes first. MOT/servicing is responsibility of person to whom car has been entrusted. One of the accounts staff is responsible for all pool cars.

But bottom line - you are driver and you are responsible to check that this vehicle meets all legal requirements before you drive it. I assume you check it has petol oil, water, electric and rubber before you set off?

[Mad Moggie]

Streetcop said:

Fat Audi 80 said: I think you will find Gone IS right. He knows what he is talking about... Street

My wild wife (who is having a "toes up") ordered me to respond that she agrees that he know what he is talking about on most things apart from unexploded doughnuts.... sorry mate - but I get what you get if I disobey .... - clawed