If you let a plater drive your car - Legal NIP ?

[cptsideways]

I quite often give platers a lift (the guys with the trade plates) especially on longer drives. They are usually nice enough people to chat to & you know they are legit.

Knowing they are usually insured to drive any vehicle it would not be unwise to allow them to take over the driving say if I was tired or wanted a break. I have done this before on several occasions, if it means I can get back home safely instead of travelodging another night.

Imagine a week later I get a NIP in the post?, who was driving? maybe the plater???, I would'nt know who they are unless I remembered their plate number. (and knowing my momory I know I would'nt)


What would be the S172 outcome?, knowing the person was most probably insured etc, just a hypothetical question of course

[TripleS]

I'm not really sure of the insurance situation in a case like that.

In my own case I do a lot of car delivery work for a main dealer, and their insurance covers me to drive any vehicle associated with my work for them. This of course covers any new cars I deliver, or dealer to dealer transfers (again new cars) or the rental cars that are arranged to get me home again.

The fact that someone is carrying trade plates does not necessarily indicate that fully comprehensive cover will be effective while he drives your car, does it? If he is a motor trader he may (probably will) have a special insurance policy for any vehicle, and that may cover your situation, but I'm not sure.

Certainly as a freelance delivery driver I'm pretty sure I would not have that sort of global cover.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[cptsideways]

I'm assunming third part cover would probably be in place, anyway I would expect to ask them, they only have to say yes.

The point is would the above secnario stand up in court?

[Marki]

cptsideways said:

The point is would the above secnario stand up in court?

Nope , i guess as in any other similar situation you are responsible for nameing the driver your stuffed mate

[Dwight VanDriver]

Firstly what you say about Insurance C is definately a bit "iffy" as I cannot see how his firms Insurance would cover him to use your vehicle, not being on their business. The only way is on his own Insurance providing it permitted him to driver a vehicle not owned by him or hired under third part risk. To save any hassle always insist on seing cover before they take the wheel.

Regarding naming driver then the defence of showing that you did not know or could not without reasonable diligence ascertain who the driver was is available. Up to you to convince Their Worships.

DVD

[Boosted LS1]

The onus is on you to have made a reasonable effort to provide the identity of the driver.

So, lets say he gave you his name and address and told/showed you his insurance details on the day he drove your car, which he wrote down for you on a piece of paper. Going well thus far

Then, you get NIP but don't see it for nearly a fortnight. Oh, bugger, lo and behold you can't find that note paper because your jacket went to the laundrette. The mags would want to let you off!

I love it! It's got to be tried!

Boosted.

[7db]

AFAIK it's not an offence to have someone drive your car who is uninsured -- just an offence for them as an uninsured driver - so who cares whether you checked that they were insured.

I think the court might like to see some evidence that you regularly did this (unusal) practice...

[BlackStuff]

7db said:

AFAIK it's not an offence to have someone drive your car who is uninsured -- just an offence for them as an uninsured driver - so who cares whether you checked that they were insured.

I think you would be guilty of "causing or permitting" the offence of driving without insurance.

Having said that, in order to prove this the court would presumably have to prove that an offence took place to start with - ie that the driver was indeed uninsured. Even leaving aside the burden of proof, if he couldn't be traced he couldn't be prosecuted, so you surely couldn't be done for "causing or permitting" an offence that was never proved to start with..?


>> Edited by BlackStuff on Thursday 26th May 00:17

[^Slider^]

Technically. If you were not to check they had insurance nor took reasonable steps to ensure they were insured then you could be guilty of causing/ permitting.

You are sposed to check the documents of anyone driving your vehicle. Or taking reasonable steps to ensure they are insured ie by phoning the insurer etc.

HTH

Gareth

[cptsideways]

^Slider^ said:

Technically. If you were not to check they had insurance nor took reasonable steps to ensure they were insured then you could be guilty of causing/ permitting. You are sposed to check the documents of anyone driving your vehicle. Or taking reasonable steps to ensure they are insured ie by phoning the insurer etc. HTH Gareth

Thats where the Trade plates part comes in, if your in the motor trade as I am (all be it part time) then having trade plates usually means you are covered fairly extensively policy wise, hence it would be a reasonable step to assure ones self of their insurance position. It would be assumed under most policies that driving back from a pick up/drop off would come under the cover even in someone elses car. AFAIK....

If your in the motor trade its pretty normal to give platers a lift.

[Dwight VanDriver]

So our friend is using HIS own car to get from A to B, the purpose of his journey. In the course of this he picks up Trade Plater and allows him to drive.

A. If our friends Insurance permits someone unrelated to to drive. No offence of no Insurance.


B. If Trade Plater has his own Insurance which permits him to drive someone elses vehicle. No offence of No Insurance. If this is the case then it is prudent for our friend to see this to ensure this applies.

C. As far as I can comprehend then any Insurance held by the employer of Trade Plater will only cover whilst Plater is driving the car owned/in the care of Employer and will not cover Trade Plater hitching lifts back home. How this can be resolved would be for a letter to that Insurance Company to ascertain if they held themselves "at risk" in relation to the driving. Doubtful but if they do then no offence of No Insurance.

If A B and C are breached then the Trader Plater and our friend can be summoned for USING without Insurance.
Regarding our friend in the case of Cobb v Williams [1973] it was held that a passenger arranges to travel in or on a vehicle for his own benefit he will be deemed to be USING the vehicle.

Remember too that SCP where the driver is in doubt can and sometimes do ask the keeper for evidence that the use of the vehicle by the unknown was covered by Insurance. There is provision under Road Traffic Act 1988 to do this.

DVD

>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Thursday 26th May 16:19

[mcflurry]

On a slightly different slant, since the accused has to introduce reasonable doubt, surely the judge would simply decide if its feasible or not.

If he is convinced, then you are home free. If not then a donation of pocket money will be donated to the coffers ?

Innocent until proved guilty, except in the case of driving offences....