Mate's sister caught driving without insurance.
Discussion
OK, this is the situation. She is 20, she's had her license 2 years and 2 weeks and has no previous convictions. She went to pick her dad up from the pub which is approximately 3/4 of a mile away. She walked out of the front door and her car was blocked in by her dad's. Her sister's car was parked on the road so she took that.
When they got home a police van pulled up behind them and said they had stopped her because the suspension looks low. Apparently they had a look round the car and took no further action but did give her a producer.
It turns out the only people insured on that car are the mum and dad and the older sister. It is registered and insured in the dad's name with the mum and the older sister as named drivers but is effectively the older sisters car. Apparently all their cars are registered in his name.
The issues I see here are;
Nothing was said at the scene about the insurance so this will not be known to the police until she produces her license and the MOT without a valid certificate of motor insurance.
The girl in question is polite and quite naive, as I think is the dad, which I think the magistrates will see.
My questions are:
When they got home a police van pulled up behind them and said they had stopped her because the suspension looks low. Apparently they had a look round the car and took no further action but did give her a producer.
It turns out the only people insured on that car are the mum and dad and the older sister. It is registered and insured in the dad's name with the mum and the older sister as named drivers but is effectively the older sisters car. Apparently all their cars are registered in his name.
The issues I see here are;
- She has been caught driving without insurance.
- When she arrived at the pub, her dad got in the car, his car, which he knew she wasn't insured on and let her drive it home.
- They are falsely declaring the dad as the main driver.
Nothing was said at the scene about the insurance so this will not be known to the police until she produces her license and the MOT without a valid certificate of motor insurance.
The girl in question is polite and quite naive, as I think is the dad, which I think the magistrates will see.
My questions are:
- What is the punishment likely to be?
- Will the police/magistrates realise the dad caused or permitted the offence and prosecute him as well?
- Are the courts likely to realise that they are 'fronting' with the insurance policy?
Edited by ganglandboss on Monday 10th December 00:13
It's not just the girl herself her dad is also in a sticky position. He has now either got to declare that she did not have permission to drive the car in which case he may be required to give evidence against her as she would be reported for taking and driving the car without his consent (this is the same legislation commonly used for joy riding)or he says he gave her permission and he gets reported for permitting her to use it with no insurance.
No one can predict what the courts will hand out this is one area where there is definitely no consistency and I wouldn't even be willing to hazard a guess.
The BiB who dealt with her can when submitting the report highlight the circumstances you describe within the remarks section of a the report although it is at the discretion of the reporting officer and by no means a requirement so it may be worth taking the time to calmly explain it to them.
No one can predict what the courts will hand out this is one area where there is definitely no consistency and I wouldn't even be willing to hazard a guess.
The BiB who dealt with her can when submitting the report highlight the circumstances you describe within the remarks section of a the report although it is at the discretion of the reporting officer and by no means a requirement so it may be worth taking the time to calmly explain it to them.
Edited by G51CAV on Monday 10th December 01:01
G51CAV said:
It's not just the girl herself her dad is also in a sticky position. He has now either got to declare that she did not have permission to drive the car in which case he may be required to give evidence against her as she would be reported for taking and driving the car without his consent (this is the same legislation commonly used for joy riding)or he says he gave her permission and he gets reported for permitting her to use it with no insurance.
No one can predict what the courts will hand out this is one area where there is definitely no consistency and I wouldn't even be willing to hazard a guess.
The dad could not say she didn't have permission as he was in it at the time. She did take it without consent but when she arrived he allowed her to drive it home. He should have told her to park it up and leave it until either he or the older sister could collect it. As I said, they were only 3/4 of a mile from home so there was no reason to drive.No one can predict what the courts will hand out this is one area where there is definitely no consistency and I wouldn't even be willing to hazard a guess.
I am aware that he has committed an offence himself in allowing her to drive but what I am unsure of is whether this will become apparent to the police or magistrates either when she produces or when she goes to court as the police officers who issued the producer said nothing at the time.
That one lies with whoever takes the details at the station.
What they should do is question why she can't provide insurance and how she came to be driving.
The next logical question from that is whether the registered keeper let her drive.
I know this is not what you want to read and it is hard to make an accurate comment without being personally involved but if I was left those details in response to a hort1 I had issued I would follow it up. If I didn't once I had submitted the police report I would expect a request to explain why I hadn't.
Ultimately the police only report the circumstances, but if it is a genuine error and the BiB can see it then how the report is written can have a huge bearing on what action if any is taken.
What they should do is question why she can't provide insurance and how she came to be driving.
The next logical question from that is whether the registered keeper let her drive.
I know this is not what you want to read and it is hard to make an accurate comment without being personally involved but if I was left those details in response to a hort1 I had issued I would follow it up. If I didn't once I had submitted the police report I would expect a request to explain why I hadn't.
Ultimately the police only report the circumstances, but if it is a genuine error and the BiB can see it then how the report is written can have a huge bearing on what action if any is taken.
ganglandboss said:
It turns out the only people insured on that car are the mum and dad and the older sister. It is registered and insured in the dad's name with the mum and the older sister as named drivers but is effectively the older sisters car. Apparently all their cars are registered in his name.
Has she got a 'driving other cars' clause in her own motor insurance?Was she uninsured by virtue of a clerical error?
Did she have good reason to believe that insurance to drive that car was in force?
safespeed said:
ganglandboss said:
It turns out the only people insured on that car are the mum and dad and the older sister. It is registered and insured in the dad's name with the mum and the older sister as named drivers but is effectively the older sisters car. Apparently all their cars are registered in his name.
Has she got a 'driving other cars' clause in her own motor insurance?No. Her car is in her dad's name. She has no policy of her own
Was she uninsured by virtue of a clerical error?
No.
Did she have good reason to believe that insurance to drive that car was in force?
Possibly. I'll ask. She may have believed she was insured on all the family cars but surely isn't it her responsibity to check?
FishFace said:
safespeed said:
ganglandboss said:
It turns out the only people insured on that car are the mum and dad and the older sister. It is registered and insured in the dad's name with the mum and the older sister as named drivers but is effectively the older sisters car. Apparently all their cars are registered in his name.
Did she have good reason to believe that insurance to drive that car was in force?I find it hard to believe that an error by a third party, of which I know nothing, should render me liable to prosecution. I know that employees have such protection in law when driving an employer's vehicle.
ganglandboss said:
The issues I see here are;
If she knew she wasn't insured, why on earth didn't she just give her sisters name?- She has been caught driving without insurance.
- When she arrived at the pub, her dad got in the car, his car, which he knew she wasn't insured on and let her drive it home.
- They are falsely declaring the dad as the main driver.
I'd be astonished if anything came of the other points.
ganglandboss said:
I warned him that it is illegal to falsely declare himself as the main driver of his families cars.
Is it actually illegal? It's a very dim, but insurance companies usually rate on the riskiest (youngest) named driver anyway.Edited by Deva Link on Tuesday 11th December 11:02
Rating on the youngest (or highest rated) driver doesn't mean what it sounds like.
It simply (well, not taht simple) means that you take into account the relative exposure difference between the main driver and the highest rated.
So Main Driver as highest rated, with a low rated additional driver would not rate the same as a Low Rated Main driver and a higher additional.
It simply (well, not taht simple) means that you take into account the relative exposure difference between the main driver and the highest rated.
So Main Driver as highest rated, with a low rated additional driver would not rate the same as a Low Rated Main driver and a higher additional.
If you called the insurers now, and ask them to add her to the policy, and snd out the the new policy pronto, then what would the policy say?
It would probably say that it started on such a date, ends on another date, and that named driver s are a, b, and c. Will it actually say the "c" was added on a specific date. I doubt it.
Job's good'n I reckon.
It would probably say that it started on such a date, ends on another date, and that named driver s are a, b, and c. Will it actually say the "c" was added on a specific date. I doubt it.
Job's good'n I reckon.
bobt said:
If you called the insurers now, and ask them to add her to the policy, and snd out the the new policy pronto, then what would the policy say?
It would probably say that it started on such a date, ends on another date, and that named driver s are a, b, and c. Will it actually say the "c" was added on a specific date. I doubt it.
Job's good'n I reckon.
Whever I've changed drivers on my policy, the new insurance certificate issued gives the start date as the date of the change. End date remains the same.It would probably say that it started on such a date, ends on another date, and that named driver s are a, b, and c. Will it actually say the "c" was added on a specific date. I doubt it.
Job's good'n I reckon.
Whats she got to produce? Is it just the insurance? In which case surely her Dad takes it down to the station? The guy on the counter might not even notice she isn't covered. If he does surely the Dad says you're joking. Insurance companies blah di blah.
I certainly wouldn;t say the Dad was driving as thats just making matters worse. You don;t want to lie, just try and take advantage if the Police being too busy to notice.
I certainly wouldn;t say the Dad was driving as thats just making matters worse. You don;t want to lie, just try and take advantage if the Police being too busy to notice.
It's a recognised defence for wives caught over the drink drive limit to say they were ordered to drive by their husbands so I wonder whether the daughter could say she was ordered to drive by her father?
Of course (even if that is possible) he would probably get done for causing, but that doesn't seem to happen in the drink drive cases.
Of course (even if that is possible) he would probably get done for causing, but that doesn't seem to happen in the drink drive cases.
paoloh said:
Do you now a friendly car dealer that would lend you their trade policy????
It's only a suggestion but as it was a genuine mistake, it would get her completly off the hook.
How would that work when the cars in the dad's name, she's driving it to pick him up from the pub, none of them are employees of the motor trader concerned and the car already has an insurance policy on it that doesn't cover her to drive.It's only a suggestion but as it was a genuine mistake, it would get her completly off the hook.
I suspect if she tries that one, plod will smell a rat and she'll just end up even deeper in it, and so would the motor trader.
M5Dave said:
paoloh said:
Do you now a friendly car dealer that would lend you their trade policy????
It's only a suggestion but as it was a genuine mistake, it would get her completly off the hook.
How would that work when the cars in the dad's name, she's driving it to pick him up from the pub, none of them are employees of the motor trader concerned and the car already has an insurance policy on it that doesn't cover her to drive.It's only a suggestion but as it was a genuine mistake, it would get her completly off the hook.
I suspect if she tries that one, plod will smell a rat and she'll just end up even deeper in it, and so would the motor trader.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff