Pulled by the police in an uninsured works van.
Discussion
Yesterday i got pulled by the police, the works van I was driving had flagged up as uninsured. After a back and forth with the guys back on site it turns out to be true. The vans only really go off site for diesel and the odd takeaway so not often. It's been seized obviously but I'm not that bothered about it. One of the lads had to come pick me up in their own car instead of another company vehicle as it turned out to be a joint policy and no vehicle seems to be insured. A senior manager has promised that the comapny will do eveything it can to do right by me. I have never had any reason to assume the insurance wouldn't be in place, I work for a very large company and the site I work on handles very nasty nasties so they need to be on top of things. Is there anything that can be done to spare me the punishment? The company will probably cover any fines but my main concern is the points. I'm aware the law states the driver is fully responsible so please no unhelpful comments stating this.
One thing I am glad about is that it happened this way instead of one of the other lads having an accident in an uninsured vehicle and them getting worse!
One thing I am glad about is that it happened this way instead of one of the other lads having an accident in an uninsured vehicle and them getting worse!
unident said:
We can end this discussion immediately as being in a company vehicle that you genuinely believed held insurance is a defence.
Is there a way I can prove this though? I'd assume it'll help that non of the site vehicles had cover and that it was clearly an oversight by the company?Edited by bobmcgod on Sunday 8th March 20:53
unident said:
We can end this discussion immediately as being in a company vehicle that you genuinely believed held insurance is a defence.
Indeed..Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
Section 143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
bobmcgod said:
unident said:
We can end this discussion immediately as being in a company vehicle that you genuinely believed held insurance is a defence.
Is there a way I can prove this though? I'd assume it'll help that non of the site vehicles had cover and that it was clearly an over site by the company?That’s it. End of
bobmcgod said:
Yesterday i got pulled by the police, the works van I was driving had flagged up as uninsured. After a back and forth with the guys back on site it turns out to be true. The vans only really go off site for diesel and the odd takeaway so not often. It's been seized obviously but I'm not that bothered about it. One of the lads had to come pick me up in their own car instead of another company vehicle as it turned out to be a joint policy and no vehicle seems to be insured. A senior manager has promised that the comapny will do eveything it can to do right by me. I have never had any reason to assume the insurance wouldn't be in place, I work for a very large company and the site I work on handles very nasty nasties so they need to be on top of things. Is there anything that can be done to spare me the punishment? The company will probably cover any fines but my main concern is the points. I'm aware the law states the driver is fully responsible so please no unhelpful comments stating this.
One thing I am glad about is that it happened this way instead of one of the other lads having an accident in an uninsured vehicle and them getting worse!
One thing I am glad about is that it happened this way instead of one of the other lads having an accident in an uninsured vehicle and them getting worse!
SS2. said:
unident said:
We can end this discussion immediately as being in a company vehicle that you genuinely believed held insurance is a defence.
Indeed..Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
Section 143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
gooner1 said:
OP, does the company concerned issue you or any of the other authorised drivers with a fuel card?
I take it you were authorised to drive this van, yes?
How was the van supposed to be refuelled without leaving site?
They do issue fuel cards. I take it you were authorised to drive this van, yes?
How was the van supposed to be refuelled without leaving site?
I have specifically asked about this previously as I'm doing the same role as staff but i'm on an agency contract and was told yes you are insured on public roads. But yes fully autherised by the company to drive the van.
There is no other way of refueling apart from leaving the site.
Bob, write to the police quoting the defence above and state that your intent would be to rely on that. I suspect the charges would get dropped before it gets to court.
Your company should be insuring for third party risks as a minimum or installing fuel pumps on site! What if someone was run over and badly injured? What if you hit a third party vehicle etc etc. The fleet manager needs educating?
Your company should be insuring for third party risks as a minimum or installing fuel pumps on site! What if someone was run over and badly injured? What if you hit a third party vehicle etc etc. The fleet manager needs educating?
Durzel said:
That’s the kicker.
OP please don’t say the Police caught you getting one of these “odd takeaways”?
This is a total red herring. The defence of being a company vehicle which you don't own and had no reason to think wasn't insured is good whether you are on a business journey or using the company vehicle privately. Same with company cars where private use is allowed. Company insures, not the user.OP please don’t say the Police caught you getting one of these “odd takeaways”?
mr rusty said:
This is a total red herring. The defence of being a company vehicle which you don't own and had no reason to think wasn't insured is good whether you are on a business journey or using the company vehicle privately. Same with company cars where private use is allowed. Company insures, not the user.
Incorrect, it MUST be ‘in the course of his employment’.A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance F6... as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
mr rusty said:
Durzel said:
That’s the kicker.
OP please don’t say the Police caught you getting one of these “odd takeaways”?
This is a total red herring. The defence of being a company vehicle which you don't own and had no reason to think wasn't insured is good whether you are on a business journey or using the company vehicle privately. Same with company cars where private use is allowed. Company insures, not the user.OP please don’t say the Police caught you getting one of these “odd takeaways”?
Road Traffic Act 1988 said:
Section 143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
Would this not turn on whether the vehicle was a company car allocated to that person and insured for company & private use? It sounds like the OP was driving around a pool car.(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
Also there is this: https://www.benhoarebell.co.uk/driving-without-ins...
"Using the vehicle ‘in the course of your employment’ would not cover any private use of the vehicle and he would need to show that at the time he was stopped he was driving as part of his job and not doing anything that could be said to be outside his employment. Whether driving to or from work could be covered would depend on the particular circumstances at that time."
Edited by Durzel on Monday 9th March 10:05
OP, what actually happened with the Police?
Van was seized which was all right and proper, but were you reported for summons and cautioned at the roadside? Did you receive any paperwork other than the seizure notice?
I’ve dealt with an uninsured company van doing deliveries and obviously seized it but told the driver there and then that no prosecution would result. If you haven’t actually been reported or told you’ll be prosecuted then you may well have nothing to worry about.
If you have, and have details of the seizing officer then I’d advise having direct contact with that officer to sort it out.
Van was seized which was all right and proper, but were you reported for summons and cautioned at the roadside? Did you receive any paperwork other than the seizure notice?
I’ve dealt with an uninsured company van doing deliveries and obviously seized it but told the driver there and then that no prosecution would result. If you haven’t actually been reported or told you’ll be prosecuted then you may well have nothing to worry about.
If you have, and have details of the seizing officer then I’d advise having direct contact with that officer to sort it out.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff