Friend caught speeding in my motor
Discussion
A friend of mine borrowed my Celica and unfortunately got flashed by a van. He was doing 80mph in a 70.
I've got the NIP through, and he's cool with me putting him as the named driver, but we have since rechecked his insurance documents and found that his policy probably doesn't cover other cars. So in short, he wasn't insured. I know this was silly, but at the time we really did both belive he was insured.
Anyhow, my question is, if I send off the NIP with his name on it, will there be any repercussions as far as insurance is concerned? Does this get checked up on?
If so, I guess I'll have to take the flak!
Cheers
Dan
>>> Edited by dannyboyo on Tuesday 14th September 02:45
I've got the NIP through, and he's cool with me putting him as the named driver, but we have since rechecked his insurance documents and found that his policy probably doesn't cover other cars. So in short, he wasn't insured. I know this was silly, but at the time we really did both belive he was insured.
Anyhow, my question is, if I send off the NIP with his name on it, will there be any repercussions as far as insurance is concerned? Does this get checked up on?
If so, I guess I'll have to take the flak!
Cheers
Dan
>>> Edited by dannyboyo on Tuesday 14th September 02:45
SCP's do not normally delve into documentation in relation to motoring other than Driving Licence. Some, it appears, tend to get a bit arsey re Insurance if Johnny Foreigner is named as driver.
I am 99 per cent sure that if you name your friend and he accepts being the driver, returns the form then question of Insurance will not be raised and the pair of you will get away with the insurance offence.
Very wise nowadays to always ensure whoever drivers your motor that there is Insurance covering the journey - and not just by word of mouth.
DVD
I am 99 per cent sure that if you name your friend and he accepts being the driver, returns the form then question of Insurance will not be raised and the pair of you will get away with the insurance offence.
Very wise nowadays to always ensure whoever drivers your motor that there is Insurance covering the journey - and not just by word of mouth.
DVD
Streetcop said:Shirley the registered keeper can't also get 6 points if he was led to believe that his friend was properly covered.....can he?
my friend DVD is correct...
It's worth noting though, that if the insurance mishap does come to lights...you friend will get 6 points for no insurance and you'll also get 6 points for permitting him to drive your car with no insurance.
Street
The fact that SCPs don't check drivers particulars only reinforces my belief that they are only after 1 thing!
supraman2954 said:
my friend DVD is correct...
It's worth noting though, that if the insurance mishap does come to lights...you friend will get 6 points for no insurance and you'll also get 6 points for permitting him to drive your car with no insurance.
Street
Shirley the registered keeper can't also get 6 points if he was led to believe that his friend was properly covered.....can he?
The fact that SCPs don't check drivers particulars only reinforces my belief that they are only after 1 thing!
Hiya Supraman...
Yep..the RK gets the points aswell as the driver. Believe and knowledge are two different things as far as insurance is concerned.
Street
supraman2954 said:
LOL, Hi St
Still, the ruling seems unfair ruling to me
Thanks mate..
It can be unfair at times...it's just a case of covering your ass....
If someone wants to borrow your car, make sure they are covered on either their insurance or yours. Having said that, most policies (if they have one) will allow you to drive another vehicle, with the owners permission, on third party liability. Ok if you have a cheap car.
Street
supraman2954 said:
LOL, Hi St
Still, the ruling seems unfair ruling to me
Motoring law covers aspects of
1. Using a vehicle
2. Causing the use of a vehicle
3. Permitting the use of a vehicle.
If an owner fits into any of these, then he/she is as liable as the driver is for any offence the driver may commit in relation to most 'con and use' offences and all document offences.
Driving offences such as 'Due Care' and 'Dangerous' do not have the same conotations for owners!
gone said:I have been educated...in which case, I'm going to ban my g/f from using my rice rocket
LOL, Hi St
Still, the ruling seems unfair ruling to me
Motoring law covers aspects of
1. Using a vehicle
2. Causing the use of a vehicle
3. Permitting the use of a vehicle.
If an owner fits into any of these, then he/she is as liable as the driver is for any offence the driver may commit in relation to most 'con and use' offences and all document offences.
Driving offences such as 'Due Care' and 'Dangerous' do not have the same conotations for owners!
Quote...It's worth noting though, that if the insurance mishap does come to lights...you friend will get 6 points for no insurance and you'll also get 6 points for permitting him to drive your car with no insurance.
You do not admit to permitting him to drive, police will then say he drove without permission and threaten to prosecute for theft, agree, but state as he is a friend you will not press charges.
You do not admit to permitting him to drive, police will then say he drove without permission and threaten to prosecute for theft, agree, but state as he is a friend you will not press charges.
supraman2954 said:
I have been educated...in which case, I'm going to ban my g/f from using my rice rocket
Examples
1. If you ask your girlfriend to take your car to the shops to get some milk/beer/fags etc and she is committing a document offence or it has a dodgy tyre, then she is using it (because she is driving it) and you are using it because it is for your benefit.
2. If you notice your company car has a defect on it and you tell your transport manager about the fact and that it should be rectified before it is taken on the road again. Transport manager tells you to get on with it or lose your job which entails a drive from London to York where you are subsequently stopped and reported. You tell the Bib that you have informed the transport manager of the problem and wanted to get it fixed but he threatened you with the sack if you did not go to York.
a) The company is using
b) The Transport Manager is Causing
c) You are using.
3. If you lend your car to your girlfriend thinking that she is insured when she is not and she is stopped and asked to produce documents.
a) She will be using the car without insurance
b) You will be permitting the no insurance.
If she was on route to the shop to get your milk/beer/fags, then you would both be using it!
Hope that helps.
>> Edited by gone on Tuesday 14th September 09:24
Question for bib's as I do not have time to do the research.
I know that RTA 1988 s142(1)b makes it an offence to "cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks ".
But s143 gives a number of defences of which one is "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". Is there any case law on how this test is applied.
I know that RTA 1988 s142(1)b makes it an offence to "cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks ".
But s143 gives a number of defences of which one is "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". Is there any case law on how this test is applied.
Mrr T said:
Question for bib's as I do not have time to do the research.
I know that RTA 1988 s142(1)b makes it an offence to "cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks ".
But s143 gives a number of defences of which one is "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". Is there any case law on how this test is applied.
If you re-read that part it is dependant on a) and b) being satisfied, ie. vehicle doesn't belong to driver (or is not hired/loaned) AND it is being used in their employment AND they didn't know or have reason to believe that it wasn't insured.
This is basically to stop employees getting whacked when the employer forgets to renew the insurance or is trying to save a few pennies.
Cheers for the replies chaps.
Normally, I'm very careful when driving someone elses, or letting someone drive my car. How the confusion came about is that on his last policy he was fully insured for all (which is the last time he borrowed it), but his new policy doesn't mention driving other cars when we checked it. Bloody cheapo insurers he's with now!!
So in short, it looks as though it should be cool! Phew!
Thanks again
Normally, I'm very careful when driving someone elses, or letting someone drive my car. How the confusion came about is that on his last policy he was fully insured for all (which is the last time he borrowed it), but his new policy doesn't mention driving other cars when we checked it. Bloody cheapo insurers he's with now!!
So in short, it looks as though it should be cool! Phew!
Thanks again
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff