Here's a motoring offence I wasn't aware of (from the Evening Standard):
"Soccer star escapes motoring charge"
"Prosecutors have dropped a motoring charge against England international footballer Kieron Dyer.
"The Newcastle United forward had been charged with allowing his car to be driven by someone without insurance. But Anita Addison, prosecuting, told magistrates at Sudbury, Suffolk, that the Crown was withdrawing the charge.
"Dyer, 23, of Westgate Road, Newcastle, lent James Leech his BMW X5 on August 4 last year. But when police stopped Leech in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, he could not produce an insurance certificate, and was not insured."
So before you lend your car to a friend, you'd better get them to show you their insurance certificate. Also, presumably, their driving licence.
|
|
Heard of this before. Son took his mother's car. Either she was to get 6 points and a fine for allowing someone to drive woth no insurance or he was going to get done for theft (taking the car without the owners permission).
|
happened to me as a teenager, forget how, but my mum got her licence just as sullied as mine when I borrowed the car with imagined permission.
But how did Kieron Dyer get off? Was it with that £5000 per day solicitor who was in Autocar a month or two ago?
|
It reads as if the guy driving couldn't produce a certificate; so he'd be charged with no insurance. It wasn't his car - so Dyer gets a summons for aiding and abetting - then Dyer produces his certificate at / prior to court which permits everyone to go home happy, especially the £5k solicitor.
Just my guess.
|
Is this similar to a question I put to Direct Line Insurance. I asked if I could drive my wife's car on my policy, which covers driving other people's cars, Third party only.
I was told "Yes, as long as the car also had it's own insurance". We had cancelled that insurance to transfer to her new car and I wanted to drive the old one to demonstrate to potential buyers.
No-can-do, although I could not see this written anywhere in either insurance policy.
|
Not an expert, but 'as long as the car has its own insurance' would only apply when you weren't driving it.
You and the car are covered 3rd party when you're driving; but when you are not using it, the car has no cover.
The difference is between the legal requirement which will satisfy the police, and an insurance company which will not allow you to run 2 cars on one policy, and won't pay out if your wife's car is stolen from your garage or drive, just because you have a TPO on other cars.
I probably didn't make that too clear, but I know what I mean...sorry if it confuses.
|
UKC32
It does not take much to confuse me :-(
However, I was told very clearly that I could not drive my wife's uninsured car on my policy under my "driving other cars" extention. The car must be insured under another policy.
This made no sense to me as the car would not be covered, just damage or injury to third parties, which is what my "driving other cars "extension covers.
So, if I see a car parked at the side of the road with tax and an MOT, I cannot drive it under my extension.
However, if a car was owned and insured by my neighbour, then I could drive it under my insurance. Now I am really confused.
|
Well I've looked at my NU policy - As well as the car mentioned on the policy, I can drive any car TPF&T not belonging to me or my spouse. (Its on the certificate, not in the policy document)
So I confused you for no reason, if your policy is the same - but you say you don't have any such exclusion on yours.
If you don't, then you would have been insured while driving your wife's car.
That is, until you asked, and they told you you wouldn't.
Do you remember the Gorilla clause? Monty Python sketch about a chap trying to claim from a cheapskate insurance company?
Claim failed because of non-compliance with Policy terms and conditions para IV clause 7, 'except that the company shall have no liability whatsoever to any person howsoever arising in the absence of a Gorilla as aforesaid...
Heads they win, etc.
|
|
|
|
aiding and abetting any crime is always an offence
hard to prove in this case as you could always say "he told me he had his own insurance which covered it"
|
|
|
Very strange Alwyn
Would this mean if you had a accident you would claim on the other policy not on your own ?
I'm sure Mark from Brazil can clear this one up.
|
|
|
Crazed,
>>hard to prove in this case as you could always say "he told me he had his own insurance which covered it"
Insufficient. As with most things to do with Insurance, then the onus is upon you.
Your statement would be sufficient to reduce it from incitement to aiding and abetting, to get down from A&A, you would have to show that he showed you proof which a reasonable man would accept, and that you had no reason to disbelive.
Of course, the alternative is your mate takes one for the team and goes with TDA, but it isn't common to find friends who will do that !!
|
ill take your word for it
on a different tack i know a few people have been let off driving company cars which werent insured because the courts held that they could reasonably have expected their employers to have the cars insured, and the employers put it down to an admin mistake...
you never ask to see the insurance certificate when being handed a company car, and in that regard i dont think its resonable to ask to see a mates insurance certificate when you have every reason to believe he would be covered for any car
a real evil from the criminal classes would have no problem finding an insurance clerk to back date a certificate to the day before
|
|
|
|
This came up a couple of months back, try a search.
IIRC the logic is to stop you insuring your own Fiesta in your own name and registering a Lotus Elan in your wife's name, then driving that on the driving vehicles not owned extension.
Also the other vehicle needs to have R T A insurance minimum when on the road if unattended, so it would be uninsured as soon as you got out of it.
|
|
|
|
Any motoring offence involving documents can be committed by the owner even though he may not be driving. In simple terms it is either using ( driving or a passanger in your own car) pertmitting (lending your car to someone) or causing (someone you employ using your car) Driving Licence, MoT and Tax offences are beyond reasonable doubt (onus on the prosecution to prove that the driver knew that the car wasn't tested or the that the owner knew the driver wasn't a full licence holder) Insurance is slightly different in that it is an absolute offence where the Prosecution don't need to prove prior knowledge of an offence. So basically it is sound advice to check the certificate actually covers you to drive.
|
pug,
did you have any thoughts on the thread
Red light scameras and fund raising.
?
Cheers,
C
|
|
|
Crazed,
I agree with speed enforcement- especially in built up areas - but
I do not agree with Government policy (full stop).
Pug.
|
i was wondering if you knew the answer to the question about what the minimum timing is for the amber light as there seems to be some controversy about traffic light cameras being added at the same time they reduce the amount of time amber shows before it turns red
therefore giving you a choice of slamming on the brakes or risking a nice photo
this cannot be improving road safety...
but how long should amber show ?
|
C,
Amber article here. Look at the page links at the bottom for even more info.
freedom.house.gov/auto/rlcreport3.asp
It depends on the speed limit but perhap 3 to 4 seconds is good for amber to show.
|
C,
I forgot to add that the "arriving amber" shows for longer than the "leaving amber" for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
This thread has raised an interesting scenario. Somebody suggested that if you were driving another persons car on your third party cover AND the car was not insured by the owner (eg lapsed etc) immediately you left the car parked on the road it would become immediately uninsured. This would mean that the person who parked the car was not 'in charge' of the vehicle and consequently not liable for a (eg only) a parking offence eg overstaying a time restriction. Since this is NOT true, the driver is therefore still in charge of the vehicle, therefore his insurance cover must still be in force.
Whilst this could be disputed if the vehicle was parked outside the owners house (for eg).
Since obtaining a tax disc requires a valid insurance certificate does this require that insurance must remain in force to support the case for having a legitamite tax disc?
Mark or Pugugly to comment please?
|
Peter,
As mentioned above, I was told by Direct Line insurance that my driving other cars extension only covered me to drive cars that were also insured in their own right by their owner.
The idea behind this is to cover me to drive, let's say, your car if we were together and you became too ill to drive.
|
|
|
|
|
......is not the place to keep an X5!!
He must be on stupid money as most footballers are these days!
|
|
|
Crazed states "you never ask to see the insurance certificate when being handed a company car, and in that regard i dont think its resonable to ask to see a mates insurance certificate when you have every reason to believe he would be covered for any car"
I think it is very reasonable to expect a company car is insured. As for a mate being expected to be covered to drive your car well its down to you to check cos if he aint you are going to cop for it as well.
Peter asks, "Since obtaining a tax disc requires a valid insurance certificate does this require that insurance must remain in force to support the case for having a legitamite tax disc?"
The answer is NO the vehicle only has to be taxed and insured at the time the vehicle is taxed. It must be remembered that car tax is as it says and thats a form of tax pure and simple. However if the vehicle was not tested the insurance could be void ( except 3rd party risks ).
There is also the question of who is "In Charge". That basically is down to who last used the vehicle and who is now in posession of the keys and who is intending to use it next.
There are four basic catagories of summary traffic offences and they are - Use, Cause, Permit and Aide and Abet. As Pug states 'Use' is generally an 'Absolute Offence' ie there are no excuses unless there are specific defences written in to the legislation. The remainder require ' Mens Rea ' ( Thats Guilty Knowledge ) or perhaps some ommision. That is being very simplistic and it can get quite complicated.
In the case of our intrepid footballer he may have been summoned with "Permitting No Insurance" providing he was not in the vehicle at the time. This is one exemption to 'Guilty Knowledge' and is an 'Absolute Ofence' Which goes to show no matter what your salary you still tend to go for the cheapest option when it comes to insuring your motor. After all he could have afforded ' Any Driver' couldn't he?. Why the Prosecution pulled the case - well there must have been something else introduced which was not so news worthy.
Andrew.
|
|
I'm not generally in favour of footballers, but if his friend was a car owner, he might reasonably have assumed that the friend's insurance would cover him to drive other vehicles. Pretty daft to let him drive his X5 if he wasn't a car owner, but hardly aiding and abetting if he was.
|
|
|
|
