Can anyone help with the likely outcome of the scenario below.
My son's mate is 22 years old. He has his own car which is insured fully comp. He was at a 'do' with his parents last week and agreed, once there, to drive his dad's car home so his dad could have a drink. Although son is not named on Dad's insurance, they both (son and his dad) thought that he would be covered third party by son's insurance.
However, it appears that this is not the case, as regulations regarding cover to drive other cars was apparently recently updated, and you now have to be 25 before this benefit can apply. (No - I didn't know this either)
Anyway, they got pulled over on a routine check, the insurance issue arose, and now he has a 6 point fixed penalty notice. However, to make things worse, the day of his indiscretion was the exact 2 year anniversary of his pass date, and of course, 6 points in the first 2 years incurs a ban.
Therefore, on the basis that it was a genuine error, he is wanting to contest the penalty ticket to see if he can get an understanding magistrate, and a lesser sentence.
What are his chances?
|
|
I don't know about his chances but dare I say that he deserves whatever he gets. He drove without insurance and so he should pay the price for it. They may think it was a genuine mistake but they obviously never took the time or the trouble to check that he would be insured otherwise they would have realised that he wasn't.
|
He could try and plead to a magistrate - plenty of drivers have had bans not imposed by pleading their car is essential for their work. He did it as a favour to his father who may have been over the limit etc etc. A few quid on a lawyer may save him the cost of a retest.
The story is another example of why it's a good idea to have a photocopy of your insurance certificate in your wallet.
|
|
yes daveyjp is right, magistrates will consider all factors of the case, aggravating and mitigating, so it may be as well to seek legal representation to explain what happened. They will then consider the facts and make a judgement from there.
|
|
|
|
Replying to Simon:-
That's a bit harsh - it was the case for years that comprehensive policies conferred TP cover when driving other cars (known as DOC).
DOC has indeed been removed from a lot of policies recently, presumably because it was abused too often. I don't think there's anything regulatory about it, but it was certainly 'snuck in' on my son's policy last time round. How many people read the schedule when their insurance is renewed (yes of course they should).
Hope he gets a sympathetic hearing and has learned a lesson.
Edited by Manatee on 02/12/2007 at 19:36
|
|
Also, a lot of people don't realise that you are covered for 'third party only' whilst driving other peoples cars on your insurance, unless of course you specify otherwise.
|
|
|
|
They may think it was a genuine mistake but they obviously never took the time or the trouble to check that he would be insured otherwise they would have realised that he wasn't.
Fair point, but genuine mistakes can happen. I hope for his sake that you are not his magistrate :)
My own son passed at roughly the same time and remembered that he was insured to drive other cars when he got his first car, as he read the insurance certificate in full, being his first and all very exiting.
But when he found out what had happened to his mate, he checked his year 2 certificate and found that this line had been removed - prior to that he didn't realise either.
If it had been me and my son in that situation, being honest, I would have been convinced that he could drive my car as well. My son's mate's dad is, as you can imagine, gutted.
|
I recall that when I first started to drive, I wasn't permitted to drive other vehicles on my insurance until I was 21. Can you imagine it, 17 years old, insured to drive a 1.0 fiesta but can drive a friends ferrarri no problem, so long as I have their permission!
Not that I knew anyone with a Ferrarri but anyway..........
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of policies now don't have driving other cars - full stop. This is (I think) to prevent the swapping of cars for insurance purposes (but I could be wrong)
He's already got the minimum penalty allowed - fixed 6 points and £200 fine. Driving uninsured is an absolute offense, where it is very unlikely that contesting the ticket will get a lesser punishment.
The other thing to consider is getting an unfriendly magistrate - he could be banned or fined up to £5K
|
Lots of policies now don't have driving other cars - full stop. This is (I think) to prevent the swapping of cars for insurance purposes (but I could be wrong)
I doubt it as you can always just put them on the car as a named (albeit slightly more expensive) driver.
Enough is enough - I think the rule discussed here is mostly only for fully comp. I've never been able to drive other cars on my third party policy, having been with 4 different insurers (CIS, Norwich Union, Churchill and SwiftCover).
--------------
Mike Farrow
Edited by mfarrow {P} on 02/12/2007 at 19:53
|
mfarrow-yes you are quite correct, this was a fully comp policy. I am not aware of a third party policy that would allow you to drive some one elses car.
|
No point debating whether TPFT applies to others or not - he was not covered.
My point is he got stopped on the 2nd Anniversary of passing his test... so lets say he passed on 1st November and was caught on 1st November? Well two years were up on the 31st October weren't they? 365 days in a year.
Am I right? In which case a fine and 6 points but no loss of license and a lucky escape.
|
|
|
|
... 6 points in the first 2 years incurs a ban.
Not actually a ban but potentially as inconvenient. He goes back to learner status, with the need to take the driving test again.
He has broken the law, but it's a little cruel that he should be caught for an isolated mistake when so many people quite blatantly drive for years without insurance. I hadn't realised that it was an offence that incurred points. Everything I've read on the subject previously has said how feeble the punishment is and how small the fines.
|
|
The fixed penalty would have been £200.00.
|
|
|
|
|
I think his chances approach 0 - that it was a genuine error is rather irrelevant. However, a consultation may be worthwhile, if only to be absolutely sure. Note, the points will stay on his licence even if he does successfully re-pass his test.
|
I still say if he did this on the same date two years after passing it might have been 2 years and 1 day.
Don't think the courts can doing anything here apart from reduce the points to less than 6. But rules are rules and if he got 6 points for this like anyone else what can be done.
|
I still say if he did this on the same date two years after passing it might have been 2 years and 1 day.
I had the same thought. If you take out insurance on January 1st, it starts at 00.00 and ends at midnight on December 31st.
It still bugs me that the 'Minnellium' was celebrated at the end of 1999. (Yes I know it's not quite the same case, but it's been bugging me for nearly 7 years)
|
|
|
|
Fothering: Although the points will stay on his licence even after he passes his test again, he'll not be subject to the New Drivers Act again. I noticed in another thread you suggested that 3 more points after retaking the test and that would get you back to learner status again. Not so - it would take 6 more and then you'd risk a banning like any other driver.
Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 (c. 13)
Have a read of Section 7 :)
|
|
He may well find that insurance is impossible or extremely expensive from now.
|
He may well find that insurance is impossible or extremely expensive from now.
>>
And advise his existing insurance company immediately.
|
but it was certainly 'snuck in' on my son's policy last time round. How many people read the schedule when their insurance is renewed (yes of course they should).
Don't all insurance companies draw your attention to any changes in the Policy at renewal time? My insurance companies (two different ones) do.
|
|
|
|
He may well find that insurance is impossible or extremely expensive from now.
Two speeding offences for a 22 year old with some NCB won't be crippling. I am 22 myself and have done quotes with speeding convictions just to see "what if" and the cost didn't rise dramatically.
|
Thanks to everyone for their input so far.
>>I still say if he did this on the same date two years after passing it might have been 2 years and 1 day.
Thanks rtj70 - that is a very interesting point that could be worth checking out.
Whatever the outcome, I'll update the thread with the details.
|
I wish him the best of luck. If he's driven for this long without points he's a normal sensible driver and this after very nearly 2 years is unfair
Again hope all typed okay on the new iPod :-) more impressed all the time.
|
As stated above the 'probation period' is two years - from day on which he became a qualified driver. (S1 Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995.
1st Jan 2006 to 1st Jan 2007 is in my book 1 year and 1 day.
This it would appear is the only let out.
dvd
|
|
|
|
Two speeding offences for a 22 year old with some NCB won't be crippling.
But insurers see red when the conviction is for driving without insurance as it affects their pockets.
|
|
True, I overlooked the no insurance.
|
I hope his Dad will chauffeur him if he gets banned!
I agree he's very unlucky, given what we read of uninsured numbers around.
When should we have 'celebrated' the new Millenium?
|
>>Replying to Simon:- That's a bit harsh...
True, it was a harsh comment from me, but I'm sure that if this lad had crashed this 'uninsured' car up the back end of your new motor, and subsequently found out that he had no insurance cover, you would be not so sympathetic towards him.
|
magistrates have the discretion to do what they want, having been in a similer situation albeit for different reasons (paid for policy insurers didn't start it at correct time, stopped 2 hours later no insurance) i was given a £80 fine and no points, the fine was as a result of it being an absolute offence and the magistrates had to pass a punishment as despite it not being my fault absolute offence means i was guilty anyway, and as such i had pleaded that way. so he may well find if he can present himself as a decent individual he may end up being able to keep his license.
as for insurance conviction it cost me an extra £80 at 21 on a 1.6 205gti.
and with regards to passing his test, surely he did it during the day time so therefore in the evening of the anniversary he passed the timeframe for the 6points rule, this has to stand up as his defence because otherwise, you wouldn't be able to drive back from the test centre as you wouldn't have a valid licence?
chris
Edited by thomp1983 on 05/12/2007 at 01:34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
