|
my mate let his son take his car yesturday as his sons car was in the garage. he was stopped by the police and given a 7 day producer. it now turns out that his son was not coverd to drive the car on his own insurance like he thought he was nor is he coverd under his dads cover. i know that he will get done for driving with no insurance but my mate wants to know if he will be done for letting him drive the car.
|
|
If the police believe he let his son drive the car while knowing he was not covered, he could be done for aiding and abetting. If they accept that he genuinely believed his son was insured, he won't.
|
|
PU's advice will be more valuable than mine, our posts crossed.
|
|
Sorry should elaborate, if the Police follow it up, he will be reported for permitting the use of a motor vehicle with no insurance, no real defence (especially in the "I didn't know" area, be prepared for a hefty sting and points.
|
|
|
|
Could be, this is why you sometimes see children accused of theft of motor vehicle - keeps daddy out of trouble.
possible Insurance endorsements:-
IN10 Using A Veh. Uninsured Against Third Party Risks
IN12 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring IN10
IN14 Causing Or Permitting IN10
IN16 Inciting IN10
|
All posts crossing!...
I suspect a lot depends on why he was stopped and issued a producer. If it was more than just a warning.......
|
|
his son is 18 and was at a retail park showing off in his dads motor. the police were sat in a plain car and plain clothes.
|
Father has two options - Permitting no insurance or that the vehicle was taken without his consent, in which case his son could be processed for a criminal offence.
However if father did not wish to make a formal complaint ie. a statement then would the the matter be pursued?
Bearing in mind that reduction in vehicle crime is a government target or put another way, increase in detection of vehicle crime. Then there is an administrative process to go through to substantiate a 'detection'. If son has no other convictions then he may well e eligable for a Caution ( Thats a formal recorded one - not a flea in the ear!)
Fullchat
|
|
|
his son is 18 and was at a retail park showing off in his dads motor.
Isn't this classed as "off the highway" and therefore on private ground? In which case is insurance necessary?
|
If Retail Park = Public Place DD then Insurance required.
Interesting. Is this Insurance database that Plod has access to just an urban myth as no mention of not being found at the time and the car seized?
dvd
|
Interesting. Is this Insurance database that Plod has access to just an urban myth as no mention of not being found at the time and the car seized?
What I understood from my cousin (ex traffic cop) was that they could identify a car that had no insurance policy against it. In this case daddy has an insurance policy against the car but junior is not included. I doubt the police are able to check that level of detail. Police probably suspected junior had taken the car without daddy's consent.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
|
|
DVD. Insurance database is now linked to the Police National Computer and is detailed enough to give named drivers on the policy who are permitted to drive the vehicle in question.
Fullchat
|
Thanks for that gen Fullchat.
Are you joining the"Great" in the big shake up or going south?
dvd
|
Money is on joining the "Great" but could be going West, South or all. Watch this space! Dont know why it has taken so long. I think Stella has only 2 years left and that is the supposed big bang date. Sort of falls into place somehow.
Fullchat
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance required if there is public access
|
"What I understood from my cousin (ex traffic cop) was that they could identify a car that had no insurance policy against it. "
Correct.
Youngest son had just (that day) started driving again and re-insured his car which had been SORNed. Plod stopped him and said "no insurance". He produced documents and all OK.
Database takes about 4-5 days to update by insurers - after issuing documents is my estimate - as they had sent them in the post 2 days prior.
madf
|
I think this is the reason Norwich Union (at DfT request?) is dropping "Drive Other Car" cover. So in future any driver must be named on the policy.
|
He might be let off.
I got stopped in a similar way when riding my dad's motorbike. I knew I wasn't covered for his bike.
At the police station I showed my policy and said "I think I'm covered on other bikes". The copper read the policy, told me I wasn't covered, but just told me not to do it again. Huge sigh of relief...
Good luck
Stokie
|
hmm. well, as long as you got away with it, that's fine, isn't it ?
Is this lax attitude to insurance that is the problem. As though it were simply a bureacratic fiction.
What if you'd hit someone or something ? Don't tell me, they'd be able to claim on the MIB ?
The PC who let you off needs a kick as well.
|
MotorwayM,
And what's wrong with the MIB if there is no other insurance then that's what they are there for. It can take a while but what insurance claim doesn't?
I listened to Chief Constable, answering a question, why - a private hire driver who had been caught "picking up off the street" and had been to court and found guilty - was not also charged with not having correct insurance, because he was not covered to do this obviously. The Cheif constable said "he did have insurance - the MIB." Pathetic answer I know, but it is true.
|
|
Stokie,
There was no need to show your policy, just your cert, and if fully comp it should have gone ok. But you had a good result.
|
|
|
|
|
>> his son is 18 and was at a retail park showing off in his dads motor.
'showing off' - does that mean doing donuts in it? Makes me shudder. Sounds like Dad's car was pretty decent - even if his son did have DOC coverage (generally not available to under 25's) it would have only been 3rd party.
This is a good example of why DOC coverage (even though it didn't apply here) is being removed.
|
>This is a good example of why DOC coverage (even though it didn't apply here) is being removed.
DOC is fantastic. It means I can drive somebody else home from the pub in their car and not worry whether they're telling me the truth that their insurance covers me.
|
DOC is fantastic. It means I can drive somebody else home from the pub in their car and not worry whether they're telling me the truth that their insurance covers me.
For similar reasons, I like "any driver" cover on my cars. That way when I let someone else drive, I don't have to rely on them having checked that they really are covered when behind my wheel.
|
For similar reasons, I like "any driver" cover on my cars. That way when I let someone else drive, I don't have to rely on them having checked that they really are covered when behind my wheel.
Very few companies will do any age / any driver now though. CIS will - I used to be insured with them, but the premium became ridiculous. Most will only do any driver ovr 25.
Of course the cover is only valid if the person you allow to drive has a valid licence - so you have to rely on them being honest about that.
|
Very few companies will do any age / any driver now though. CIS will - I used to be insured with them, but the premium became ridiculous. Most will only do any driver ovr 25.
Yes, I have only had it for drivers over 25. Not much of a handicap: at my advanced age, I don't really want anyone that young driving me anyway.
Of course the cover is only valid if the person you allow to drive has a valid licence - so you have to rely on them being honest about that.
True, but I don't chance it - I ask 'em to bring their licence along just in case.
|
|
|
|
DOC is fantastic. It means I can drive somebody else home from the pub in their car and not worry whether they're telling me the truth that their insurance covers me.
Who pays if you smash it up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why did son think he would be insured?
because he has a comprehensive policy in his own name?
If so just show the police his comprehensive policy certificate, and the dads certificate, the plod will assume he is covered as is normal on comp cover.....
Also if plod gets wise and cracks the case, the way the son went to show plod insurance cover will go in his favour in court because it was a genuine mistake.
|
|
|
and given a 7 day producer.
>>
well tomorrow the 7 days will be up. waiting with baited breath for an update from gingerwinger ( unless, as per past form, he has moved to return another day to throw another bombshell in the ring ).
|
|
father and son have played the dum card. son went to police station with the doc's and mr plod said that the insurance doc's did not cover him to drive dads car. (thought he was covered on own insurance) so dad went to police station with his doc's only to be told son not covered on them. so now dad saying thought he was covered and son saying thought he would be covered by dads cover. he has been reported for driving with no insurance.
|
>>father and son have played the dum card
Good, I'm glad they decided to be honest.
|
|
Dad is very lucky not to be prosecuted too.
|
|
|
|
