|
Many insurance companies(including GRE)are removing the third party cover on other vehicles at the request of the police.
|
|
I heard something like that. Still, if she genuinely believed him, she might have a defence, or this a strict liability offence?
|
|
|
|
The owner has responsibilty,she should have checked his insurance.I know in real life it can be awkward-what,don't you trust me?-but a verbal assurance is not enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, but she can't afford it! She needs someone local (suffolk) if she is going to be represented at court.
|
Yes, but he's a nice guy and may offer you (another lawyer I assume) some free advice. Certainly his advice to me has been FOC, but then we are mutual clients of each other.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
Is she a AA or RAC member or some other company who offer legal representation?
|
|
|
Don't know the ages of the people involved, but Driving Other Cars insurance often only covers policyholders over 25.
This whole thing sounds sufficiently complicated that I would hope/imagine that if she went along to court, can produce the MOT, her insurance for the car, and can say that ex-boyfriend had his own car insurance and had assured her he was covered, then they may well dismiss it.
It probably wouldn't do any harm for her to burst into tears during this process! A lot (everything, really) depends on the Mags you get on the day.
|
|
If she takes after her mother, whe will be able to turn the waterworks on at will.
|
ho ho ho!
let me be the last to let you down....
|
|
|
|
>>and she is being prosecuted for allowing him to drive the car uninsured and with no MOT. No idea if he is being prosecuted as well.>>
I really would not have thought that this is an offence. He was (possibly) the offender, not her, she had the car legally insured and MOT'd, he commited the offence by driving it 'if' he was not insured to do so.
Allowing someone to drive your car who may not be insured is stupid however it is the other party that is the offender - surely?
|
Yes that's right Cheddar, she has been summoned to court and prosecuted for a non-existent offence.
Jeez.
|
|
Actualy cheddar might be sort of half right here,if permission was given only to drive the car on his own insurance and he was not insured then he has also guilty of taking a car without permission in which case liability should be removed from the girl.proving this condition would be the deciding factor
|
He was guilty of an offence - driving without insurance.
However so was she, since the onus is upon her to check that he is insured, not simply believe that he is.
To be lied to is not a defence, it is a mitigation.
But you really need Pugugly to show up.
|
|
That's really the nub of it. It's certainly mitigation (if she is believed) but I an not sure if this is a strict liability offence or whether the court needs to establish the necessary element of intent ("mens rea" in lawyer's latin).
|
|
I believe it is absolute. Hence the wide variety and scope of punishments available.
|
I suspect you are right. Whatabout a hypothetical situation where the ex was insured in the past (and had a certificate) but had let the policy lapse (non payment of direct debits say). He shows her the certificate, so she lets him drive.
Would this be an offence on her part? If it was (and in the extremely unlikely event she was prosecuted)I suspect she would get a discharge. Would still be a conviction though which would seem v. harsh.
I suspect Pugugly is at court!
|
|
Don't forget they always have the option not to proceed. But if proceed they did, it would be a conviction since the facts are clear.
|
|
I really would not have thought that this is an offence. He was (possibly) the offender, not her, she had the car legally insured and MOT'd, he commited the offence by driving it 'if' he was not insured to do so. Allowing someone to drive your car who may not be insured is stupid however it is the other party that is the offender - surely?
It's pretty specific with vehicles, as the owner is expected to be in charge of the use of the vehicle.
You can, of course, be prosecuted for all sorts things were you've in some way allowed, or contributed to, or ignored, an offence being committed.
|
Perhaps Defender has hit the nail on the head:
>>if permission was given only to drive the car on his own insurance and he was not insured then he has also guilty of taking a car without permission in which case liability should be removed from the girl>>
I.e: a statement such as "I will allow you to use my car only if you ensure that you are legally insured to drive it" puts the onus on the 3rd party to the extent that if he was not legally insured then he effectively took the car without permission.
|
|
"Gotcha" letters from our local SCP refer to possiblity of this offence should you claim a foreigner was driving.
|
|
Cheddar, you are wrong. There is a specific statutory offence of allowing another to drive your car while not insured. As to the prospect of getting the ex prosecuted for taking without consent, you are having a laugh surely.
|
Cheddar, you are wrong. There is a specific statutory offence of allowing another to drive your car while not insured. As to the prospect of getting the ex prosecuted for taking without consent, you are having a laugh surely.
My point was pure conjecture, with regard to the taking without consent clearly he did not nick it. Though if she had said "you can only use if you are insured to drive it" then if he was not insured to drive it perhaps it amounts to the same thing?, again conjecture.
|
Before I get shot down in flames, this is but a question:
>>There is a specific statutory offence of allowing another to drive your car while not insured.>>
In law would - "you can use it if you are insured to drive it" - be deemed as 'allowing' per se or would the caveat 'if' be relevant?
|
Using, causing or permitting a vehicle to be on a road without Insurance is an absolute offence and expressively held to be so Tapsell v Maslen [1967].
The lady was not using, nor is it stated she directed him to use hence cause which leaves permitting.
However, a person does not 'permit' (with what I presume the lady is charged with) to be used uninsured is she allows another to use the vehicle ONLY ON THE EXPRESS CONDITION that that person would first insure it. When the borrower of the vehicle used it without Insurance it was held that HE was using without Insurance as required by the owner, he was using it without the owner's permission and thus the owner could not be convicted of permitting See Newbury v David [1975]
It would seem this is an area which under the circumstances outlined by Lawman can be finely argued by a Solicitor well versed in Traffic law to try and gain an aquittal.
As to a charge of TWOC against HIM very doubtful from the circumstances Court unlikely to convict due to defence under Section 12 (6) Theft Act 1968 = done in the belief that he had lawful authority to use the vehicle and that he would have the owners consent if the owner knew he was using the vehicle and the circumstances of it.
No such loop hole under MOT but than can be resolved by obtaining a duplicate from the Testing Station.
dvd
|
Thanks DVD that's very helpful. The two cases you cite both predate the 1988Road Traffic Act (under which she has been charged) but I suspect the previous law was similar and the cases will still be persuasive.
Let's hope he was insured after all.
|
for the benefit of non-lawyers who do not have access to the 1988 act, it says
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
143.?(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act?
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not 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 as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(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 or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
|
dvd,
But surely the only final acceptance of that defence would be that the other party was at least charged with TWOC ?
It can only be either with or without consent; given that without knowledge is deemed without consent.
Therefore either one is guilty of allowing or the other is guilty of TWOC - surely it is not possible for both or neither to be the case.
M.
p.s. still not smoking.
|
Well done FM2R - hows the girth? 2" on yet?
You will appreciate Dad and son where Son takes Dads car and gets into a spot of bother part of which could fall on Dad as owner of the vehicle. In an attempt to escape this Dad say nay he didn't have my permission. But on being asked if son had asked would he have given permission or understood that this would have been forthcoming the answer is yes. Whilst Dad did not give permission for that particular journey then the circs were such that there wasn't a taking because of this.
dvd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
