|
'making a false declaration to obtain insurance' was the old offence. Not sure if it's still on the books, but regardless, failing to disclose facts asked for would now amount to fraud, which can be any act giving someone an unfair advantage that they otherwise would not have gained. Alternatively he may have got another family member or friend to propose the insurance. In which case the insurance would only be valid if the proposer owns the car (in the small print of 99% of policies, preventing you/me proposing insurance for someone else's car).
|
Hang on a mo, could someone else be ''keeping'' the car for him, insuring and therefore taxing it too, but just keeping it parked nearby to upset the neighbours, they may have changed ownership too to keep things legal.
I do have a big problem with hgv drink driver's especially, if they haven't got the sense to realise their livelihoods, let alone any pride they may have in their job, depend upon good repute and behaviour then there's no hope.
|
|
|
|
The driver will need to sign a driver mandate for the DVLA to supply information on a driver.
Whilst the insurance company will unlikely do checks, thanks to recent legalisation (corporate manslaughter law), it is now the responsibility of an employer to check whether the driver is actually being honest with respect to their driving licence.
|
|
|
you can say what you like to an Ins Co. to get an Ins Cert. I could say i'm whatever age is the maximum benefit to be for insurance cover, live at the cheapest postcode I can find a friend/relative willing to take in letters, never had any traffic convictions or accidents etc
it's only when you claim (as stated above) that you'd have problems. So to tax a car or ensure your car isn't stopped via ANPR and/or seized via Operation Reclaim then it's really very easy
the average young oik with a past ban and criminal convictions for stealing cars used to not bother with insurance on their latest unroadworthy wreck,,. Nowadays they use grandad's age and pretend they've been a saint all their life and insure it for the absolute minimum cost instead.
|
DEVELOPMENTS - the aggressive neighbour is now driving regularly, it seems to work. My "spidey senses" tell me that the work itself involves driving.
Is there anyone involved in insurance who can tell us - if you come off a near 2 year ban for being 3 times over, and having refused a rehabilitation course offered by the magistrates, will your insurance on a modest old car be sky-high, or just a bit higher? I know that to drive an hgv as he used to, if have a DD less than 10 years old, you have no chance.
anyway - the unusual development is that he has started being, well, nice. In that he doesnt go mad if you take "his" space, he doesnt block people in, he doesnt spit on the ground when he sees a neighbour, he doesnt take his front door off the hinges when he goes inside, he doesnt play country and western at 100 db with the windows open. (Detached houses thankfully)
We still see him insensible through drink tho.
conclusion - he is desperate not to attract attention. Has he I wonder produced an old licence to swizz the insurers?
more news to come one suspects.
|
insurers generally don't delve at all deeply into what you tell them to get insurance..it's well known that the young convicted oik will give details more akin to his grandad than himself just to get the insurance cover
it's only when you try to claim on your policy that you'd have problems if you have lied to the insurance co.
look upon insurance deceit as the modern way of having 'no insurance', but with the bonus that you can't have your car seized under Operation Reclaim, because after all you've 'got' insurance, haven't you
Edited by Westpig on 08/01/2009 at 10:34
|
it's only when you try to claim on your policy that you'd have problems if you have lied to the insurance co.
My FIL was stopped by the police whilst driving SIL's car, somehow the copper knew, either from insurance details or register keeper, that it wasn't his car, he was driving under his own insurance's other vehicle cover.
My point is that could lying about age could possible get an oik stopped by the police in a simular way?
Edited by Mookfish on 08/01/2009 at 10:43
|
My point is that could lying about age could possible get an oik stopped by the police in a simular way?
the information provided to police officers on the streets, via computer screens in cars is fairly impressive nowadays... and a male driving a female's car, with only a female shown on the insurance is something that can easily be picked up.
however...if Mr Oik who's 20 yrs old and has a string of motoring convictions says he's 60 years old with a clean licence, then those details will not be available to police unless they specifically ask for them from the insurance co, via more protracted enquiries... AND... providing the false details to the insurance co. would require a fair degree of co-operation from the insurance co. to consider a prosection for deception type offences (statements, willingness to attend court etc). If the insurance co. are not overly willing to co-operate and are relaxed about any potential offences (which many are, because they've grabbed the money and won't pay out on any claims anyway, due to the false info provided) then that's a no-no for a prosecution in reality. No doubt when this becomes more prevalent, there will be either more legislation and/or more co-operation from the insurance co.s due to their potential financial losses, but bear in mind if the whole swathe of people who used to not bother insuring at all, now insure for the minimum with false details, then the insurance co.s will glean more premiums won't they.
There's quite a way to go yet to ensure Mr Oik properly pays for his insurance.
|
if Mr Oik who's 20 yrs old and has a string of motoring convictions says he's 60 years old with a clean licence.
But Mr Oik will still be paying around £300 to £400 for insuring his chavmobile as he won't have any proof of NCB which his Insurers may well find odd if he purports to have had no claims. Personally I don't see many oiks going down this route when a set of cloned plates can be had for a few pounds.
|
a near 2 year ban for being 3 times over and having refused a rehabilitation course offered by the magistrates will your insurance on a modest old car be sky-high
It might approach double the cost it would otherwise be.
anyway - the unusual development is that he has started being well nice.
Well, that's good, isn't it. It's hard to say what people's personal circumstances are; perhaps he was disagreeable because of something, & he's feeling better. Give him a cheery "good morning" when you pass.
conclusion - he is desperate not to attract attention. Has he I wonder produced an old licence to swizz the insurers?
Who knows? If you're *that* interested, you could ask him.
|
I think due to a recent EU directive (designed to facilitate insurance across borders), whatever fibs you tell like the ones above, you have 3rd party insurance as so you are always insured in the eyes of the law (RTA).
My other half recently got busted for Drinking and Driving and while I don't want to talk about the specifics of the case, she was innocent in the eyes of a reasonable person, but was advised to plead guilty with mitigating special reasons. She only received a £55 fine and no points and was complimented even by the prosecution solicitor for "Doing everything correctly". I wonder if this constitutes as a motoring conviction? It doesn't appear on her license and this was not asked for by the court.
|
Hamsafar:- "I wonder if this constitutes as a motoring conviction?"
Surely you have answered your own question. "Got busted" surely means "was convicted"; "... for Drinking and Driving" means it is a motoring conviction.
I appreciate what you say about not wanting to talk about the specifics, but you didn't have to mention the case at all. Your assertion that "she was innocent in the eyes of a reasonable person, but was advised to plead guilty" amazes me. If she provided a sample and it was analysed she was either over the limit or not. Why would she plead guilty if she wasn't over the limit?
Or am I missing something here?
|
bananastand
Please keep us posted, it sounds an interesting case!
|
I appreciate how it might look - if he's being nice then why bother? But we have all suffered over the years at the hands of this social leper, including vandalism and drunken screamed threats. And we still get dirty looks. "So what" you might say, but ah! I can detect the hatred in his brain, I have x-ray vision you see.
The car is now disappearing overnight, in the same pattern as it did when he was working as a HGV driver. Has he produced, I say again, an old previously "lost" licence to get back on the lorries...?
Yes indeed the case is most interesting. More updates to come.
|
If he's still drinking heavily, there's a likelihood the blood alcohol is raised when he takes the wheel even hours after. If you know he's OTT, it would be negligent not to have a word in confidence with the BiB:) However, our local police are not discreet on past performance.
|
|
ChrisPeugeot, examples of court accepted common law special reasons are things like escaping a man with a gun, trying to help sober wife start a broken down car while unfit through drink. You have to plead guilty to be able to use the special reason defence. In this case it was part of a theft of car keys, followed by theft of car which was then blocked after about 50 meters in and then the owner parking the car from middle of road to side of road (albeit now facing wrong way on one way street), and the incident being caught by CCTV operator who scrambled the police who arrived in two cars and boxed the car in and while sympathetic and full of apologies prosecuted the victim anyway.
|
Hamsafar - thanks for taking the trouble to reply.
I can't comment at all on what seem to be technicalities of the law regarding "special reason defence"; I'm not a lawyer, don't follow the logic of the situation you describe and indeed don't really understand the scenario.
Please note that this is not a criticism - you've already said you don't want to get into specifics. I understand the court did not accept the "special reason defence" and will leave it at that.
|
If I thought he was really still breathing fumes that would strip paint from the night before then I would "have a word". Imagine the sentence if you get caught again after a 2 year ban - oof!
note to moderator - if this threatens to get "sub judice" at any time I'll hold off until the judge bangs his gavel.
|
|
|
|
