Sorry to hear about your predicament old tom. As teabelly said, if he's a friend he'll cough up.
He shouldn't even need to be asked.
|
This is why I don't allow anyone to drive my cars unless they have full comprehensive insurance and sometimes I get a bit of stick as a result.
Even if they are covered by their own third party, if they cause an accident then it will, I am sure, bring the end to a friendship especially if you are trying to get them to do repairs or pay for a replacement car for you!
|
Why should you even have to ask? You break it, you pay. If you have any sense of decency and honour that is.
What do you do if you're selling your car and the prospective buyer wants a test drive? Ask to see written proof of comprehensive insurance to drive any vehicle? No, you have to upgrade your own policy to any driver. The OP got into his unfortunate position by trying to do a friend a good turn, based on trust. It's hard to turn down a friend when they need a favour but sadly it doesn't always pay to be a nice guy
|
If you have any sense of decency and honour that is.
Unfortunately they're things of the past. They may return, but I'm not expecting to see them in my lifetime.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments. I allowed him to use my car as his own car had broken down and he wanted to go and buy Christmas presents for his children. He is divorced, lives in rented accommodation and has no assets and very little income. His deceit over being insured to drive my car has unfortunately severed our friendship.
|
Thats horrible circumstances OT, on one hand I hope the car wasn't worth much, but on the other hand, the cost is irrelevant, it was your car and now you no longer have it.
Did he genuinely think he was covered or was he being deceitful?
|
> Am i liable for the other party claim?
possibly unless you
Inform the police and the insurance company that the car was taken without your consent. As it happens it was because consent was only granted if he had insurance, you asked and he told you he had - he lied. Therefore taken without your consent. You will have to provide a statement to this effect, which will be used against your (ex) chum.
|
|
Don't confuse friends with aquaintances!!!
|
|
|
|
With friends like that... talk to a solicitor, take him for every remaining penny, he clearly had no worries destroying your property. I dont even let my dad drive my car.
|
With friends like that... talk to a solicitor take him for every remaining penny he clearly had no worries destroying your property. I dont even let my dad drive my car.
??? Given the " friend's " financial circumstances as described by the OP I feel rule #1 of litigation would apply - don't bother suing people who don't have the money to pay you. Best case the OP gets awarded a quid a week for 10 years or something, not worth the effort.
|
143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks
(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.
There are two scenarios:
1. A person takes the keys and drives the vehicle without your knowledge. 'Taking without the owners consent' (TWOC). You have no obligations if that happens.
2. You give the person permission to use the vehicle. You are therefore 'Permitting' its use and are liable under the Road Traffic Act.
It maybe that the Police are not involved in this case in which case you might be lucky to escape with the 'Permit No Insurance'
Now you could argue that you thought that they were insured for a number of reasons but I would suggest that you should take reasonable steps to check that the person was insured, in other words you at least examine their Insurance Certificate'. Anything less then you have not fulfilled your obligations.
There is a third scenario and that is say an errant sibling took your car for a spin and got stopped. You would be given the option to make a complaint of TWOC or face prosecution for 'Permitting'. However I don't see it as black and white as that because you cannot be forced to make a complaint or statement. So you didn't give permission and therefore cannot be prosecuted and without the complaint the sibling should not be prosecuted for TWOC.
Edited by Fullchat on 07/01/2009 at 16:44
|
... that you should take reasonable steps to check that the person was insured, in other words you at least examine their Insurance Certificate'. Anything less then you have not fulfilled your obligations. ... >>
IMO, that is how I see it.
But does it tally with Fotherington Thomas's view:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=70839&...e
" ... If you made it a(n express) condition that he had valid insurance when he had your car, and he hadn't got insurance but took it anyway, he was effectively driving the thing without your permission - you've a defence against "allowing and permitting", ... "
|
>> ... that you should take reasonable steps to check that the person was insured >> in other words you at least examine their Insurance Certificate'. Anything less >> then you have not fulfilled your obligations.
You have no obligation to do any such thing. If you make it a condition that they have insurance, and they haven't, it's their fault, not yours. See Stone's. I always make this condition when lending a vehicle to anyone at all, and it has put me in good stead a couple of times - words such as "You may use my vehicle on the condition that you have appropriate insurance to use it on the road" are a good form to use.
|
Stone's are very few and far between these days for me to have a butchers. Is there some Case Law? How could you prove that you had made that condition?
|
|
surely it would be for the prosecution to prove an offence, not a defendant to prove they haven't committed it. I know some offences (e.g. offensive weapon) are loaded against the defendant and some traffic type matters are 'absolute offences'...but if as FT says, an owner puts a condition to the borrowing of a motor vehicle and that condition is genuine then they've covered the angle
|
I hear what you say WP. I have no Case Law to support what is classed as taking 'reasonable steps'. As a car owner there are obligations and just to be able to shrug your shoulders and say "Well they said the were going to insure it" seem a bit washy to me.
Permit does require the person permitting to have guilty knowledge of the offence ('mens rea'). We all know that a driver requires to be insured.
"The general rule is that, to be guilty of a criminal offence requiring mens rea, an accused must possess that mens rea when performing the act or omission in question, and it must relate to that particular act or omission."
I would argue that by not checking that insurance was in force then 'an omission' has taken place.
I am sure there are greater legal brains than mine who might be able to quote specifics but without access to any decent reference material I am struggling.
Where's DVD when you want him?????
|
knowingly, you didnt knowingly allow him to drive without insurance
are we right in asuming it was an old banger? in my youth I was always either lending or borrowing a car always on the assumption that they had insurance and vice versa
Id be much less likely to let someone borrow one these days, losing £500 of rust ridden garbage is a lot different to saying goodbye to £25,000 (most of which os still owed)
|
Am I the only one with sympathy for OT's friend ?
Sounds like he needs a good friend now ... (yes, I know OT was a good friend before and lost out)
OT needs to consider two liabilities:
The first is from prosecution arising from letting the friend drive his car.
The second is from future insurance premiums - it's still possible that OT's insurance company could be involved, especially if there are any personal injury claims. In any event, this will probably need to be declared for future policies.
Definitely a case for legal advice - just for limiting your liabilities.
If you haven't got insurance cover for your friend driving your car - then your friend almost certainly doesn't have any better than 3rd party cover.
That said, I've sometimes let people drive my car on the track, knowing that there's absolutely no cover. Sometimes those other drivers haven't been old enough to drive on the road ....
Good Luck OT
|
Am I the only one with sympathy for OT's friend ? Sounds like he needs a good friend now ...
he used up any goodwill when he lied and was deceitful to a friend. The fact he had an accident isn't the main issue, we can all make mistakes and a true friend ought to consider forgiveness for a mistake, even a great big one.
Lies told deliberately to someone isn't a mistake..it's a sneaky, unpleasant, underhand thing to do....so no sympathy from this quarter
|
Am I the only one with sympathy for OT's friend ?
Quite possibly.
OT needs to consider two liabilities: The first is from prosecution arising from letting the friend drive his car.
No possibility.
The second is from future insurance premiums - it's still possible that OT's insurance company could be involved especially if there are any personal injury claims.
Why?
The only way I can see OT's ins. co. being involved is should OT claim for his car.
That said I've sometimes let people drive my car on the track knowing that there's absolutely no cover.
The track, assuming I've understood you correctly, is not the road.
Good Luck OT
AOL.
|
|
Offence of Permitting No Insurance - difficult to wriggle out of if they go for you.
|
|
So much misinformation in all the replies! There is case law - Fotherington Thomas is right in his last post - if you make it a condition of use that the other is insured you commit no offence. You may have to convince a court if you were prosecuted for permitting though. As for being put in the position of either 1) permitting or 2) your friend gets done for TWOC - rubbish! As Fullchat says you cannot be made to make a complaint of TWOC - that choice is yours, failure to do so does not automatically put you back in the frame for permitting.
|
There is case law
Is there any reason why you can't quote/name it then?
|
My insurance has a clause that says that they will not pay out on a claim involving an uninsured driver unless I report the offence to the police and I co-operate fully with any investigation and prosecution, or words to that effect
|
|
The stated case about a conditional loan of a MV Tapsell v. Maslen 1967.
|
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=36830&...e
And like most things Backroom noting new under the "hat"
|
That wraps it up quite nicely!
|
>> There is case law Is there any reason why you can't quote/name it then?
Read Stone's, your library will have/can get it for you, there's an electronic version, too. I can recommend it, it's an excellent read.
|
|
jbif - I couldn't remember the case name, but then I don't need to! I'm surprised that other contributors offer uninformed opinion rather than fact. Doesn't seem to be much help when someone has asked a direct question. Opinion is good for provoking debate in some topic areas but fact helps in others. Just my opinion, of course...
|
|
Don't get to hung up on caselaw - its always there to be overturned.
|
|
I appreciate all the comments made, it just shows how opinions differ even in the legal fraternity. I am trying to glean some knowledge of the best or worst I may have to face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
