A fella that works for me got stopped in my car and wasnt covered by my insurance!
The police are now asking me questions about wether i consented for him to drive my car?
Any advice welcome?
|
Did he have you permission to use your car? If he did, did you check the position re insurance cover? If he has his own insurance for a vehicle of his own he MAY have cover to drive other cars ie yours. If he did not have your permission then he has taken it without your consent which is a serious matter. This is what I think the situation is and does not count as a legal opinion!
|
|
|
|
I'd say you're between the deveil and the deep blue... if you say he didn't have permission then they'll do him for stealing it and if you say he had your permission then they'll ask you what you did, as the owner, to ensure he was driving it legally... bit of a mess!
|
I know its a pink fluffy dice one, lol!!
SEEN THIS ON A LEGAL FORUM
[1] Is it my responsibility to ensure they have proper insurance? [2] Do I have a legal obligation to see proof of their insurance to drive my (any other) car?
Make it a condition of them borrowing the car that they have proper insurance. Tell them that "Yes, you may borrow my car as long as you have valid insurance". This is a defence against any charge of allowing and permitting. It would be wise to have a witness, or even a signed agreement. It's as simple as that
The offences under Section 143 Road Traffic Axt, 1988 are
(1)Using, or
(2)Causing, or
(3)Permitting
a vehicle to be on a road without third Party insurance in force.
Obviously and in a nutsghell
(1) is where you are driving your own vehicle or in the case of a Company vehicle being used on the firms business, driver and Company both liable where no Insurance in force. (Special defence for employees using a vehicle in ignorance of lack of cover)
(2) Directing someone to drive - no Insurance in force either side
(3) Allowing a vehicle to be driven without Insurance. But a person does not permit if he allows another to use it only ON THE EXPRESS CONDITION that that person would first Insure it. (Newbury v David [1974]
Does this mean that if i say i allowed him to use it only on the express condition that they would first insure it that i wont be charged?
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 06/10/2009 at 21:49
|
I think that, even if you made arranging insurance a condition of the loan, you might have a duty to check that he actually did have insurance and have sight of of it.
|
|
You don't. You make it a condition. It's up to the borrower.
|
|
|
|
Does this mean that if i say i allowed him to use it only on the express condition
If it was your own car, and you indeed made it a condition that he had insurance, then you have a defence. If you didn't, you haven't. I can't comment on the situation regarding business-owned cars.
|
If you lent the car and didn't check he had insurance cover (knowing yours did not cover him) then you could end up with the same fine and same 6+ points as the driver. You could avoid this if you say he took it without permission but that does not seem to be the case.
So you need to ask yourself "What insurance did you think he had to drive the car?" If you knew none then you will probably appear in court alongside your friend. Assume at least a £250 fine and six points for him (possibly more) and the same for you.
|
If you lent the car and didn't check he had insurance cover (knowing yours did not cover him) then you could end up with the same fine and same 6+ points as the driver.
If you make a prior condition that the borrower has insurance, then the statement above is wrong.
|
The fact he's posting here instead of having replied to police already is one thing. But if he thought they had insurance he might have said that already.
Best of luck to Boydy_24 on this. You might be okay you know and learn an important lesson.
I know they're asking about consent and if he says yes then he has to answer about insurance.
I do wonder about the people who borrow cars and get caught like this. ANPR will have not flagged it so the driver made some sort of error like going through a red-light or speeding. Makes me wonder how often people lend cars knowing ANPR will not flag this.
I know someone personally who was this "silly" BTW. They got 6 points and £250 fine. And they never got done for going through the red-light that got them stopped! The car owner got no fine or points.
Edited by rtj70 on 06/10/2009 at 23:22
|
|
I very much hope that the truth will out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The police are now asking me questions about wether i consented for him to drive my car? Any advice welcome? >>
1. Tell the truth.
[telling lies and getting caught could lead to being charged with perjury see
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=78...2 ].
2. If you think that will put you in difficult position, seek advice from a solicitor.
|
|
jbif is right. Don't make the problem worse. You can bet the other driver is saying he thought your insurance covered him. If this is the case then you either agree (and drop yourself in it) or disagree.
Edited by rtj70 on 06/10/2009 at 23:37
|
Should something that incriminates someone who should be convicted be posted (on any site), then personally I'd rather it wasn't deleted, as that, to me, would be some sort of tampering with evidence.
Should advice be posted that is helpful and accurate, and helps someone true, then that would be great, wouldn't it?
FT edited my post above now....read more of the OP's second post. Rob
Edited by rtj70 on 06/10/2009 at 23:38
|
|
|
as for responding to your question:
Does this mean that if i say i allowed him to use it only on the express condition that they would first insure it that i wont be charged?
What did you really think was the case. Did you know they had insurance or not? Seems to me you lent the car without asking which makes you equally guilty for driving without insurance and you may get done too.
|
Car owner may well be liable for something, but unless the consequences were very graave or the level of collusion in crime very extensive, I would have thought a defence of carelessness would count as mitigation.
Did the borrower misrepresent the truth to make out he was insured? Did he have at least a driving licence?
From the raw description this case could be anything from bad luck and a mistake to serious idiocy on the part of both parties.
Circumstances? Consequences? Why was the guy pulled?
|
Footnote, posted before: I once when very young borrowed a scooter saying I would insure it. Soon I was pulled for running a red light in Oxford Street. Must have been one of my first.
Having no licence or insurance I had to say I had in effect taken the scooter without the owner's permission, although he knew me and didn't mind me using it. So I was fined and banned, not much or for too long, for taking and driving away and no licence or insurance, in court scenes of unparallelled comedy.
Yes chaps. I'm a criminal.
|
Use, cause, permit the use of a vehicle without Insurance is an ABSOLUTE offence.
Of note as far as permitting is concerned:
Sheldon Deliveries v Willis [1972]
No one can be convicted of permitting use without Insurance unless that person has allowed that person to use the vehicle
If he hasn't allowed permission then the driver is Guilty of Taking a motor vehicle without Owners consent. But:
A person does not commit an offence of TWOC by anything done in the belief that he has lawful authority to do it or that he would have the owner?s consent if the owner knew of his doing it and the circumstances of it. (Theft Act 1968)
Newbury v Davis [1974]
Lord Widgery held:
The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner's absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance. Held: The appeal against conviction was allowed: "the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant's permission. In other words, permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all. It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to my mind there is a difference and it is one of legal substance. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence."
dvd
|
"A fella that works for me got stopped in my car and wasnt covered by my insurance!"
If the relationship is one of employer and employee rather than friend then that potentially puts a different slant on the case. An employer's duty to ensure his staff are adequately covered by insurance goes a lot further than that of a mere friend who assures you he has cover.
|
|
|
|
|
Just be careful not to speak to the police without a solicitor present, even if they invite you to talk with them voluntarily and not under arrest.
The police intent in interviews is to establish guilt, not innocence, and any remarks you make can be used against you.
That's not to say you shouldn't cooperate, but it's not a good idea to talk to the police voluntarily without legal representation. You also have more rights if you're interviewed while under arrest than if you talk to the police voluntarily.
|
>>>>The police intent in interviews is to establish guilt, not innocence<<<<<
....and there was I in my 30 years believing the interview was to get to the truth of an incident...........
dvd
|
|
|
|
|
