OMG - where do i start??? Please prepare yourself for this ramble, and please stay with me on it,

ok,

1st point - The Accident. my brother was driving my mums car with a friend and reversed into another car (car 1 ) who then shunted forward into a third car. My brother got out and car 1 driver was going beserk, and my brother being young panicked and left the scene. (stupid, i know, but thats not for question here) He left his car nearby, as it was damaged. He went back the next day to check the car and it had gone. He reported the accident within 24 hrs. The car had been impounded - believed to be uninsured.

2nd point - Insurance. My mum set up insurance online, 28 days before the accident. She set up two policies for herself and my brother on 2 different cars, my mum being the main driver. In the interim period of setting up the insurance and receiving the documentation, the accident happened. It was a few days later that the documentation appeared, and somehow my brother was not named on the policy. So - the car was insured but my brother wasnt.

My first query is that, id found somewhere, that an insurance policy could fall under the consumer credit act 74, and therefore as with any credit agreement, the documents should be sent within 7 days. Im asking this because, had the company done this, my mum would have noticed the error of my brother not being named and amended this immediately. So, because my mum never got the documents, we were under the belief that my brother was insured. My mum requested a duplicate certificate and was not charged for it(which is usual fee of £20), so Im thinking that they knew that they had messed up. After learning he wasnt on the insurance, my mum rang them 1 day, and was told that he was actually on the insurance!!! This was great news, until we rang again later to get confirmation and was told again that he wasnt on the insurance - is it possible to request a copy of the telephone record/tapes/transcripts?

Situation now - my brother is facing criminal charges for driving with no insurance, without due care and attention ( probably the only actual fair charge in all of this), failing to report???? (even though he did within 24 hrs) and 1 more charge i forget, lol.

My mum - bless her - wasnt even in the car, but is now facing a civil claim for damages from 3 claimants. The insurance company wont indemnify her due to the error of my brother never being placed on the insurance (despite my mums best efforts).

I suppose I would like to know if anyone can help in any way with this.

The claimants are undergoing medical examinations and we are waiting to hear from them with a settlement figure. I just cant get my head around the fact that my mum wasnt involved, the CAR was insured but yet it is possible for her to be pursued for damages.

Oh dear, what a mess. Firstly, ignore the CCA74 as it will be of no assistance.

The basis of your mum's claim is that your brother was insured to drive the car. Lets have a checklist to see if this can be sorted.

1. Does your brother have his own policy that allows driving other cars?

2. Does the policy your mother set up have a "any driver" clause?

3. Does your mother have any screenprints, confirmation emails or other evidence she herself can produce to show that she requested cover for your brother?

4. Do you have details of the call where it was stated that your brother was covered? Ideally he date, time, names, who made the call (the insurer or your mother), what telephone number (e.g, if your moher called, was it on a mobile or landline or friends phone etc). You can refer to this and ask for records to be check to see why this person said there was cover.

In an ideal world, the insurer will look to see if there is evidence of cover, though you will probably find they will stonewall you. You could do a Subject Access Request of all calls and data they hold to see if cover was requested. Your mother will need to show that cover was requested or that the intention was indeed there at the time.

Good luck.

Unfortunately, driving without insurance is an absolute offence, i.e. you either had insurance or you didn't (no grey area). Even if you have mitigating circumstances, which it seems you do, the unfortunate fact is that he drove without insurance, full stop. I'm sorry I know that's not what you want to hear, but this is sadly how the law views it.

The maximum penalty for driving without insurance is 6–8 penalty points plus a fine, although in certain circumstances, an instant ban will be imposed. The fine, which is means tested, can be up to £5,000.

If your brother can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that he genuinely believed he was insured (in most cases this means either the insurance company or the main driver cancelled/took you off the policy without telling you, so you were misled and had absolutely no reason to believe that you were uninsured), then the court may, at its discretion, give him less points and a much smaller (or no) fine. Each case is different.

If the insurance company actually told your mum that your brother was insured, that is reason enough to believe that he was insured, and it ought to qualify as a mitigating circumstance. Hopefully the court will have some understanding. Whatever happens, you will have to prove beyond any doubt that your brother had every reason to believe he was insured. You mention your mum phoned the company and they told her that he was insured - if you can get a recording of that phone call, you can use that in court to prove that your brother did genuinely believe he was insured.

BUT the prosecution will probably argue that due to the complications with the company, there was clearly some doubt as to whether or not your brother was insured, and he should have waited until everything was totally cleared up and he got a valid certificate before getting behind the wheel, rather than taking any risks. Not my opinion, just what they may try to say in court.

I would just like to qualify that a bit.

If it was found that you had made an amendment, received a confirmation but something else happened which resulted in your brother not being covered, it will be deemed that insurance was in effect.

There are also "days of grace" allowed when one forgets to renew. There is technically no insurance in effect, but the insurer will provide cover on the basis that there was the intention to insure (and indeed premiums are paid).

The insurance was taken online... is your mum SURE that she got no email confirmation of the policy? I know many people who get their insurance online, and they always get an email confirmation, then an e-version of the policy. Get her to check her junk mail and spam box!

Was your brother driving a tank?? To reverse into a car that then shunts into another - it must've been at quite a speed!! And they require medical examinations from an accident from someone reversing?? Something seems rather odd her if you ask me!

[There are also "days of grace" allowed when one forgets to renew. There is technically no insurance in effect, but the insurer will provide cover on the basis that there was the intention to insure (and indeed premiums are paid).

I dont know any company offering grace periods? you either renew on the date or dont,that 14 day thing was done away years ago?

my renewal was on the 1st (but i dont renew) have an accident on the 5th,rinf the insurance company, honest guv it was my intention to renew,( i just ignored the renewal invite letter,renewal chase letter and the renewal lapsed letter),please pay my claim.....

Like I said, there must be an obvious intention. It is 4 years since I last worked in insurance and it was the case then. I do not know whether things have changed since.

Again, I suggest you read up on insurance practice.

A few points here which should be clarified ;-

1. There are no days of grace under a motor policy. If a policy is not renewed by the expiry date then no cover is in force. Even if you have sent a cheque but not received confirmation of renewal you can be prosecuted for driving without a valid insurance document. If you get stopped by the police & the MID is not updated they are entitled to uplift your vehicle and prosecte for driving without insurance.

In this scenario, the intention to renew is there as a cheque was sent to insurers but not processed. If not received by the renewal date, the certificate would be redated as to when it was received.

2. The RTA states that it is an offence to drive a motor vehicle without a valid insurance certificate or covernote. I'm afraid the onus is on the driver to ensure that such a document is in force. Whether it is an error on behalf of the insurer or the owner of the vehicle, it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that they are covered to drive.

3. Failing to stop after an accident and/or failing to report an accident (where applicable) are two separate offences and whether this is 5 mins after the alleged incident or 24 hrs, the timescale is irrelevent the offences have been commited.

The only possible saving grace here is that if the transcripts are available from the insurer and it is their error, you may have recourse for damages from them however it does not detract from the fact that he was driving the vehicle without a valid insurance document in his possesion so any potential action against the insurer will not stop the potential prosecutions against him or the recoveries from any third party outlay from his mum. If insurer found to be in error, the may agree to pay the third paty claims on an ex gratia basis.

Not what you wanted to hear I'm afraid but that is the law.

Like I said, there must be an obvious intention. It is 4 years since I last worked in insurance and it was the case then. I do not know whether things have changed since.

 

Again, I suggest you read up on insurance practice.

??

as i said things have changed there are no grace periods??? , dont know why you are suggesting i read up on insurance practise?

i was just stating our ins company policy on renewals.

Whether there is an insurance policy in force is a matter of fact. It is not absolute. I am now aware that the usual practice of 14 days grace was stopped in most instances in 2005 (after I left the insurance industry - like I said that was the case at the time), but it was not compulsory not to do so. An insurer can still backdate cover and a court can find that cover was in effect depending on the circumstances.

insurance companys will not back date cover (as they will face a fine from the MID) they will however indemnify if found to be in error.

It is not "backdating" cover if it is found that there was a contract there in the first place.

okay, you know best

No, I don't. I have just yet to hear anything to completely refute what I have said. Granted there is Trojan's explanation, and I have already said that the change to the days of grace was after I left insurance. And I am happy to admit that I am wrong (when I am wrong). It's just that nobody has said that I am wrong (yet) and demonstrated why.