Caught Driving With No Licence

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

On the insurance bit, remember that a comprehensive policy is likely to have at least two sections. Own damage and third party liability. Own damage is damage to the policyholders own vehicles and third party liability is damage to the property of others or injury to other people.

 

There will be plenty of other sections and some of the above may be split into more than one but for these purposes this is sufficient.

 

It is not compulsory in law to insure for own damage. It is for third party liability and this is the basis of the principle for insurers actively avoiding liability under the policy for own damage claims but not third party liability claims.

 

It is a matter of public policy that an insured person cannot recover an indemnity under a policy for their own deliberate acts. This applies as much for deliberately setting fire to your own house as anything else. Speeding, being drunk or other motoring offence does not invalidate a policy unless there is a specific condition saying so. What it may do is entitle the insurer to avoid liability under the policy which is something rather different.

 

The reason this is somewhat wooly is because most motoring offences are strict. It is no defence to say that you had no "bad mind" as is is for most other criminal offences. It is therefore right that there is a different approach to (say) most speeding offences and many drunk driving matters.

 

Hope this helps.

[PCSTAMPER]

The cop has now left the building and we have no biscuits left.

regards

 

 

If he's like me tempt him back with donuts

[PCSTAMPER]

Hello fellow Caggers,

 

After a bit of advice. My best friend got caught driving his car while not having a full UK driving licence. He holds a provisional and insurance but that was it. I believe the insurance is void anyway because he didn't have anybody sitting with him in the car. He was parked up in Tesco's when the police pulled up and accused him of driving without a licence. He held his hands up and said it was true. They then got the car towed away and left him in the middle of our town. He had to pay a release fee to get the car back the following day and has been waiting for a court date for the offence. All this happened in September/October time and still he has had nothing through. Is there a timescale for these things? Has he gotten away with it (not that I condone what he done)?

 

Any advice would greatly be appreciated.

 

 

If i was the officer the reason why i would have had this vehicle removed is to ensure that noone drives away with it uninsured. I am afraid that whilst he was reported for driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence he would be let go on his merry way as he was reported and not arrested.

I would hope he was contemp'd interview plus 3. (NIP not necessary) .

Because he was let go the vehicle had to be seized to reduce the possibility that he would get back in the driving seat again. The officer who dealt with this would come under heavy scrutiny by his skipper and guv'nor if he had just left the driver with his car.

 

I have been aproached by so many MOPs when i have had vehicles removed saying that their best friend is insured and can drive the vehicle back. My response to that pathetic excuse is "HOW DO I KNOW THAT YOU WON'T SWAP WITH YOUR UNINSURED FRIEND?".

 

If the driver has committed the offence of Driving whilst otherwise in accordance with a licence expect one of two things to happen...

 

1 Report the driver (remove car)

2 Give driver hefty £200 fixed penalty ticket 6 points (remove car)

 

Option two is only applicable if...

 

Driver is not in two year probationary period. 6 points with one hit means that the driver is likely to lose licence in court (muppet if this is the case).

 

or

 

Driver whilst out of proby period does not have 6 points already and that there are no other offences being committed on top of the main offence that would incur a penalty no less than a seperate 60 pound fine ticket.

 

 

Sorry lastly,,, if your friend is being reported for no insurance as well (which i very much doubt) the prosecution time limit for sec143 rta is no longer than 3 years not summary 6 month limit as with most driving offences.

 

I have watched these posts with great interest in relation to whether insurance comes into it. Good arguments on both sides, but if i may ask this question. Would you be happy with a person to be left with his/her vehicle after being stopped by an officer and that person drives away when the officers have gone???

Edited January 22, 2010 by PCSTAMPER

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Would you be happy with a person to be left with his/her vehicle after being stopped by an officer and that person drives away when the officers have gone???

 

No. I am quite happy for forfeiture of vehicle to be the minimum penalty for driving uninsured with maximum penalty of summary execution in the manner of Judge Dredd.

[crem]

He was parked up in Tesco's when the police pulled up and accused him of driving without a licence. He held his hands up and said it was true.

 

Getting back to the original thread (if anyone can remember back that far ), the OP said he was parked up in a car park. Did the police say they had seen him drive to that location or did they just see him sitting in the car but not moving? I would have thought, if the latter, then there were insufficient grounds for any charge at all.

[PCSTAMPER]

Getting back to the original thread (if anyone can remember back that far ), the OP said he was parked up in a car park. Did the police say they had seen him drive to that location or did they just see him sitting in the car but not moving? I would have thought, if the latter, then there were insufficient grounds for any charge at all.

 

No,, unless the driver is seen to have driven the vehicle there are no grounds to remove the vehicle. I wouldn't be suprised if the officer then parks up and waits for him to drive away. Then action can be taken

[Mossycat]

The driver admitted, when questioned, driving the vehicle unaccompanied, since he was alone in the carpark the officer was right to sieze the vehicle because the driver couldn't legally drive the car home and had already demonstrated that he would use the vehicle unsupervised.

 

Mossy

[green_and_mean]

An officer can demand to see documents if he believes an offence has been commited, driving without insurance/licence is an offence so he was within his rights.

[frankieg]

My son been driving here in the UK since 2007 on a foreign licence(USA) which he thought he could use indefinately- aparantly it was only valid till april 2008.in may 2008 he got a car and applied and was given insurance. then in may 2009 it was renewed. In november he finds out the licence isnt valid. FSA says the insurance wasnt valid either- and never has been. He's cancelled the policy payments and the insurance company is keeping all the premiums £2000 for the insurace that never was

[mightymouse_69]

As an aside, there is a traffic cop (23 years) in our station at the moment, I asked him to look over this thread, his view is that, you could have someone as drunk as a whisky crazed apache, Provisional licence holder and doing 80 in a 30 zone, but if they had a Policy they would still be insured. They would not charge them with no insurance.

 

Whilst they may not be charged with no insurance, it does not mean they did not commit that offence.

 

Driving unacompanied on a provisional will almost certainly invalidate insurance cover.

[majik]

The insurance policies I have seen and have just checked mine state, that providing the policyholder holds or has held a driving licence, they make no such stipulation as you suggest.

regards

 

So therefore the driver is not insured as he does not hold a driving license he holds a provisional license.

[green_and_mean]

So therefore the driver is not insured as he does not hold a driving license he holds a provisional license.

 

[green_and_mean]

I'm amazed that despite the word of two Police officers, an insurance company employee and the wording of the relevant statutes this thread is still being dragged along with people beleiving that insurance becomes invalid just because you break the law.

[majik]

Sorry he is insured for 3rd party liabilites but as there is none he would not be insured to drive.

[green_and_mean]

Sorry he is insured for 3rd party liabilites but as there is none he would not be insured to drive.

 

Why?? You just quoted he was not insured because he has NO licence, how does being supervised suddenly give him a licence? His licence is provisional regardless of any supervision.

[frankieg]

This driver and his insurance company entered into a simple contract.Since he held a provisional licence he agreed he would drive under the terms of that licence- supervised. In return they agreed to insurehim..When he drove alone he broke his side of the contract-which invalidated the policy. so they dont have to pay up. My sons insurance agent said they might have paid third party if he had an accident but didnt have to and if they did would have got the money back from him.

[majik]

This driver and his insurance company entered into a simple contract.Since he held a provisional licence he agreed he would drive under the terms of that licence- supervised. In return they agreed to insurehim..When he drove alone he broke his side of the contract-which invalidated the policy. so they dont have to pay up. My sons insurance agent said they might have paid third party if he had an accident but didnt have to and if they did would have got the money back from him.

 

That was what i was trying to say ! i may have got lost going around the houses lol.

[green_and_mean]

This driver and his insurance company entered into a simple contract.Since he held a provisional licence he agreed he would drive under the terms of that licence- supervised. In return they agreed to insurehim..When he drove alone he broke his side of the contract-which invalidated the policy. so they dont have to pay up. My sons insurance agent said they might have paid third party if he had an accident but didnt have to and if they did would have got the money back from him.

 

Sorry I didn't realise you had seen the OPs insurance policy. Why would an insurance company pay out if he had no insurance and on what grounds could they get it back?? If he had no insurance they would wash their hands of him if they paid out they are admitting liability. Lets say he gave a kid brain damage and they paid out £1m how do you think they would expect to get it paid back? The insurance broker sounds as about clued up as you do I would change brokers if I were you.

[sorrylittlelot]

so bottom line -

 

whats prob going to happen to this guy

 

how long will it take to hear from police (if the court has it on file which is 50/50)

[green_and_mean]

so bottom line -

 

whats prob going to happen to this guy

 

how long will it take to hear from police (if the court has it on file which is 50/50)

 

He has up to 6 months to wait then if it goes to Court points and a fine for driving unsupervised.

[sorrylittlelot]

and if heard nothing after 6 months? he got away with it?

[green_and_mean]

and if heard nothing after 6 months? he got away with it?

 

As far as I know the limit for notifying the driver is 6 months.

[sorrylittlelot]

lol good system

[letshelp]

Whilst they may not be charged with no insurance, it does not mean they did not commit that offence.

 

Driving unacompanied on a provisional will almost certainly invalidate insurance cover.

Read the rest of the thread, including a post from someone who actually works in the insurance industry, you are wrong, the argument has been done to death.

regards

Edited January 24, 2010 by letshelp

[frankieg]

Sorry I didn't realise you had seen the OPs insurance policy. Why would an insurance company pay out if he had no insurance and on what grounds could they get it back?? If he had no insurance they would wash their hands of him if they paid out they are admitting liability. Lets say he gave a kid brain damage and they paid out £1m how do you think they would expect to get it paid back? The insurance broker sounds as about clued up as you do I would change brokers if I were you

 

This is a forum for people to express their thoughts, Green, sarcasm and personal attacks have no place here! I dont need to see the OPs insurance, it's obvious -the original post said he had a provisional licence so its a small step to assume he insured as a provisional driver. And I really dont know if this mans insurance would have paid if he had an accident. If he wants to tell me who they are I'll be glad to ask them for you. My post seemed clear to me, but obviously not- I was talking about what my son's broker said to him-my son -when he asked the broker what would have happened if he-my son - had an accident during the time the insurance companyinsured him-my son - on an invalid licence. I'd tell you why they pay third party claims but thats fully covered by earlier posting.