Caught Driving With No Licence

[letshelp]

my son - on an invalid licence..

What is an invalid licence?

[frankieg]

In this case it's a foreign one- USA- that can only be used for a year after you enter the UK. But my son didnt realise that and after he had been here over a year got him a car and applied for insurance. The agents at both the broker and insurance agencies all admit they knew foreign licences were only valid a year and cant explain why they insured him for nearly 2 years. So as the licence wasnt valid the insurance wasnt either. Needless to say they arnt returning the £2000 in premiums.

[letshelp]

In this case it's a foreign one- USA- that can only be used for a year after you enter the UK. But my son didnt realise that and after he had been here over a year got him a car and applied for insurance. The agents at both the broker and insurance agencies all admit they knew foreign licences were only valid a year and cant explain why they insured him for nearly 2 years. So as the licence wasnt valid the insurance wasnt either. Needless to say they arnt returning the £2000 in premiums.

The insurance company knew you son's licence expired after 12 months yet insured him for two years?

I find that negligent, I would have thought they would have said something.

Mossy is the insurance expert, I would suggest you ask her/his help, re complaint or making representations regarding at least getting some of the money back.

regards

[mightymouse_69]

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

 

I have read all of it.

 

According to Halsbury's Laws of England:

 

"A person may be convicted of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence if, for example, he drives...or while in breach of provisional licence conditions."

 

So, if you breach provisonal licence conditions - you are in effect unlicenced. This will more than likely invalidate your insurance!

 

Im not saying it automatically invalidates the cover, but there is a substantial chance it will.

 

This thread on a policing forum deals with the same matter: UKPOLICEONLINE Discussion Forum > Vehicle Seizing

 

Seems there is confusion there also.

[Al27]

I think it would be hard to find an insurance company who don't mention that this would invalidate the insurance in their T&Cs.

[Raykay]

 

So, if you breach provisonal licence conditions - you are in effect unlicenced.

 

Not quite, a Provisional Driving Licence is still a Driving Licence, but with conditions.

 

That is why, for people caught driving with a Provisional Licence, unaccompanied and/or no 'L' plates, the offence is 'Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence', not 'No driving licence'

[frankieg]

It happened because he insured online and never spoke to an actual broker!. He used a popular search site and entered he had a foreign licence and had been in the country 13 months and up came lots of quotes from very well known companies. He went with this particular broker and applied, again online, with the same details and that was it he was insured. When the policy came up for renewal he was told only to contact the insurance agent if there was a change in details - which there wasnt- so they continued the policy. they wont refund the money since the broker is 95% sure that the insurer would pay if there had been an accident !!

[mightymouse_69]

Not quite, a Provisional Driving Licence is still a Driving Licence, but with conditions.

 

That is why, for people caught driving with a Provisional Licence, unaccompanied and/or no 'L' plates, the offence is 'Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence', not 'No driving licence'

 

There is only one offence and that is Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence.

 

I will provide the whole quote:

 

"A person may be convicted of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence if, for example, he drives while holding no licence, while not holding a licence for that class of vehicle, while under age, or while in breach of provisional licence conditions: see para 462 et seq post."

[letshelp]

I have read all of it.

 

According to Halsbury's Laws of England:

 

"A person may be convicted of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence if, for example, he drives...or while in breach of provisional licence conditions."

 

I take it the above paragraph is a straight lift from the quoted Halsbury's law of England?

 

So, if you breach provisonal licence conditions - you are in effect unlicenced. This will more than likely invalidate your insurance!

 

This paragraph is what you think it means, correct?

 

Im not saying it automatically invalidates the cover, but there is a substantial chance it will.

 

So the cops saying they are happy that they do not feel any offence has been committed, and a poster who actually works for the insurance industry who says that the insurance is not invalidated, that means nothing to you? Are you posting from a position of authority or is it just what you think?

This thread on a policing forum deals with the same matter: UKPOLICEONLINE Discussion Forum > Vehicle Seizing

 

Seems there is confusion there also.

 

Seems to me the only confusion is on this thread.

 

regards

[mightymouse_69]

regards

 

That is from Halsbury yes - the post above your most recent contains the full quote.

 

I believe Al27 is a policeman, he seems to think that most insurance policies would be invalidated.

 

For example, my policy states that the policy is effective "provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle..."

 

This would mean that driving unacompanied on a provisional would invalidate that policy. Remember i said Most - some policies may have different terms.

 

I have no authority im afraid. But i did take the liberty of asking a solicitor and 2 barristers today. All agreed that it is highly likely that driving unacompanied on a provisional would invalidate the insurance.

[letshelp]

I believe Al27 is a policeman, he seems to think that most insurance policies would be invalidated.

 

Let's wait for Al to confirm that.

 

For example, my policy states that the policy is effective "provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle..."

 

This would mean that driving unacompanied on a provisional would invalidate that policy.

 

Sorry I disagree, it actually means what it says, NOT what you think it says. The person even though driving unacompanied STILL has a licence albeit a provisional.

 

Remember i said Most - some policies may have different terms.

 

I have no authority im afraid. But i did take the liberty of asking a solicitor

 

Next time you speak to the solicitor ask him/her how many people they have represented for having no insurance under the circumstances you state. I would bet none. Because the cops don't believe that any offence of no insurance has been committed under these circumstances. I would tend to think that a traffic cop with 23 years experience would have a bit of a clue about this matter as well as someone actually working in the insurance industry.

 

and 2 barristers today.

 

Ask the barristers how many cases the have represented in the County Court for a claim against the MIB because the person driving was a PLH unaccompanied and therefore , in your opinion, had no insurance, I would again bet none.

 

All agreed that it is highly likely that driving unacompanied on a provisional would invalidate the insurance.

 

I just hope that if I am ever in trouble I don't employ the legal eagles you spoke to because they really don't seem to have the first idea.

 

This is now getting very repetitive and is actually threadjacking, unless someone posts an authoritive opinion with credible legal argument to support their point of view, as opposed to the, 'what they THINK policy wording etc mean', I will not be posting again on this thread.

regards

[mightymouse_69]

Sorry I disagree, it actually means what it says, NOT what you think it says. The person even though driving unacompanied STILL has a licence albeit a provisional.

 

But i have already shown that an unsupervised provisional licence holder is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence! (eg - no licence)

 

The Barristers in question are very experienced - but maybe you feel that Judge LJ also doesn't have the 'first Idea':

 

"The second offence of the three was driving otherwise in accordance with a licence (he had a provisional licence only), and the third offence was using his vehicle without insurance....

...It was ascertained that the applicant held a provisional licence only. He was therefore in consequence guilty of the second and third offences (driving without insurance)." R v Sofekun [2008] EWCA 2035

 

Hopefully Al will get back to use. But for now i will agree to disagree!

[Raykay]

Although a court may treat someone who has no licence and a provisional licence holder in the same way, in your words 'no licence' (and I have no argument with that), a Provisional Driving Licence is still a driving Licence - but with conditions.

[NorthernMonk]

But i have already shown that an unsupervised provisional licence holder is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence! (eg - no licence)

 

I think there is a lot of confusion here about what the law states, and what an insurance company will pay out on.

 

There is a specific offence of driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence.

 

A provisional licence holder must display L plates, and be accompanied by a full licence holder to legally drive within the conditions of his licence.

 

If he drives outside of these conditions he commits this specific offence.

 

He still holds a driving licence, I am totallly confused as to where you have come to the conclusion "eg - no licence"

 

If he has a valid insurance certificate at the time of the offence he would not be summonsed for No Insurance as a matter of course.

 

The insurance offence would be down to the Insurance company as to whether they have specified in the conditions of the policy that to drive otherwise than in accordance, would invalidate the policy. I've never seen it.

 

What an Insurance company paid out on if an accident occured, is entirely up to them, it's not covered under the Road Traffic Act, as far as I'm aware.

[mightymouse_69]

As i have mentioned before, there are no seperate offences of "Driving without a licence" and "Driving otherwise in accordance of a licence"

 

It is all one offence - "Driving otherwise in accordance of a licence" Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 87 as ammended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 17.

[green_and_mean]

As i have mentioned before, there are no seperate offences of "Driving without a licence" and "Driving otherwise in accordance of a licence"

 

It is all one offence - "Driving otherwise in accordance of a licence" Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 87 as ammended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 17.

 

Licence offences: LC20, 30, 40 & 50: 3-6 Penalty Points.

• LC10 Driving Without A Licence
  
• LC12 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc10
  
• LC14 Causing Or Permitting Lc10
  
• LC16 Inciting Lc10
  
• LC20 Driving Otherwise Than In Accordance With A Licience
  
• LC22 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc20
  
• LC24 Causing Or Permitting Lc20
  
• LC26 Inciting Lc20
  
• LC30 False Health Declaration When Applying For Licence
  
• LC32 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc30
  
• LC34 Causing Or Permitting Lc30
  
• LC36 Inciting Lc30
  
• LC40 Driving A Veh Having Failed To Notify A Disibility
  
• LC42 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc40
  
• LC44 Causing Or Permitting Lc40
  
• LC46 Inciting Lc40
  
• LC50 Driving After Licence Has Been Revoked For Health
  
• LC52 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc50
  
• LC54 Causing Or Permitting Lc50
  
• LC56 Inciting Lc50
  

[mightymouse_69]

Licence offences: LC20, 30, 40 & 50: 3-6 Penalty Points.

• LC10 Driving Without A Licence
  
• LC12 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc10
  
• LC14 Causing Or Permitting Lc10
  
• LC16 Inciting Lc10
  
• LC20 Driving Otherwise Than In Accordance With A Licience
  
• LC22 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc20
  
• LC24 Causing Or Permitting Lc20
  
• LC26 Inciting Lc20
  
• LC30 False Health Declaration When Applying For Licence
  
• LC32 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc30
  
• LC34 Causing Or Permitting Lc30
  
• LC36 Inciting Lc30
  
• LC40 Driving A Veh Having Failed To Notify A Disibility
  
• LC42 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc40
  
• LC44 Causing Or Permitting Lc40
  
• LC46 Inciting Lc40
  
• LC50 Driving After Licence Has Been Revoked For Health
  
• LC52 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring Lc50
  
• LC54 Causing Or Permitting Lc50
  
• LC56 Inciting Lc50
  

 

That list is not accurate and is out of date.

 

LC10 was replaced by LC20 as of 1991 by the Road Traffic Act 1991 section 17 - as i stated above.

 

An accurate list of offences is available here: When endorsements and penalty points can be removed from a driving licence : Directgov - Motoring

 

Note - there is LC20 but not LC10

 

Before the 1991 ammendmant there was a seperate offence under section 97 (i think) of the 1988 act.

[Raykay]

As i have mentioned before, there are no seperate offences of "Driving without a licence" and "Driving otherwise in accordance of a licence"

 

It is all one offence - "Driving otherwise in accordance of a licence" Road Traffic Act 1988 Section 87 as ammended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 Section 17.

 

The offence at court may be the same, but the difference for Provisional Licence Holders (as against Full Licence Holders) for insurance is in the terms and conditions of the policy.

 

If there is a clause in the policy that requires the driver to hold a driving licence, and the person doesn't (No Licence), they are not covered.

 

If they only have a Provisional Driving Licence then it depends if there is further clause such as one that requires them to comply with the conditions of that licence whilst driving, and if they dont, then they may not covered.

 

If there is not such a clause then they may be covered.

[mightymouse_69]

The offence at court may be the same, but the difference for Provisional Licence Holders (as against Full Licence Holders) for insurance is in the terms and conditions of the policy.

 

If there is a clause in the policy that requires the driver to hold a driving licence, and the person doesn't (No Licence), they are not covered.

 

If they only have a Provisional Driving Licence then it depends if there is further clause such as one that requires them to comply with the conditions of that licence whilst driving, and if they dont, then they may not covered.

 

If there is not such a clause then they may be covered.

 

I agree with you to the extent that it depends on the wording of the policy - something i said earlier.

 

Having a look at some policies online, Direct line state that they will not provide cover where the vehicle is driven by someone who has no licence or drives outside the conditions of a licence.

 

Aviva state the same as does churchill.

 

As Al said earlier, it would be very hard to find one that does not become invalid when the car is driven by someone on a provisional who is not being supervised.

 

Not forgetting that the police may seize vehicles where the driver is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence anyway... Road traffic | Home Office

[mike5100]

can I ask a related but more general question.

we all hear of claims being denied because someone hadn't told the insurer that they had fitted (say) an aerofoil body kit, and I think I'm interpreting the posts on here to mean that damage to the owner's property might be denied, but if the guy slammed into someone else, the 3rd party's costs would be paid by the insurer. If this is what happens, how often does your own insurer come after you for what they have had to pay out for the 3rd party?

Mike

[sploits]

Morning,

 

My friend has finally got a letter about his recent stupidity.

He is getting done for nobody sitting with him whilst he drove the vehicle and for not producing his documents.

 

What is the worst that can happen now? Points and a fine? Threw in a dungeon and made to sit in the corner and think about what he has done?

 

He is going to send a letter in pleading guilty to all charges but he just wants to know what punishment he will be getting.

 

Thank you kindly,

 

Sploits

[lamma]

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/magistrates_court_sentencing_guidelines_update.pdf

[sploits]

Thank you Lamma