producer for car docs

[batty_uk]

So if the police approach the owner his father comes forward and says its under my control.Here is my insurance. Signed sealed delivered !!!!

 

 

ok went to court and he was found guilty of "use of a vehicle on a public road with no insurance" even though my partner was a witness and testified that he had insurance and was driving the car. Thgey were charging him with the vehicle being parked outside the house, not with driving it.

If I take a car into town on a 3rd party policy then am i not insured to park it on a road?

 

They have given him 6points!!!!!!!!!!! and a fine of £250 plus £300 court costs. I think it stinks!

I have advised hiom to appeal.........any thoughts? or advice?

[batty_uk]

Hi Bailiff

I think this is if the person borrowing the other vehicle holds fully comp and the vehicle they are driving has to have a valid policy on it.

But its always best to read your insurers conditions first.

 

apparently not true according to the court.........although insurance company say otherwise.

[rogerebaker]

Batty.

 

What did your solicitor say !.

 

I would be very careful regarding an appeal and certainly take good legal advice.

 

Re your partners fully comp Insurance.

 

Had the car, whilst been parked outside your house, been involved in some sort of accident, Do you think your partners insurance would have entertained any claim from a 3rd party and accepted liability.

 

I very much doubt it. If that was the case any friend / relative / passer by with a fully comp Insurance could claim responsibilty and there wouldnt be the need to Insure any car that was only parked on a road, been fixed / sold / etc etc.

 

In my rather dated experience of the Insurance world. Your partners insurance would probably only cover your sons car if she was driving it. If she parked it in the town centre and left it it would not be covered by a valid policy of insurance which means that allthough the law dosnt say the other vehicle must be insured the practicality of it means it does.

 

If you think about it logically it does make common sense.

 

I am the father of four grown up children all of which have had their moments so I know what your going thru

[patdavies]

 

If she parked it in the town centre and left it it would not be covered by a valid policy of insurance

 

 

Yes it would, there is case law that driving includes parking (and parked)

[rogerebaker]

Im aware that when a vehicle is parked under certain circumstances it can still be deemed as being driven and under the control of the driver, without going into great detail it talks about temporary stops during a journey. ie. you set off for the shops and on the way you stop outside a post box, parked and get out to post a letter then you would still be considered driving especially as regard reporting of accidents etc. If you had completed your jouney and left the car parked in the town centre, you could no longer be considered driving.

 

As regards insurance and unattended vehicles I think the offence is using a vehicle whilst uninsured and not driving, unless it falls into the catagory above.

 

My opinion only from dealing with alot of these sort of issues years ago.

[patdavies]

If you take this to its (absurd) logical conclusion, any unattended vehicle is uninsured given the circumstances you state above.

 

In the UK, we insure the driver, not the vehicle.

 

In theory, if I take my car into town and park it to go shopping, then it is no longer insured as I am insured to drive it.

 

Contrarily, if you argue that the vehicle is insured, then when I leave it a a garage for service/road test/etc. they don't need their own insurance as the vehicle is already insured.

 

The very fact that we insure the driver is what prevents having an insurance sticker on the windscreen like a VED disk, It would have to be continually changed when the driver changes.

[rogerebaker]

If you take your car into town and park of course its insured. Your insurance certificate has the details of your car on it.

 

If you take someone elses car and you are insured to drive it using the

 

" you can drive any other vehicle not owned by you or hired to you under hire purchase agreement"

 

Clause in your fully comp Insurance then once you stop driving it ie park it in a shopping centre. It is no longer insured using the above clause.

 

It follows on then that if there is no other policy of insurance in repect of the vehicle it is uninsured.

 

regards people v cars which is insured.

 

Its a combination of the two

 

The person holds the policy but only to drive certain vehicles which are named on the policy. interestingly the DVLA database holds details of vehicles insured not persons.

 

if you take your scanario: In a street of 10 people who all have a car outside their house. only one person in the street would have to be insured fully comp and they could claim that all the vehicles were insured to be on the Road using their policy of insurance, which would be clearly ridiculous.

 

If we go back to the O/P incident. His partner has moved the car on to a Road uing the clause in their own policy stating they can drive any vehicle not owned or hired to them.

 

Having then parked it and left it on a road the liability then falls to the owner of the car, his son, to make sure its insured, as it wasnt insured he was convicted of using the vehicle without insurance.

 

Allthough in the OP case it was an unfortunate set of circumstances and as the OP states his son was being responsible in making the vehicle road worthy I would advise caution before appealing and certainly take legal advice as he may find the court has technically made the correct judgement

[Rob S]

In the UK, we insure the driver, not the vehicle.

 

.

 

Sorry Pat, I have to take issue with you on that. Individuals have to to take out a policy of insurance and when they do, they have to give details of the vehicle they wish to insure. That is the vehicle which they are covered to drive under the policy they have taken out as an individual. To be able to keep a vehicle on the public road, there must be a minimum of third party cover taken out by the owner kin respect of that vehicle.

[patdavies]

Sorry Pat, I have to take issue with you on that. Individuals have to to take out a policy of insurance and when they do, they have to give details of the vehicle they wish to insure. That is the vehicle which they are covered to drive under the policy they have taken out as an individual. To be able to keep a vehicle on the public road, there must be a minimum of third party cover taken out by the owner kin respect of that vehicle.

 

There is no absolute need to take out an insurance policy. The law allows a person to pay a deposit to the government and drive any vehicle - the driver is covered. (I think it is currently about £5M). It is possible to get any vehicle insurance - for example motor traders. I have had insurance certificates in the past that have not had any vehicle details on (even registration number). They coverd me to drive any vehicle - but reduced the cover to TPO if it wasn't the vehicle nominated on the policy. Nevertheless, as the driver. I was insured for any vehicle

 

Driving other vehicles on your policy - if you have it - also indicates that it is the driver that is covered.

 

The absolute legal minimum insurance (effectively TPO) provide no cover whatsoever for the vehicle driven - only for third parties.

 

Neither the owner nor the registered keeper is required to insure a vehicle. They would only need insurance if they drive the vehicle. Leasing companies do not insure the vehicles that they lease - even personal leases - they do however, remain the owner. If the owner were required to insure a vehicle the HP companies would have to insure any car on HP finance with them.

[Rob S]

There is no absolute need to take out an insurance policy. The law allows a person to pay a deposit to the government and drive any vehicle - the driver is covered. (I think it is currently about £5M)

 

Let's be realistic here Pat, how many individuals could put down a bond of £5 million?

 

. It is possible to get any vehicle insurance - for example motor traders. I have had insurance certificates in the past that have not had any vehicle details on (even registration number). They coverd me to drive any vehicle - but reduced the cover to TPO if it wasn't the vehicle nominated on the policy. Nevertheless, as the driver. I was insured for any vehicle

 

Again, realistically how many companies will offer this? I was getting quotes for my car last year in both my own name and my wifes, but when getting quotes in her name, as soon as I mentioned that she was not the registered keeper, the number of companies prepared to offer a quote diminished rapidly.

 

Driving other vehicles on your policy - if you have it - also indicates that it is the driver that is covered.

 

And this is one area where a lot of companies are pulling out of with their policies. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

The absolute legal minimum insurance (effectively TPO) provide no cover whatsoever for the vehicle driven - only for third parties.

 

No, but then the whole idea of keeping a vehicle on the road is that it must be insured, a legal requirment under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act.

 

143.—(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.

 

 

Neither the owner nor the registered keeper is required to insure a vehicle. They would only need insurance if they drive the vehicle. Leasing companies do not insure the vehicles that they lease - even personal leases - they do however, remain the owner. If the owner were required to insure a vehicle the HP companies would have to insure any car on HP finance with them.

 

Indeed, you can own a vehicle and not insure it, as long as you have no intentions to use it on a road. And there we come back to the issue with the OP. His son had the car on a road and to keep a car on the road there must be either a policy of insurance in existance for it or a bond has been lodged.

[patdavies]

Let's be realistic here Pat, how many individuals could put down a bond of £5 million?

 

Very few - but they do exist

 

 

Again, realistically how many companies will offer this? I was getting quotes for my car last year in both my own name and my wifes, but when getting quotes in her name, as soon as I mentioned that she was not the registered keeper, the number of companies prepared to offer a quote diminished rapidly.

 

Anybody with a vehicle on a personal lease plan (those with guaranteed residual values) all have to get insurance without owning the vehicle.

 

 

And this is one area where a lot of companies are pulling out of with their policies. Doesn't that tell you something?

 

And some are putting it back due to market pressure. There was talk of outlawing it by statute which led some companies to withdraw the facility prematurely

 

 

No, but then the whole idea of keeping a vehicle on the road is that it must be insured, a legal requirment under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act.

 

143.—(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.

 

Nowehere in S143 does it even hint at the vehicle being insured. It refers to "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"

 

 

 

Indeed, you can own a vehicle and not insure it, as long as you have no intentions to use it on a road. And there we come back to the issue with the OP. His son had the car on a road and to keep a car on the road there must be either a policy of insurance in existance for it or a bond has been lodged.

 

You miss the whole point. The vehicle is not insured; the driver (or person using, to quote S143) is the insured.

 

What this case swings on is where the line (if any) falls, between driving and using a vehicle.

[Rob S]

You miss the whole point. The vehicle is not insured; the driver (or person using, to quote S143) is the insured.

 

What this case swings on is where the line (if any) falls, between driving and using a vehicle.

 

The OP's son wasn't using the vehicle at the time because he was banned, but as it was kept on the road he needed to have it insured. You can't get a road fund licence for a vehicle unless you can prove there is a policy of insurance or a bond in existence to show it is covered. We can play at semantics all day but the bottom line is that to keep a vehicle on the road it must be insured in some way.

[rogerebaker]

The Road Traffic Act 1988, S143 defines driving without insurance as follows: "It is an offence to use (or permit to be used) a motor vehicle on a road or public place when there is not in force in relation to the use of the vehicle such a policy of insurance is respect of third party risks as complies with the Road Traffic Act". This definition was drafted to be wide and therefore encompass both the owner of the car and the driver/temporary driver. It also encompases people who do not drive the vehicle, because the word "use" can include parked or stationary vehicles or those left for repair on a road or public place.

 

 

Having no motor vehicle insurance is an absolute offence, which means that you cannot defend the offence on the basis that you had no knowledge as to the lack of insurance. To prove the offence, the prosecution have to show "use", which would include parked cars on a road/public place. It is not limited to actual driving.

[Bailiffchaser]

Everybody let a md wrap this thread up. Its getting no where. If i had been in a similar position i know how i would have handled my case. I might have recieved a fine but no penalty points. I could have even appealed the original and had the fine reduced. Anyway i think this thread should now be closed.

[blueskies]

I disagree that the thread should be closed.

 

Did your son produce documents at the police station that he has (i.e. V5) or did he just ignore the producer (which is a HO/RT1 still).

 

Even though it is the driver that is insured each vehicle on the road must be covered specifically by a policy (or policies). The vehicle must also be taxed if it's on a publicly funded road.

 

The owner of the vehicle is responsible for this, not the registered keeper (which is normally, but not always, the same person). If he tries to claim that the previous owner is, in fact, the current owner the first thing the police will do is contact that person to establish who owns it. If there is any evidence proving your son is the owner then he will be in even further trouble as any sympathy the magistrate may have had will be lost.

 

I think your son has been unfortunate in this case but I think he will just have to bite the bullet and come clean to the magistrate and accept the outcome.

 

Also the advice to refuse an adjournment is not all that likely to work. The likelyhood is that the adjournment will be granted, if not then the evidence that the prosecution have will be presented anyway (normally adjournments are asked for to gather the less important evidence to secure a conviction) and may well result in a conviction. The adjournment may well act in your favour in that you might be able to prepare an improved defence.

[batty_uk]

wow, sorry everyone........didn't mean to cause such a fuss. I do however appreciate all you comments and advice!

 

Just to quickly answer a couple of questions, my partner picked the car up from the seller on the day the police happened to be walking by. He was in the process of moving one car off the garden to put this one in its place. So my son had paid for the car therefore legally he was the owner but he was not present until after the police had stopped, he came out of the house (after being woken up) while the officer was speaking to my partner.

My partner was insured under his fully comp insurance to drive the car tpo and he was going to drive the car into its resting place which was off road!

 

I guess he may well have to bite the bullet from what a lot of you have said.........he received 6 points on his newly aquired licence for in my eyes no real reason.

He did contact the police re producing his documents and explained that the officer had put the wrong reg number down. He sent a letter to them and the reply was "attend court" so he did and this was the outcome.

[batty_uk]

Everybody let a md wrap this thread up. Its getting no where. If i had been in a similar position i know how i would have handled my case. I might have recieved a fine but no penalty points. I could have even appealed the original and had the fine reduced. Anyway i think this thread should now be closed.

 

Not sure why you want this thread closed, I think it is going well and certainly has made me more aware of the technicalities regarding motor insurance which has to be a good thing?

[Bailiffchaser]

Its probably because i know what i would have done and so on. If you are learning or others are learning then this should be a positive thing and the thread should remain open.