Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Sir_Mixalot on 11 September 2006, 14:14:19
-
Just a quick question...
If you lend your car to someone, who claims to be insured (but isn't) then they get pulled over and charged, as the registered owner(/keeper?) are you liable for prosecution as well?
-
as far as i know, and i am no expert on this, yes technically as its your responsibility to ensure they are legal to drive.
Hotel 21 is your best bet for a factual answer! :)
-
as far as i know, and i am no expert on this, yes technically as its your responsibility to ensure they are legal to drive.
Hotel 21 is your best bet for a factual answer! :)
You are correct I think Markie. I'm afraid its the old 'ignorance is no excuse' thingy.
BTW Markie, that ZTT is still very cheap ;)
-
Well no insurance is an 'absolute offence' which means you have it or you don't - guilty/not guilty! With Road traffic act offences you can 'use','permit' or 'cause' (with use being the worst!)
However,at this current time it is not an offence to be a registered keeper without insurance.
The main question would be has the driver any insurance?
Your liability as the reg keeper could apply if he was driving on your insurance and you knew he didn't have a license. Or as an employer cause an employee to drive without insurance.
You would not commit an offence for lending your private motor vehicle to a mate in itself - they would be liable for insurance however your own insurance company would require you tell them. Of course,it depends on what your mate tells the police if stopped that could land you in it!
Clear as mud I know
-
as far as i know, and i am no expert on this, yes technically as its your responsibility to ensure they are legal to drive.
Hotel 21 is your best bet for a factual answer! :)
You are correct I think Markie. I'm afraid its the old 'ignorance is no excuse' thingy.
BTW Markie, that ZTT is still very cheap ;)
i know i am watching the ZTT - its a cracker :) but alas i think too far away, plus i think i am going for a Pajero :o
-
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.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
-
:o :o
You are well informed ;)
-
Excellent cheers for the help, got the police coming round tommrow for a "chat" and wanted to make sure I didn't get any nasty suprises.
-
plus i think i am going for a Pajero :o
I would check what pajero means in spanish before making comments like that :)
Then all will become aparent why the Shogun is called the Pajero everwhere in Europe apart from Spain :)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
shogun for me then!
-
plus i think i am going for a Pajero :o
I would check what pajero means in spanish before making comments like that :)
Then all will become aparent why the Shogun is called the Pajero everwhere in Europe apart from Spain :)
It comes back as pajero
-
plus i think i am going for a Pajero :o
I would check what pajero means in spanish before making comments like that :)
Then all will become aparent why the Shogun is called the Pajero everwhere in Europe apart from Spain :)
It comes back as pajero
search for "Pajero in Spanish" in google.....or think of the film " meet the Fockers"
-
Excellent cheers for the help, got the police coming round tommrow for a "chat" and wanted to make sure I didn't get any nasty suprises.
Good Luck with the chat :)
-
Couple of things on this thread.
Reg keeper and owner are two seperate things, so one can be reported seperate to the other for motoring offences. Rob114 is quite correct as regards registered keeper in this case (but there are others where it is NOT the case)
See previous threads regarding Driving Other Cars insurance question (DOC extension) for fuller ins and outs.
In the briefest of circumstances as originally posted in this thread, the owner did not view any insurance certificate claimed to be in force by the person to whom the car was lent. I would suggest that this was an unfortunate oversight which may well have an equally unfortunate ending for the car owner in court.
Yes, 143(3) allows an exemption but this only applies to employee/employer. The car owner (employer) is still liable for insurance requirements and the car driver, employee, would be a witness.
In original case, the car owner causes or permits the no insurance offence by permitting the driver to use it on a public road. If he/she had said no, then car would no have been used and no offence committed.
As others have said, unfortunately ignorance of the law is no excuse and I would not be surprised if the 'chat' turns into being reported for a 143 as well.
The alternative which prevents the owner being reported for any 143 offence is if the car was taken without the owners consent. The driver would be additionally charged with a suitable offence (TWOC in England?? - RTA 1988 sect 178 up here) but this avenue is fraught with difficulty and danger if not strictly true..........
-
plus i think i am going for a Pajero :o
I would check what pajero means in spanish before making comments like that :)
Then all will become aparent why the Shogun is called the Pajero everwhere in Europe apart from Spain :)
It comes back as pajero
search for "Pajero in Spanish" in google.....or think of the film " meet the Fockers"
Ah let's test the filter self-abuser - the W word!!!
-
LMAO I got a mate at work with a paj, guess who's gonna be the laughing stock in the morning.
-
No such thing as a 'chat' mate!!
They will either take a statement from you as a witness or if they have cause to suspect you of an offence,conduct an interview under caution.
From your first post in this thread it appears you genuinely believed your mate had insurance. If it were me, I would happily give a brief statement to this effect.
If however, they intend to interview you under caution,again just my advice, arrange to do it at the police station with a legal representative present - this would in no way influence the outcome & would protect you from what can be complicated legislation.
If at any point you are reported for any offence say nothing & seek legal advice.
Another area to be careful of is speaking to your mate about this cause that can lead to more serious stuff
Just giving you a heads up mate,
-
I agree. Seek legal advice.
The onus is on you to verify the drivers insurance etc.
Let us know the outcome of the 'chat'.
-
cheers hotel21 and rob114.
to fill in the story, it wasn't my car (fathers) - hes speaking to the police, i have to go and see them as well, but only to make a statement as a whitness (i assume), the thread was really on behalf of him.
Basically, a guy came round to test drive the car (coincidentally it was a facelift MV6...), i took him out and got him to sign a piece of paper saying he had a liscence and insurance for this (father was out at the time). Next day he comes back with the cash, saying he wants to buy the car...the paper work (V5) is signed and as the guy starts the car he has his foot flat on the gas with the car in gear.
The car shot accross the road it was parked perpendicular to and smashes into a wall, destroying the wall (1ft thick, stone) and slightly damaging the cars bumper. The guy got out, had a look at the damage, and left without reporting it. I wasn't here for this which makes me suspicious as to why the police want to speak to me - anyway.
The neighbour came round the next day asking for an explanation, my father filled them in and the police got involved, and here we are.
Not really sure as to why its got so serious, I am assuming he didn't have insurance and is also being done for not reporting an accident. We have guessed that he had fully comp on his own car, and was therefore 3rd party on the MV6 until he owned it, at which point his 3rd party cover on cars he didn't own from his fully comp ended as he now owned the car.
-
strikes me that your man was now the owner of the car and its his problem now?
-
Yes B52, I agree.
Then why do the police want to speak to me when:
a) I am nothing todo with the car.
b) I wasn't there when he had the crash.
Will have to wait till the afternoon and see what they have to say.
-
Scenario makes more sense now....
strikes me that your man was now the owner of the car and its his problem now?
Agreed.
Police will probably need to speak to you regarding the paper you had the potential purchaser sign to say he had insurance. Well done. Hope you still have it, is a correct name and not a false one, and that signature was (hopefully) witnessed?
You were not there when he had the crash but you were when you got the 'I have insurance' paper, hence the need to speak to you. You can also describe the driver/purchaser, provide contact 'phone number etc etc.
Yes, the 3rd party cover/DOC ends when he buys the car. Did he bolt on foot or take his new car with him? Did he pass his details at the time to any person requiring them? Wall owner, etc? If not, then he has failed to stop and report an accident and committed further offences.
From all thats now explained, you and your father would appear to have a walk on part and, given there are now no missing links to the tale, will hopefully have no great worry.
-
Well Sir Mixalot - glad to see this is not what it first appears & you took reasonable steps to protect yourself/your dad.
As Hotel21 says - more a walk on' part now!
FYI - if the police take a statement as a witness NOT under caution - they will not be able to use this in any prosecution involving yourself (there are exceptions but only in the most serious of cases)
-
To finnish up on this...
Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident. I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.
Thanks again.
-
To finnish up on this...
Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident. I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.
Thanks again.
I hope they throw the book at him and he gets a custodial scentence
-
To finnish up on this...
Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident. I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.
Thanks again.
I hope they throw the book at him and he gets a custodial scentence
We all wish, more like a slap on the wrists!!
-
To finnish up on this...
Spoke to the police today, basically it turns out the guy didn't have a liscence (provisional expired in 1984!), or insurance, PLUS he failed to stop and report an accident. I had to give a whitness statement of the time i went with him for a test drive for the police to prosecute with the "no liscence" charge.
Thanks again.
I take it you was driving during the test run :) so atleast your covered and not eligible for action against yourself by the police.
Or have I missed something.
-
probably not enough corroboration for the test drive to be a problem for sir mixalot (the only other 'witness' being your wall killer)? id reckon theyd be more interested in the wall killer too....
-
no he was driving for the test drive; hence my statement as a whitness of him driving (to do him for driving without a liscence)
-
no he was driving for the test drive; hence my statement as a whitness of him driving (to do him for driving without a liscence)
Ahhh gotcha hope he gets what he deserves :)