Stopped with no insurance

BnA

A friend of mine was stopped while driving my carlast week. Because he didn't have insurance on him, he was asked to hand it in at his local garda station. We are partners in a business and he drives a company van. He borrows my car if he is going to a wedding or something like that. We had always presumed that like any insurance, his insurance on the van would cover him on my car.

We have since discovered that because the insurance on the van is commercial it does not cover him driving any other car. So basically, he wasn't insured.

1) Should he chance going to the Garda Station with my insurance and his insurance and possibly hope that they don't notice that his is commercial insurance...!!!!

2) According to the Penalty Points list, it is a mandatory court appearence with 5 points if convicted. If it does go to court what are the chances of getting off. It was a genuine mistake. It would have cost nothing to add him as a named driver to my insurance but we didn't think there was any need. Firstly, what are the chances that he could pursuade the judge that it was an honest mistake and secondly, even if the judge does believe him, does he have the flexability available to him to let him off ?

Any help \ ideas appreciated

C_Breeze

Option number 1 ...and if they do say something, just clearly expalin what you explained above and you should be fine.

Now hide before you get flamed to death

lizzyd66

Does your insurance not cover any driver third party? Mine is named driver for comp and any for tp. Worth a phone call?

Owen

I'd go with option 1. If it did go to court, the Judge would not allow ignorance to be an excuse for breaking the law, no matter how honest the mistake.

whippet

ignorance is rarely ever accepted as an excuse.

I would go with option one, but I believe that having no insurance will more than likely lead to a ban of at least 6 months !!!

seamus

lizzyd66 wrote:

Does your insurance not cover any driver third party? Mine is named driver for comp and any for tp. Worth a phone call?

Commercial insurance generally only covers a person to drive vehicles belonging to the business, and not vehicles belonging to employees/directors, or vehicles which are otherwise not used for business purposes. Definitely worth the phone call though.

MAYPOP

Go with option 1!

rowanh

Might be good for him to go in very early in the morning, they might be tired and not look at it as carefully. They also might not have the details of your car. The guards do make a lot of mistakes with details of things.

Saruman

lizzyd66 wrote:

Does your insurance not cover any driver third party? Mine is named driver for comp and any for tp. Worth a phone call?

Only if said person is insured to drive that car in the first place. I could drive anyones car since im fully insured on my own car and vice versa... someone else could not drive my car unless they were fully insured on another car.
It does seem a little sill that commercial insurance does not give this benefit though.

Atomic Pineapple

add him to your policy now and then get the insurance company to send you the details, depending on the company the details should just have the start date and end date of the policy, you as the main driver and him as a named driver, with no mention of the date he was added.

then show it to the gardai and they'll be none the wiser

Jo King

I saw a case in court a few months ago like yours. There was a policy on the car but the driver was not included on the policy. The defence barrister made an argument that the insurance company would have to compensate any injured third party ( because of a European Directive). There was an underwriter there. She said that the driver was not covered but that they would have to compensate any injured third party. The barrister then said that there was no offence committed because all that was required on the road was third party cover. The guard argued that the insurance company could sue the owner of the car for breach of contract. The judge said that was not relevant. He dismissed the charge.
You should show the policy which covers the vehicle to the guards within the ten days. If they persist with a charge you will simply have to go in and defend it.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

kopparberg

Jo King wrote:

I saw a case in court a few months ago like yours. There was a policy on the car but the driver was not included on the policy. The defence barrister made an argument that the insurance company would have to compensate any injured third party ( because of a European Directive). There was an underwriter there. She said that the driver was not covered but that they would have to compensate any injured third party. The barrister then said that there was no offence committed because all that was required on the road was third party cover. The guard argued that the insurance company could sue the owner of the car for breach of contract. The judge said that was not relevant. He dismissed the charge.
You should show the policy which covers the vehicle to the guards within the ten days. If they persist with a charge you will simply have to go in and defend it.

if that is the case then the insurance law is nul and void are you sure you got the case facts right also where and when did this happen

FX Meister

Saruman wrote:

It does seem a little sill that commercial insurance does not give this benefit though.

FBD allow driving of other cars with a commercial policy

Del2005

kopparberg wrote:

if that is the case then the insurance law is nul and void are you sure you got the case facts right also where and when did this happen

2nd. I'd like to see this also. Would save everyone a fortune:D

Esel

draffodx wrote:

add him to your policy now and then get the insurance company to send you the details, depending on the company the details should just have the start date and end date of the policy, you as the main driver and him as a named driver, with no mention of the date he was added.

then show it to the gardai and they'll be none the wiser

This is a good idea, but don't expect the new cert to be dated from the commencement date of the policy. It will be dated from when you add your friend as a named driver. It might be a better idea to go for open drive - when the guard see this clause he may not look at the issue date of the cert.

Also, both you and your pal were foolish, and that's putting it very mildly! :eek: AFAIK, you could still get a summons for allowing the car to be driven without insurance.

worded

I spoke to FBD as someone suggested above and got a good quote from them for private insurance on a commercial vehicle (car van)

They are at 1890 617 617 I spoke with Phil (Female) there @ ext 72073

She was jovial and helpful.

PeteK*

I'd imagine if he just went and produced his insurance cert there would be nothing said or asked.

worded

The garda shifts change at 6am I think - pls double check
At this time they might be comparing notes of what happened say between 530 and 630

If the Garda looks ok - explain.
If a grumpy one approaches the desk - ask for a license ap or something and return next day.

At least you have some form of insurance! There are 1000s uninsured, stolen cars, drunks etc on the road.

Go there looking smart in a shirt, put everything neatly in a folder and relax, you will be ok.

Jo King

kopparberg wrote:

if that is the case then the insurance law is nul and void are you sure you got the case facts right also where and when did this happen

I am sure of the facts. It happened in the District Court in the Richmond in March this year. The same defence was raised in another case last month in the Circuit Court on appeal. I understand that there are more of these cases on the way. They are not the solution to all problems. If you allow someone to drive who is not covered by the policy, the insurance company is within it's rights to make you pay for any damage caused= by that person!

maidhc

Jo King wrote:

I am sure of the facts. It happened in the District Court in the Richmond in March this year. The same defence was raised in another case last month in the Circuit Court on appeal. I understand that there are more of these cases on the way. They are not the solution to all problems. If you allow someone to drive who is not covered by the policy, the insurance company is within it's rights to make you pay for any damage caused= by that person!

... so once the car is insured by someone the driver is in the clear? So it is lawful for my 17year old sister to drive my car subject to the condition I may be sued for breach of contract?

ho humm. Not a state of affairs that will persist for very long if it reaches the High Court.

Jo King

maidhc wrote:

... so once the car is insured by someone the driver is in the clear? So it is lawful for my 17year old sister to drive my car subject to the condition I may be sued for breach of contract?

ho humm. Not a state of affairs that will persist for very long if it reaches the High Court.

What can the High Court do about it? The oireachtais would have to create a new offence to do anything about it.

maidhc

Jo King wrote:

What can the High Court do about it? The oireachtais would have to create a new offence to do anything about it.

They will give a definitive judgment!

If they uphold the DJs view the oireachtas will step in.

Jo King

maidhc wrote:

They will give a definitive judgment!

If they uphold the DJs view the oireachtas will step in.

So that means the state of affairs may well continue after the issue has reached the High Court. It of course may never reach the High Court. The Circuit Court judge considered sending it to the Supreme Court on a case stated. If a case stated is sent from the District Court or the Circuit Court it could take two years to be heard. If it goes from the District Court to the High Court and then the Supreme Court it could well be five years before there is a conclusive judgment. If that is in favour of the accused, then the Oireachtais has to get around to enacting new legislation. Looks like the barrister who spotted this anomaly in the law will be busy for the next few years.

maidhc

Jo King wrote:

So that means the state of affairs may well continue after the issue has reached the High Court. It of course may never reach the High Court. The Circuit Court judge considered sending it to the Supreme Court on a case stated. If a case stated is sent from the District Court or the Circuit Court it could take two years to be heard. If it goes from the District Court to the High Court and then the Supreme Court it could well be five years before there is a conclusive judgment. If that is in favour of the accused, then the Oireachtais has to get around to enacting new legislation. Looks like the barrister who spotted this anomaly in the law will be busy for the next few years.

Perhaps.. or else the prosecution will just spend the next 2 years adjourning like they did with the Intoxyliser cases.

Jo King

maidhc wrote:

Perhaps.. or else the prosecution will just spend the next 2 years adjourning like they did with the Intoxyliser cases.

Until a case stated is sent forward the prosecution have no basis for seeking adjournments. If a case stated is sent to a higher court anybody charged will eventually be acquitted on grounds of delay. Any amending legislation will be prospective only. For the moment it is a good defence.

Fey!

OP; check your car policy. If your partner is between 25 and 71 and has a full, clean license, and you have comprehensive cover, then he may well be legally covered third party.

Also double check the van insurance; driving of other cars isn't always limited to private insurance; we have it on a commercial policy with FBD. However, even with a comprehensive policy, if your partner is under 25 or is on a provisional, he may not have driving of other cars; a few insurance companies have age/license provisions on their policies.

maidhc

Jo King wrote:

Until a case stated is sent forward the prosecution have no basis for seeking adjournments. If a case stated is sent to a higher court anybody charged will eventually be acquitted on grounds of delay. Any amending legislation will be prospective only. For the moment it is a good defence.

Indeed indeed. Its just unlikely to be a good defence for the next few years....

There is no guarantee of being acquitted on grounds of delay though. In cork most of the DJs laugh at the notion of acquittal on grounds of delay (quite literally..even in cases of over 6 years).

layke

C_Breeze wrote:

Option number 1

Everyone loves a chancer! Sure give it a go, you probably have nothing to lose.

Jo King

maidhc wrote:

Indeed indeed. Its just unlikely to be a good defence for the next few years....

There is no guarantee of being acquitted on grounds of delay though. In cork most of the DJs laugh at the notion of acquittal on grounds of delay (quite literally..even in cases of over 6 years).

If the DJs don't strike out then a judicial review is the way to go. There is a judgment due from the High Court shortly on the issue of delay in summary proceedings.

maidhc

Jo King wrote:

If the DJs don't strike out then a judicial review is the way to go. There is a judgment due from the High Court shortly on the issue of delay in summary proceedings.

Judicial review makes me cross. It is an option open only to the very rich and the impecunious.

Jo King

maidhc wrote:

Judicial review makes me cross. It is an option open only to the very rich and the impecunious.

I would imagine most uninsured drivers are in the latter category.

Our man in Havana

Jo King wrote:

If the DJs don't strike out then a judicial review is the way to go. There is a judgment due from the High Court shortly on the issue of delay in summary proceedings.

What sort of delays are we talking about? Timewise, more than 2 years?

Jo King

Bond-007 wrote:

What sort of delays are we talking about? Timewise, more than 2 years?

Yes. There are a number of different periods of delay involved. The total is more than four years.