Question abou insurance/got pulled

Supra lover 87

Was driving my friends car last night and he was driving mine.

He decided to pass me out on a white line and speed off in my car.

Anyway got pulled he had a provisional lience and i had full i was covered to drive his car with quinn but he wasnt covered to drive mine.

Now the guard said id get a fine for wreckless driving for what i dont know maybe doing 70 in a 60 zone id say i didnt over take i didnt speed past him.

Now hes most certainly off the road but my question is what do i get for letting him drive my car without insurance i told the guard i didnt know he was on ls and taught he had trade insurance since he was a macanic.

SV

If he wasn't insured then I'm afraid you can also be done for no insurance as you allowed him to drive your car.


Bad luck =/

alexmcred

I'd say the guard thought you were racing rightly or wrongly. As such he's prob going to try and throw the book at both of you.

The way you have described it here it sounds lime your friend was trying to race you

Supra lover 87

The guard never said anything about racing doh i was driving a 1.9 tdi bora and he was driving my 2 litre celica and i was way ahead of him on the road then after the roundabout back down he passed me out and drove on i wasent trying to catch up and he saw it all.

He said best thing to do is pay the fine and stay out of trouble and see how it goes if it goes to court.

The only thing is if my friend gets even 2 points hes off the road anyway before he even goes to court if they bring him.

djimi

SV wrote: »

If he wasn't insured then I'm afraid you can also be done for no insurance as you allowed him to drive your car.


Bad luck =/

Is this true? Surely the onus is on the driver to ensure that they have insurance, not the car or the cars owner?

ArphaRima

Yeah nothing your friend did could come back on you. He was the driver. It is his responsibility to ensure tax and insurance etc is up to date and that he holds the correct licence.

You are only responsible for your own actions. Which in this case is speeding by the sound of it.

thebiglad

fluffer wrote: »

Yeah nothing your friend did could come back on you. He was the driver. It is his responsibility to ensure tax and insurance etc is up to date and that he holds the correct licence.

You are only responsible for your own actions. Which in this case is speeding by the sound of it.

He handed him the keys and said here have a go - he is as responsible as his mate for allowing his car to be driven without insurance.

The fact they were racing too means that the garda will go after them on all charges.

Good job too - learn the lesson with 12 months off the road.

ArphaRima

he is as responsible as his mate for allowing his car to be driven without insurance.

Maybe morally. Not legally.
His mate is responsible.

If they were racing and the Garda pursues it in court as such, I would expect severe penalties. However, he is still not responsible for the actions of his friend.

the_syco

Supra lover 87 wrote: »

The only thing is if my friend gets even 2 points hes off the road anyway before he even goes to court if they bring him.

Oh, right, THAT'S why he used YOUR car to go fast.

The f**king douche: no wonder he has so many points. Pay the fine yourself, and don't let him take you down with him.

Henry Ford III

I have a feeling our laws are again identical to the UK on this - in which case have a look here

oldyouth

fluffer wrote: »

Maybe morally. Not legally.
His mate is responsible..

It is, legally as well as morally, an offence to allow an uninsured driver drive your vehicle

IITYWYBMAD

fluffer wrote: »

Maybe morally. Not legally.
....

You should know the law before stating that as fact. Both are legally responsible for the insurance. The driver will be prosecuted for not having insurance and the owner will(should) be prosecuted for allowing their car to be driven by an uninsured driver. Ignorance is not a defense, the onus is on the owner of the vehicle to ensure the driver has the correct cover.

SV

djimi wrote: »

Is this true? Surely the onus is on the driver to ensure that they have insurance, not the car or the cars owner?

It is indeed true.


It's very much the law..and he will very much be prosecuted for no insurance as well as his friend.

mickdw

There used to be a difference relating to insurance in cases like this depending on whether the owner said he gave the car to the uninsured person or whether they took the car. In one instance, they were actually covered in case of damage caused, in the other, the insurers would not pay out.
Once the car has insurance on it, the owner surely cannot be charged with an insurance offence can they?

Our man in Havana

There is no offence of permitting no insurance in this country.

ArphaRima

You should know the law before stating that as fact. Both are legally responsible for the insurance.

If I appeared to state it as fact I apologise. However I would like you to counter it with more than a counter-statement, given your self-appointed righteousness.

I may be mistaken. Please show me.

Henry Ford III

Another thread where a Garda opinion might not go astray perhaps?

SV

Lads, i've gone through this already myself in court and was told so by the solicitor.


I'll find it later when i'm off the mobile but it states it quite clearly.

oldyouth

Haddockman wrote: »

There is no offence of permitting no insurance in this country.

Can't follow what you are saying there Haddockman

SV

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#zza24y1961s56


(3) Where a person contravenes subsection (1) of this section, he and, if he is not the owner of the vehicle, such owner shall each be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months or to both such fine and such imprisonment.

Section1 below for reference;

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—

[GA] ( a ) an approved policy of insurance whereby the user or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, is insured against all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, or

[GA] ( b ) an approved guarantee whereby there is guaranteed the payment by the user, or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, of all sum without limit (save as is hereinafter otherwise provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs, on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user.


The OP may have got lucky with (5) Where a person charged with an offence under this section is the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that the vehicle was being used without his consent and either that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent its being used or that it was being used by his servant acting in contravention of his orders.
that as a defence but seeing as he was driving with his friend...it's pretty reasonable to assume ye're both gone off the road.

Tefral

If your mate is a mechanic, most insurance policys state, that they cover "persons necessesary for the overhaul or upkeep of your car"

I dont think it states on the policy if the mechanic has to be a fully licenced driver either..

Wanna check that one out op...

You didnt say if he was driving it hearing for noises or anything, so im going to assume he was driving your car for a reason

Del2005

SV wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0056.html#zza24y1961s56


The OP may have got lucky with (5) Where a person charged with an offence under this section is the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that the vehicle was being used without his consent and either that he had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent its being used or that it was being used by his servant acting in contravention of his orders.
that as a defence but seeing as he was driving with his friend...it's pretty reasonable to assume ye're both gone off the road.

Would that not mean the OP would have to say his mate TWOC, or Irish equivalent, his car? Not very easy to prove when he was in the other persons car.

Jo King

There is a case going to the Supreme Court at the moment regarding car insurance. It will decide whether the o/p and the driver of his car are guilty of the offence under S56 of the Road Traffic Act.

Hooch

Del2005 wrote: »

Would that not mean the OP would have to say his mate TWOC, or Irish equivalent, his car? Not very easy to prove when he was in the other persons car.

Sv is correct there is a summons for it.

In regards the supreme court case the DPP are quiet confident this will not succeed.

In relation to unauthoried taking (TWOC is a UK term) yes the owner can say it was taken without his consent.....however his friend would be prosecuted for UT of the vehicle.....and im sure his friend would turn around and allege UT of his vehicle......messy circle.

Our man in Havana

What is the background to the supreme court case?

Jo King

A person is stopped driving a car. There is an insurance policy covering the car but not the driver. The drivers defence is that under european law he is covered for injury and damage to third parties. The driver is arguing that he cannot be guilty of the Section 56 offence because there is an insurance company liable to indemnify him for damage arising out of his driving.

guil

I thought ur only covered to drive other cars once ur own is off the road

I was very close to being prosecuted before over a friend driving my car

Jo King

Once there is insurance on the car the S56 offence can't be made out if the Defendant succeeds in the Supreme Court case. I know of one Garda Inspector who does not prosecute if there is some kind of insurance on the car. Others do prosecute. That is why there is a case going to the Supreme Court.

CR 7

guil wrote: »

I thought ur only covered to drive other cars once ur own is off the road

I was very close to being prosecuted before over a friend driving my car

Yeah, that's right, on most policies, it'll say you're covered to drive other cars, but if you're driving another car, and someone else is driving yours, your insurance won't cover it.

-Chris-

Supra lover 87 wrote: »

The only thing is if my friend gets even 2 points hes off the road anyway before he even goes to court if they bring him.

Is your mate already on 10 points? I'd say you'd want to stop referring to him as a mechanic in the present tense then...

shamwari

The law is quite clear here: both owner and user are equally liable. If someone drives your car with no tax, or without them being appropriate insured, you as the owner as well as the driver can be prosecuted.

Max Power1

shamwari wrote: »

The law is quite clear here: both owner and user are equally liable. If someone drives your car with no tax, or without them being appropriate insured, you as the owner as well as the driver can be prosecuted.

Only if the vehicle is driven with consent of the owner though.

It will be intersting to hear the supreme court ruling aforementioned though.

Jo King

shamwari wrote: »

The law is quite clear here: both owner and user are equally liable. If someone drives your car with no tax, or without them being appropriate insured, you as the owner as well as the driver can be prosecuted.

The law is not as you are saying. Why do you think there is a Supreme Court case pending? If the owner has insurance on the car, his insurance company is liable for the driving of anyone allowed to drive by the owner. If the owner has told someone to drive the car that person has a perfectly good defence under Section 56(6) of the Road traffic Act. far too many people are being convicted in the wrong of driving without insurance.

guil

how are they being wrongfully convicted, in this case neither of them are covered cos they were driving each others cars

Our man in Havana

If the supreme court agrees it will rock the insurance industry to its core.

Jo King

guil wrote: »

how are they being wrongfully convicted, in this case neither of them are covered cos they were driving each others cars

It is not an offence to be in breach of the insurance contract.

keithclancy

Bloody stupid system, they should insure the cars not the person.

My Dutch insurance lets anyone with a full license drive my car, regardless of whether they have a car or insurance policy themselves.

Then the potential loss of my no claims bonus is on me if i'm stupid enough to let some young nutball have a burn in it

Our man in Havana

Have insurance companies ever been forced to pay out in situations similar to the supreme court case?

dr.fuzzenstein

keithclancy wrote: »

Bloody stupid system, they should insure the cars not the person.

My Dutch insurance lets anyone with a full license drive my car, regardless of whether they have a car or insurance policy themselves.

Then the potential loss of my no claims bonus is on me if i'm stupid enough to let some young nutball have a burn in it

Same in Germany, the car is insured, not the driver.
This is why in Germany borrowing a car of your mate goes like this:

Me: "Hey, can I borrow your car?"
Mate: Answer 1: "No, f*ck off"
Answer 2: "Sure, here's the keys"
End of story.

I tried borrowing a mate's car here in Ireland:
Mate: "Oh, I don't know, check with your insurance"
Me: (a week later) "They checked it out with their legal team and said No"
Mate: "Ok, let me check with my insurance"
Week later "Sure, but they will need a letter from your insurance"
My insurance said they never heard of it, his insurance wouldn't budge, in the end had to rent a car even though my mate was out the country and his car was sitting idle, it was weeks of pure horror and in the end couldn't be done.
My current insurance does allow me to drive other cars under 3rd party insurance, but reading the string of conditions it seems that you are never covered when out of your car, no matter what the insurance says, I would not drive anyone's car and wouldn't allow anyone to drive mine.
Sadly yet another case that proves that here in Ireland we have solicitors, accountants, health and safety, compliance and policies not to facilitate you in any way but merely to invent a million new ways of telling why something can't be done.
In any case, if you got caught it depends on the Gard and if he wants to scare you a bit to set you straight or if he is hellbent on doing you for as much as he can possibly stick on you.
After that it's up to the judge and a hefty dose of grovelling and licking some booty is the order.
I'd say you got one appeal after that and then it can get very scary and expensive if you take it further.
Let's hope he just wants to scare you straight.

rebel.ranter

The fact that you both had each other's car at the same rime meant that neither of you were insured, the "driving of other cars" part of your policy only allows you to drive another car if your own car is not being driven.
If you get away with that bit then you are still in a predicament as SV & NGA have outlined. Your provisional license holder friend would have landed you in problems even if you were not driving his car.
But I suppose bad driving (speeding & overtaking in an inappropriate place) was the ultimate downfall.
Insurance policies are very specific in what they cover & what they don't. People don't read what they have signed up to carefully enough, they just look at the price & think no more of it. You're not the first to fall foul of the law by not understanding your insurance & you won't be the last.

Jo King

Haddockman wrote: »

Have insurance companies ever been forced to pay out in situations similar to the supreme court case?

They have to pay out frequently, but they try and claim that they are doing so as insurer concerned under the MIBI. Look at this English case.

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/1297.html&query=title+(+wilkinson+)+and+insurance+and+driver&method=boolean

It is now being referred to the European Court of Justice.

galwaytt

rebel.ranter wrote: »

The fact that you both had each other's car at the same rime meant that neither of you were insured, the "driving of other cars" part of your policy only allows you to drive another car if your own car is not being driven.

No it doesn't......... and not on my policy it isn't. Unless it specifically says the above, then you cannot assume it. Your comment is way too non-specific to be accurate. Some policies say that you're DOV is covered, so long as the other vehicle is covered by it's owner. This, despite the fact that in Ireland, it's not the vehicle that's covered at all - it's the driver. That's how assanine our system is. Then you get other companies with little/no restriction.

To recap, then, the OP needs to get out his policy, and actually read it.

And, for those who let other's drive their cars, consider this: if you let someone drive as someone has mentioned, having read their paperwork and determining that it allow's them to do so, then bear in mind.........you're not a guard, or a judge, an actuary even, and your 'opinion' of the validity or effectiveness of such cover, is entirely............moot. Useless. Irrelevant. It has no sway in a court of law. So the action of you 'checking' is equally useless.

Which is why the Supreme Court case mentioned is relevant - you cannot impose police functions on a 'non-police' person, and all the hullah that goes with such a power. That's the job of the GTC etc.

Jo King

galwaytt wrote: »

Which is why the Supreme Court case mentioned is relevant - you cannot impose police functions on a 'non-police' person, and all the hullah that goes with such a power. That's the job of the GTC etc.

The Supreme Court case is about liability for the criminal offence. It has nothing to do with the consequences in civil law. If you are going to allow someone drive your car it should be on the basis that they are covered on your policy and you have checked with your broker as to the fact they are covered. That way if anything goes wrong the broker is liable.

pa990

keithclancy wrote: »

Bloody stupid system, they should insure the cars not the person.

My Dutch insurance lets anyone with a full license drive my car, regardless of whether they have a car or insurance policy themselves.

Then the potential loss of my no claims bonus is on me if i'm stupid enough to let some young nutball have a burn in it

hmmm..nutball.. burn.. mallow.. sounds familar