Allowing Test Drives when selling

mathepac

Whyner wrote: »

...
I know where I stand now. This thread clearly shows that it's a grey area ...

It's only a grey area because of the nonsense being posted in this and countless other similar threads by posters who just don't understand the basic terms used in insurance policies they apparently drive on every day.

From an insurance company's or underwriter's point of view there is no such thing as a phrase or extension consisting of certain words meaning the same as another phrase or extension consisting of completely different words, so for the last time :

• "open drive" - other drivers who have my express permission are insured to drive my cars on my insurance policy provided they meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure they satisfy these criteria)
  
• "driving other cars" - my insurance covers me to drive cars that do not belong to me or a family member provided the car and I meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure the car and I meet these criteria)
  
• "third party extension" - there is no such thing. Holders of comprehensive policies may have third-party cover when driving other cars. but that is not a third-party extension as third-party insurance is the lowest form of insurance you may purchase to be legally covered to drive.

Vertakill

mathepac wrote: »

It's only a grey area because of the nonsense being posted in this and countless other similar threads by posters who just don't understand the basic terms used in insurance policies they apparently drive on every day.

From an insurance company's or underwriter's point of view there is no such thing as a phrase or extension consisting of certain words meaning the same as another phrase or extension consisting of completely different words, so for the last time :

• "open drive" - other drivers who have my express permission are insured to drive my cars on my insurance policy provided they meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure they satisfy these criteria)
  
• "driving other cars" - my insurance covers me to drive cars that do not belong to me or a family member provided the car and I meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure the car and I meet these criteria)
  
• "third party extension" - there is no such thing. Holders of comprehensive policies may have third-party cover when driving other cars. but that is not a third-party extension as third-party insurance is the lowest form of insurance you may purchase to be legally covered to drive.

That's more like it. You've explained it quite well but left out the parts that explain the cover of the car if it has no current insurance policy on it. So the parts you've explained are just a tidier, more coherent version of what I wrote save one or two things.
I'm certain other companies stipulate different things than others though but I haven't seen a mention of valid tax etc so I may be wrong there.


And FYI, Quinn Direct specifically called 'driving other cars' as 'third party extension' ... which covered any car that you drove third party provided it wasn't yours etc. They eventually scrapped this option as it was wide open for abuse by boy racers insuring Evo's in mammy's name.

The whole point of it being third party is that it's ONLY insured while you drive it. If you park it outside your house and get out of it, it's no longer insured so if it's stolen or burnt out, you get nothing as it's not insured unless you're driving it.

Anan1

mathepac wrote: »

[*]"third party extension" - there is no such thing. Holders of comprehensive policies may have third-party cover when driving other cars. but that is not a third-party extension as third-party insurance is the lowest form of insurance you may purchase to be legally covered to drive.
[/LIST]

My insurance policy covers me (TP only) to drive other cars - this is called a 'third party extension'.

CiniO

mathepac wrote: »

• "driving other cars" - my insurance covers me to drive cars that do not belong to me or a family member provided the car and I meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure the car and I meet these criteria)

I have the above on my policy, but there isn't such limitation about car belonging to family members.

mgbgt1978

Vertakill wrote: »

The whole point of it being third party is that it's ONLY insured while you drive it. If you park it outside your house and get out of it, it's no longer insured so if it's stolen or burnt out, you get nothing as it's not insured unless you're driving it.

Well, if it goes on fire while you are driving it, it still is not covered.
It is only covered for 3rd party only....i.e. anything you hit or cause damage to

dr.fuzzenstein

CiniO wrote: »

How do they manage in other countries, where there are not "named driver thing", but just if car is insured, everyone is allowed to drive it.

Oh fcuking tell me about it!

Germany:
Me: "Hey, can I borrow your car?"
Mate: "Sure, just be careful" (tosses keys over)

Here:
Me: "Hey, can I borrow your car?"
Mate: "OK, let's take two days off and hope we get through the ocean of fcuking paperwork required for you to take a five fcuking minute spin in my car!"

Things have improved somewhat with giving people 3rd party on other cars, but 10-15 years ago, borrowing someone's car was a harrowing experience, I did it once or twice, I still wake up with a scream at three am bathed in sweat at the memory of it.
It really left me with an indelible hatred of "Oirish" car insurance.
That, and trying to insure a 15 year old VW Transporter when I first came here, I might as well have tried to get permission to fly the fcuking space shuttle.
In Germany I friend of mine had a 20 year old "Kuebelwagen", ex army, it came with machine gun mounts.
Rang up insurance company, described car, yeah ok, here's your quote, pleasure doing business with you.
Here: It would take a 3 day international insurance conference of hundreds of experts to come up with a price of E3456543234565432123456 to insure the car.

/rant:mad:

Vertakill

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Well, if it goes on fire while you are driving it, it still is not covered.
It is only covered for 3rd party only....i.e. anything you hit or cause damage to

That's exactly what I wrote?

CiniO

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

Well, if it goes on fire while you are driving it, it still is not covered.
It is only covered for 3rd party only....i.e. anything you hit or cause damage to

But actually in that case, you are not allowed to park it in any public place.
As it is insured only when you drive it, so whenever you park and leave the car, it is not insured anymore, so can't be parked in public place.

mgbgt1978

Vertakill wrote: »

That's exactly what I wrote?

That's not exactly what you wrote. You inferred that the car is insured while you are driving it. It is not. It is only the driver that is insured.
Also Quinn direct (or Liberty as they now prefer to be called) did not scrap the "driving other cars" section from their policies (I have it, my wife has it, and my 20 year old son has it !!! )

Vertakill

mathepac wrote: »

It's only a grey area because of the nonsense being posted in this and countless other similar threads by posters who just don't understand the basic terms used in insurance policies they apparently drive on every day.

From an insurance company's or underwriter's point of view there is no such thing as a phrase or extension consisting of certain words meaning the same as another phrase or extension consisting of completely different words, so for the last time :

• "open drive" - other drivers who have my express permission are insured to drive my cars on my insurance policy provided they meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure they satisfy these criteria)
  
• "driving other cars" - my insurance covers me to drive cars that do not belong to me or a family member provided the car and I meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure the car and I meet these criteria)
  
• "third party extension" - there is no such thing. Holders of comprehensive policies may have third-party cover when driving other cars. but that is not a third-party extension as third-party insurance is the lowest form of insurance you may purchase to be legally covered to drive.

Also, to prove it's not always quite so cut and dry like you make it out... here's another insurance company with a contradictory stipulation:

Liberty Insurance wrote:

If your certificate of insurance says so, we will also cover the policyholder for your liability to other people while you are driving any other private motor car which you do not own or have not hired or leased. This benefit applies to full licence drivers only. We will only cover you if:
The vehicle is not owned by your employer or hired to you/them under a hire-purchase or lease agreement;
You currently hold a full European Union (EU) licence;
The use of the vehicle is covered in the certificate of insurance;
Cover is not provided by any other insurance;
You have the owner’s permission to drive the vehicle;
The vehicle is in a roadworthy condition;
You still have your vehicle and it has not been damaged beyond cost-effective repair; and
Your occupation is not restricted by our acceptance criteria.

Johntegr

mathepac wrote: »

It's only a grey area because of the nonsense being posted in this and countless other similar threads by posters who just don't understand the basic terms used in insurance policies they apparently drive on every day.

Yet you think you're helping.

From an insurance company's or underwriter's point of view there is no such thing as a phrase or extension consisting of certain words meaning the same as another phrase or extension consisting of completely different words, so for the last time :

First. What? Second. So you're an insurance company now?

• "open drive" - other drivers who have my express permission are insured to drive my cars on my insurance policy provided they meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure they satisfy these criteria)

  It is also up to the driver to check that the car they're about to drive has an NCT & Tax, regardless of whether they own it or not.

• "driving other cars" - my insurance covers me to drive cars that do not belong to me or a family member provided the car and I meet certain criteria (it is my responsibility to ensure the car and I meet these criteria)

  This is how your insurance works. Not everyone's is the same. It'd be great if it was, but such is life.

• "third party extension" - there is no such thing. Holders of comprehensive policies may have third-party cover when driving other cars. but that is not a third-party extension as third-party insurance is the lowest form of insurance you may purchase to be legally covered to drive.

Yes there is. With certain companies you have 3rd party cover automatically on ANY car that isn't your own within certain conditions. An example of this is Quinn/Liberty mutual. If you're with Quinn/Liberty Mutual then you do not need to contact them to avail of 3rd party cover as it automatically comes with their TPF&T and Comprehensive policies.

Now an exception to the rule from my experience. When I 1st started driving I was with Quinn. Then I was with Axa. Due to my experience with Quinn I presumed I had 3rd party cover with Axa like Quinn gave me.

How wrong I was. Just out of curiosity I asked them when I was on the phone one day and they said no, only customers over the age of 23 can avail of that. To add to that, I believe it's now gone up to 25+.

If I wanted 3rd party cover when I was with Axa I couldn't have it, I had to contact them and ask them to do a temporary transfer of my entire policy onto the car I was intending on driving. Half the time they'd say no due to my age or the vehicle I wanted to be transferred to. With Quinn I don't have this problem. This is what "driving other cars" is. Now do you see the difference between Only 3rd Party Cover and using your full cover to "Drive other cars"?

They both exist, and between insurance companies, there can be massive differentiating requirements/circumstances.

Now that I'm back with Quinn/Liberty I can just hop into any car I like so long as it's not used in trade, is valued under €50,000, isn't modified, isn't in my name and has valid NCT & Tax. I have no need to contact Quinn. However I will have ONLY 3rd party cover and nothing more. If this car has no insurance and I cause an accident, Quinn will only pay out to injured/damaged parties. They wont pay out for damages to the car I was driving. That'll have to come from my pocket. "You break it you buy it." They wont pay out if the car I'm driving is stolen. They wont pay out if the car I'm driving bursts into flames.

Now if I want to use my full cover of "driving other cars" I have to ring Quinn and get them to temporarily transfer my policy over to the vehicle I intend on driving. In doing this I now have my FULL policy covering me as opposed to 3rd party only.

Hope that's not too much for you to digest. If it is, the least you can do is accept you do not know the ins and outs of absolutely every single insurance companies policies and stop attacking posters and being so pedantic. Ruin's the mood of what I see as a helpful forum.

Vertakill

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

That's not exactly what you wrote. You inferred that the car is insured while you are driving it. It is not. It is only the driver that is insured.
Also Quinn direct (or Liberty as they now prefer to be called) did not scrap the "driving other cars" section from their policies (I have it, my wife has it, and my 20 year old son has it !!! )

That's fair. The point I was trying to hone in on was the fact that the car is completely uninsured whilst it's parked up, rather than what you've described above.

I had thought Quinn had removed this entirely!
That's interesting. I wonder are they policing it a little more this time around?
A few years back, youngfellas were insuring a 1ltr Corsa in their own name and registering Evo's in their parents names and driving those instead.


@Johntegr: Thanks for clarifying that - was beginning to think I had gone mental because I couldnt find it written anywhere!
I started off with Quinn for the first few years of driving so that's where I heard of the difference between TP Extension and Driving Other Cars initially. Although I was convinced TP Extension was wiped out!

As I mentioned, and linked in one of my first posts, every insurer has different stipulations on this and it is very much a grey area.
They may even vary the things they cover under Driving Other cars and so on. So it's best to check the policy out and not assume that one insurer is similar to another.

dougie-lampkin

Vertakill wrote: »

And FYI, Quinn Direct specifically called 'driving other cars' as 'third party extension' ... which covered any car that you drove third party provided it wasn't yours etc. They eventually scrapped this option as it was wide open for abuse by boy racers insuring Evo's in mammy's name.

Maybe they scrapped it off your policy, but I've had it for 3 years now, on my Quinn TP F+T policy. I've never asked for it or paid extra for it. And in Quinn's eyes I certainly fall into the "boy racer" category.

I know of no other insurer that even offers this option to under 25s though, never mind it being free with the most basic policy they sell.

Johntegr

Vertakill wrote: »

@Johntegr: Thanks for clarifying that - was beginning to think I had gone mental because I couldnt find it written anywhere!
I started off with Quinn for the first few years of driving so that's where I heard of the difference between TP Extension and Driving Other Cars initially. Although I was convinced TP Extension was wiped out!

As I mentioned, and linked in one of my first posts, every insurer has different stipulations on this and it is very much a grey area.
They may even vary the things they cover under Driving Other cars and so on. So it's best to check the policy out and not assume that one insurer is similar to another.

Nope they still have it. I had to use it for a bit when I bought my DC5 as they wouldn't transfer insurance 'til I could prove I bought the car.

Was fuss over nothing really as my repayments only went up by €30 a month.

Wasn't a place I wanted to be in as if anything were to happen the DC5 before the full cover was put on it, I dunno what I would have done!

Whyner

The di*k never showed nor answered his phone.

He called himself Ray and sounded Chinese, timewaster

Johntegr

Whyner wrote: »

The di*k never showed nor answered his phone.

He called himself Ray and sounded Chinese, timewaster

What does him being Chinese have to do with it?

Timewasters are timewasters, regardless of nationality.

bugsntinas

not sure how things go with the insurance etc but i'd be very careful when letting someone test drive ya car.years ago my dad went to collect a mk3 cortina for spares when we saw it from the drivers side it was fantastic lovely and white with a beige vinyl roof and very straight.when we looked at the passenger side it was almost banana shape:eek:the owner said he let someone test drive it,they got down the road and someone pulled out from a garage straight into the side.he lost the lot as the buyer wasn't covered on the insurance and had none either.

CiniO

bugsntinas wrote: »

not sure how things go with the insurance etc but i'd be very careful when letting someone test drive ya car.years ago my dad went to collect a mk3 cortina for spares when we saw it from the drivers side it was fantastic lovely and white with a beige vinyl roof and very straight.when we looked at the passenger side it was almost banana shape:eek:the owner said he let someone test drive it,they got down the road and someone pulled out from a garage straight into the side.he lost the lot as the buyer wasn't covered on the insurance and had none either.

If someone pulled out from the garage, then it was that person's fault.
And damage should be covered by his insurance.

It's irrelevant that person who was driving was not covered.

Merch

CiniO wrote: »

After all that, you completely missed my point.
The point was - that it's significently different that Ireland.
In Ireland you have to do really much to make sure no one is driving uninsured. If you want your friend to drive for you as your are tires, you have add him to your insurance policy which might be difficult especially on weekends or evening. If you are selling a car there is a problem as well.
If you forgot to inform your insurance company about any fact about you or car, you might not be insured. Generally speaking, you have to really do a lot to make sure that everyone and everytime is insured while driving your car.
People very often don't care, f.e. with test-drives like described in this thread, and therefore there is quite a lot of uninsured drivers on Irish roads.

In Poland it's the insurance legislation which ensures everyone is covered, and therefore cases of someone driving uninsured nearly doesn't happen.

That's the difference.

I didnt miss the point at all, possibly i should have been clearer when I said it what I meant was the same as here in Ireland.
What I meant was, its the same as ireland regarding you get the insurance renewed every year, what you had said before that suggested once the car was first registered in Poland, it was covered from then on with 3rd party, thats how it looked to me. Im not saying the whole thing is identical to both countries, just that it is renewed annually.

Vertakill wrote: »

When I bought my car, my brother and myself went to view it and he let us test drive it on our own. It was an E46 M3 - I left him with the keys to my 350Z at the time.

I thought it was a really trusting thing to do and made it easier to discuss things about the car between my brother and I regarding the car coz we didn't have yer man in with us. I ended up buying it obviously.

Then when it came to selling my 350Z, I let a couple (the wife was heavily pregnant!) test drive it on their own. 2 seater car always threw up this kind of dilemma to be fair. They left me the keys to their ****box Peugeot something or other. They bought the Z in the end.

Funnily, while they were off in the car, I unlocked their car and peaked in the boot and into the car to make sure nobody was hiding in there waiting to jump into the drivers seat and drive off with both cars (goddamn scarey stories from boards down the years!:)). She had left her handbag etc so I felt safe enough.
I wouldn't do this for everyone though - they just seemed genuine at the time.

Personally, I think you were a bit mad and possibly lucky you got those people, Im quite sure many decent looking con artist types have turned up, left a shoite box with no one in the boot to drive off, as they stole it and had no intention of returning, they even left the original owners handbag or maybe a dummy handbag as they suspected you might look, just to give you that secure feeling while they flee the scene :eek:, giving them that extra bit of wiggle room to get it into the container before it is shipped off or maybe Im just a little bit cynical and have watched too many of those con artist scam shows. Of course Im assuming you didnt go through the purse in the bag to check for ID?? and that you checked them out for insurance.
All the same, if I was viewing (should be so lucky) a two seater sports car, Id be expecting to get checked out a bit, regarding cover to drive and Id expect to be accompanied by the owner.

mathepac

Vertakill wrote: »

That's more like it. You've explained it quite well but left out the parts that explain the cover of the car if it has no current insurance policy on it. So the parts you've explained are just a tidier, more coherent version of what I wrote save one or two things....

and I believe the things I left out are the variables between one company's criteria and another's; they vary e.g. drivers aged 25 to 75 -vs- drivers aged 25 to 70; full licence for at least 2 years -vs- full licence; etc

Vertakill wrote: »

.... And FYI, Quinn Direct specifically called 'driving other cars' as 'third party extension' ... .

The difficulty here is that people confuse Quinn Direct with viable, liquid insurance companies active in all aspects of the motor and general insurance market, rather than the blind, financial cripple being rescued by the nice American man offa the radio, the Libertarian or something.

Vertakill

Merch wrote: »

Personally, I think you were a bit mad and possibly lucky you got those people, Im quite sure many decent looking con artist types have turned up, left a shoite box with no one in the boot to drive off, as they stole it and had no intention of returning, they even left the original owners handbag or maybe a dummy handbag as they suspected you might look, just to give you that secure feeling while they flee the scene :eek:, giving them that extra bit of wiggle room to get it into the container before it is shipped off or maybe Im just a little bit cynical and have watched too many of those con artist scam shows. Of course Im assuming you didnt go through the purse in the bag to check for ID?? and that you checked them out for insurance.
All the same, if I was viewing (should be so lucky) a two seater sports car, Id be expecting to get checked out a bit, regarding cover to drive and Id expect to be accompanied by the owner.

Trust me... all those thoughts went through my mind when they drove away!

When I test drove my current car with my brother, we actually got lost along the way back to the guys house so I was constantly texting him trying to put his mind at ease..

But yea, I made a judgement call that day and let them go in it. Would've been funny if the preggers wife lifted up her top and dropped a pillow out as they sped off... but thankfully that didn't happen.

And the whole trust factor, imo, works in the favour of the seller.
It shows that you're confident the car is spot on and they can go find that out for themselves without me looking over their shoulder, as it were.

But yeah, that's not something I'd do too lightly. I did it once, to a couple who had a baby on the way and that I thought were genuine, which they were.

Voodoomelon

A nice compromise would be to follow in a car behind. Bit weird maybe, but same benefit for both parties.

Merch

Voodoomelon wrote: »

A nice compromise would be to follow in a car behind. Bit weird maybe, but same benefit for both parties.

That would be a bit weird and possibly dangerous, what if they decided to test the brakes and hammered them to the floor? and the following driver/owner rear ended or had to take dangerous evasive action?
or
If they got out at a junction, some might be tempted to keep with them.
It's not an unreasonable expectation for a buyer to assume the owner will go with them, especially if its a higher value car, if they are bothered by that to the extent it puts them off a car then so be it, its better than suffering the worst case consequences.
Only once when buying a car was I just given the keys, all other times the owner went with me.

Guy:Incognito

CiniO wrote: »

In Poland there is a system, that every car which is registered must have at least third party insurance at all times, and this insurance must cover anyone to drive. When a car is sold, insurance policy is sold with it.

Thanks to that, there isn't really any problem with uninsured drivers, as they just don't exist.

If its the car thats incsured an not the driver how do they load higher risk drivers? If I've never had so much as a penalty point but you'vee killed a coople of people through reckless driving and racked up a couple of drink drivign convicions to, do we pay the same?

dr.fuzzenstein

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If its the car thats incsured an not the driver how do they load higher risk drivers? If I've never had so much as a penalty point but you'vee killed a coople of people through reckless driving and racked up a couple of drink drivign convicions to, do we pay the same?

The assumption is that the owner is the main driver.
Your policy is still calculated based on the owner/main driver.
Since your policy will get hammered if there is a claim, you'll be careful who you lend your car to.
It's like every policy is open drive by default.
That means it works like "Can I borrow your car?" "Yeah, sure"
And no need for a 17 page discussion as to the finer legal points with the hateful, stupid, retared Irish system.

teednab-el

why wouldnt one just keep comprehensive cover on the car for sale until its sold and then take it off?

It would cover you in all angles. People talk about the hassle of paying money for this etc but in the long run it would save you big time if an accident did occur with the car.There would be no complications that way.

I would rather be covered than not being sure where I stood if such a thing did happen to the car while someone was test driving it. You could be left with nothing otherwise.

dr.fuzzenstein

teednab-el wrote: »

why wouldnt one just keep comprehensive cover on the car for sale until its sold and then take it off?

It would cover you in all angles. People talk about the hassle of paying money for this etc but in the long run it would save you big time if an accident did occur with the car.There would be no complications that way.

I would rather be covered than not being sure where I stood if such a thing did happen to the car while someone was test driving it. You could be left with nothing otherwise.

I may be getting this wrong, but isn't that the whole point of the discussion?
You can have any kind of insurance on a car when selling, but since in this country the driver is insured and not the car, you're still left with the headache that any potential buyer isn't covered unless they're policy allows them to drive other vehicles, but this will only provide 3rd party cover.
So in the even of a write off, the owner could be faced with a massive bill, leading to all sorts of complcations, unless the prospective buyer can arrange some other sort of cover, or be made a temporary driver on the car he wishes to buy.
Unless you had open drive policy. Or lied to the insurance over who was driving if there was a crash.

CiniO

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If its the car thats incsured an not the driver how do they load higher risk drivers? If I've never had so much as a penalty point but you'vee killed a coople of people through reckless driving and racked up a couple of drink drivign convicions to, do we pay the same?

What they do, for third party insurances, they calculate premium on basis of 4 things.

First is the engine size of the vehicle - the bigger the more expensive. Generally insurance for 1.0 micra will be nearly twice cheaper than for 2.0 mondeo. And as well it will be way more to insure a bus with 10 litre engine.
In my opinion, that's just doesn't make sense, but that's what they do.

Second thing is NCB of the car owner. Max you can get is 60% discount after 8 years of no claims. However as anyone is allowed to drive a car, no matter who will crash it, it's the owners NCB which is being lost or reduced (step-back nearly always apply). That's why the owner should be careful with lending his car to untrustworthy people, as he might easily loose his NCB. The same if the car owner will cause an accident in different car who belongs to someone else (but f.e. his boss), his NCB won't be affected but hiss boss'es NCB will).

Third thing is the age of the car owner, but it's not big thing. Usually if car owner is less than 25, there is 30% increase in premium.

Last one is the address where owner lives. Some areas (especially big cities) are due to higher premium.

Insurance premium doesn't depend on amount of penalty points, or driving convictions in the past, etc...


Also interesting thing is, that car might have few owners, and it has to be insured in the name of all of them, in which case NCB of any owner can be used.
That way when I was 19, I could register my car in both me and my fathers name. We could use his NCB (60%), even though I had none. However as one of the owners (me) was below 25, there was a loading of 30%. My father could obviously keep his NCB on his car as well, so his NCB was covering both cars. However if there would be a claim caused by accident of any of those cars, NCB would be lost on both.

Whyner

He showed up tonight and took the car. He was happy enough to drive in second around in the cul de sac

I only mentioned his details as it wasn't your usual sale and he may have been ringing a few others, so it was a sort of warning. Turned out ok so no worries.

Why didn't you bring up the fact I mentioned his name? What is with people looking to accuse others of racism, so ridiculous. Good man John :rolleyes:

bbam

Gophur wrote: »

You are back-tracking!

Your original post stated "...will result in disqualification, fines and jail time for you."

You are now saying that the "....Garda could easily choose to charge you with it!"

So? Which is it?

I stand by my comment. Your original post was unadulterated nonsense. Hysterical and completely OTT.

Sure the OP might get into some bother but jail and disqualification are not guaranteed, if convicted and found guilty of such an offence.

Have to say there was a case in our local rag a few years ago where a father allowed a 16 year old drive their car... Que a checkpoint and yes the father was charged and convicted of allowing an uninsured driver onto the road, lost his licence too...

Link...
Here's a link to a case where a woman was fined €150 for "knowingly allowing her car be driven by an uninsured driver"
http://www.advertiser.ie/athlone/article/41202/no-jail-for-repeat-uninsured-driver