wife in hot water??

downonthefarm

my wife drives her to work and was stopped at checkpoint,she has allowed her licence to lapse,third provisional i think and of course when asked for it she said dont have it,she now has ten days to produce said liscence ,will she be able to get it in time if she applies for renewal,;)or does she need to get a new suit?:eek:

MascotDec85

If it's her 3rd learner permit she'll have to provide evidence of sitting or applying for a test. Given the backlogs all over the country for first time and renewal applications she might be needing a suit. All she can do is explain it to the person in the tax office and see if it can get rushed through. If she hasn't sat or applied for a test book it online ASAP

likeyouI

MascotDec85 wrote: »

If it's her 3rd learner permit she'll have to provide evidence of sitting or applying for a test. Given the backlogs all over the country for first time and renewal applications she might be needing a suit. All she can do is explain it to the person in the tax office and see if it can get rushed through. If she hasn't sat or applied for a test book it online ASAP

+1 If its the third an no full license test booked/failed she will need to do the theory test again

MascotDec85

likeyouI wrote: »

+1 If its the third an no full license test booked/failed she will need to do the theory test again

She won't unless her licence is out 5 years or more. If that's the case she deserves what's coming to her

adam88

To tell the truth and sorry for being a knob. But she had no place on the road. She's no better that a 16 year old driving the mothers car on the road. She has no license full stop so for starter her insurance is null and void. So that's another issue. She'll deg be needing the suit.

What would have happened if she had had an accident. It's things like this that are rising the rest of our premiums.

Sorry for rant.

HurtLocker

You could book a test and apply for a licence I think. I applied for my first full licence on Tuesday after lunch and had it this morning in the post with the issue date as yesterday. So total wait of 3 days. Will be tight call if possible without evidence of a fail or past sitting of test.

downonthefarm

no need to be sorry it will be a lesson hard learned

MascotDec85

She doesn't need evidence of having sat the test, just that she's applied.

Without publicly flogging the woman it could have been a genuine oversight. People are refused test often as they didn't realise their permit had expired.

If she was knowing driving about without it that's a different story

likeyouI

MascotDec85 wrote: »

She won't unless her licence is out 5 years or more. If that's the case she deserves what's coming to her

If you are on your third and have no previous test etc booked then yes you do!

likeyouI

adam88 wrote: »

To tell the truth and sorry for being a knob. But she had no place on the road. She's no better that a 16 year old driving the mothers car on the road. She has no license full stop so for starter her insurance is null and void. So that's another issue. She'll deg be needing the suit.

What would have happened if she had had an accident. It's things like this that are rising the rest of our premiums.

Sorry for rant.

Ive been driving on a provisional for three years. Failed the test twice my first year and just gave up on it. Driving 400 KM's a week now or more on my provisonal. I'd save only 200 on my insurance when I have my full but determined to get it soon, will acutally book it this month. If she/I had an accident you'd more than likely have to foot the bill yourself so it won't raise other peoples premiums. Did you notice the gaurd writing down the details? All you have to do is get the license, if not in 10 days you will be brought the court, as long as you have the license in court she will be fine and it will be thrown out

ProudDUB

likeyouI wrote: »

If she/I had an accident you'd more than likely have to foot the bill yourself so it won't raise other peoples premiums.

And what if an uninsured motorist does a lot of damage to someone elses car, but they can not afford to pay for it? The other driver has no choice but to make a claim via the uninsured motorist fund. That fund is provided by us, the drivers with valid insurance polices. The more people that are claiming from that, the more people will have to cough up to fund it.

Paddy001

MascotDec85 wrote: »

She doesn't need evidence of having sat the test, just that she's applied.

Without publicly flogging the woman it could have been a genuine oversight. People are refused test often as they didn't realise their permit had expired.

If she was knowing driving about without it that's a different story

This is incorrect, she needs proof of a test date now before they will renew, so you will need to apply, wait for a date and then renew the licence. This is part of the new regulations which came with the new licence system, it's to try and do away with the people booking tests, renewing the licence and cancelling.

MascotDec85

Paddy001 wrote: »

This is incorrect, she needs proof of a test date now before they will renew, so you will need to apply, wait for a date and then renew the licence. This is part of the new regulations which came with the new licence system, it's to try and do away with the people booking tests, renewing the licence and cancelling.

Wasn't aware that anything had changed. Do you have a link for that please? The RSA website still states:

"Evidence that you underwent a driving test in the last two years if applying for a third or subsequent learner permit
Evidence of a forthcoming driving test if applying for a third or subsequent learner permit and you havr not sat a driving set in the last two years"

Based on that a confirmation of application would do.

Paddy001

MascotDec85 wrote: »

Wasn't aware that anything had changed. Do you have a link for that please? The RSA website still states:

"Evidence that you underwent a driving test in the last two years if applying for a third or subsequent learner permit
Evidence of a forthcoming driving test if applying for a third or subsequent learner permit and you havr not sat a driving set in the last two years"

Based on that a confirmation of application would do.

No link unfortunately, just my word! I also read that wording before renewing my licence in March. I thought to myself, well if I need to wait for a test date, I get four weeks notice, so I couldn't have the licence back and have lessons all within four weeks, so surely that doesn't make sense. It turned out that it did! I had to wait for a test date, then go in and renew straight away and cancel when the licence came back. Still waiting for a new date! They said in the tax office it's a mad idea, but they have to follow it as the licences are all centrally done now and they would not have accepted it.

downonthefarm

thankfully nobody died and it's a kick up the arse for her.I would advise anyone in the same boat not to make same mistake and just bite the bullet and do the test

endacl

downonthefarm wrote: »

thankfully nobody died and it's a kick up the arse for her.I would advise anyone in the same boat not to make same mistake and just bite the bullet and do the test

Out of interest, was she on her third learner's permit without ever applying/doing a test?

If so, I must say, that baffles me. Its not a big deal. Just taking an examiner for a drive...

downonthefarm

She took the test before but hadn't been driving too long.she was a bag of nerves and made a balls of it.the best thing to have done was to have done it again but she was fairly put off by her experience just boils down to putting things on the long finger

Galadriel

MascotDec85 wrote: »

Wasn't aware that anything had changed. Do you have a link for that please? The RSA website still states:

"Evidence that you underwent a driving test in the last two years if applying for a third or subsequent learner permit
Evidence of a forthcoming driving test if applying for a third or subsequent learner permit and you havr not sat a driving set in the last two years"

Based on that a confirmation of application would do.

Yeah it's changed alright, I renewed my learner permit in April and had to actually have a test date for my application, the previous year all I needed was proof I had applied for it.

Del2005

adam88 wrote: »

To tell the truth and sorry for being a knob. But she had no place on the road. She's no better that a 16 year old driving the mothers car on the road. She has no license full stop so for starter her insurance is null and void. So that's another issue. She'll deg be needing the suit.

What would have happened if she had had an accident. It's things like this that are rising the rest of our premiums.

Sorry for rant.

Her insurance isn't null and void. She still has 3rd party insurance, the insurance company can then come after her to recoup the cost of any claim but I haven't heard of it happening unfortunately.

+1 for the rest.

mdebets

One thing I don't understand in the OP.
When the wife was stopped, she didn't had a driver's license. What good is it to her, to show a new license (that was issued after the incident) to the Gardai within the 10 days time frame? I thought the 10 days is only for cases, where you actually have a license, but don't have it on you, when you are checked?

LLU

adam88 wrote: »

To tell the truth and sorry for being a knob. But she had no place on the road. She's no better that a 16 year old driving the mothers car on the road. She has no license full stop so for starter her insurance is null and void. So that's another issue. She'll deg be needing the suit.

What would have happened if she had had an accident. It's things like this that are rising the rest of our premiums.

Sorry for rant.

Rubbish. Jesus these insurance/license threads are such a magnet for the ill informed.

downonthefarm

mdebets wrote: »

One thing I don't understand in the OP.
When the wife was stopped, she didn't had a driver's license. What good is it to her, to show a new license (that was issued after the incident) to the Gardai within the 10 days time frame? I thought the 10 days is only for cases, where you actually have a license, but don't have it on you, when you are checked?

she was just goin to chance her arm,show some boobage and smile

adam88

LLU wrote: »

Rubbish. Jesus these insurance/license threads are such a magnet for the ill informed.

What's rubbish about it???

Cathalog

adam88 wrote: »

What's rubbish about it???

The 'rubbish' lies in the line: "her insurance is null and void". She would, in fact, have third-party insurance in that situation.

That is what's being said.

redarmy1929

likeyouI wrote: »

If you are on your third and have no previous test etc booked then yes you do!

Since when? This only new?

I was on my 4th or 5th provisional before booking a test.

Yes I know I was stupid by letting my learners permit expire

downonthefarm

Ah this country is joke anyways they waste all this time and money chasing people down for Mickey mouse stuff yet the people who really need to get hauled over the coals get off Scott free

adam88

Cathalog wrote: »

The 'rubbish' lies in the line: "her insurance is null and void". She would, in fact, have third-party insurance in that situation.

That is what's being said.

Are you sure about that because the head fellow from the rsa was on the radio not so long ago saying that if the insurance companies wanted to they could refuse covering learner drivers that had no full driver with them as what they were doing was illegal, this is for someone who has a license just no full driver.

So if they drive wit no license they are covered??? Heard it from the horses mouth

Unregistered39

downonthefarm wrote: »

Ah this country is joke anyways they waste all this time and money chasing people down for Mickey mouse stuff yet the people who really need to get hauled over the coals get off Scott free

And you are exactly why it's a joke. Driving with no proper licence or insurance (she can kiss her own car goodbye if she crashes with 3rd party and damages it) is not Mickey Mouse stuff, it's a symptom of a much bigger problem, and one that you are perpetuating. Christ, this 'I might be doing something wrong but other people are way worse' is primary school stuff. Sort it out. It's mind boggling. She was breaking the law, she deserves what she gets. But nice that you think highly enough of her boobs that she'll get away with it. Jesus.

Do you think nailing bankers = safer unlicensed drivers, or what are you claiming exactly?

downonthefarm

Unregistered39 wrote: »

And you are exactly why it's a joke. Driving with no proper licence or insurance (she can kiss her own car goodbye if she crashes with 3rd party and damages it) is not Mickey Mouse stuff, it's a symptom of a much bigger problem, and one that you are perpetuating. Christ, this 'I might be doing something wrong but other people are way worse' is primary school stuff. Sort it out. It's mind boggling. She was breaking the law, she deserves what she gets. But nice that you think highly enough of her boobs that she'll get away with it. Jesus.

Do you think nailing bankers = safer unlicensed drivers, or what are you claiming exactly?

who mentioned bankers,the problem is holier than thou idiots like you

mdebets

adam88 wrote: »

Are you sure about that because the head fellow from the rsa was on the radio not so long ago saying that if the insurance companies wanted to they could refuse covering learner drivers that had no full driver with them as what they were doing was illegal, this is for someone who has a license just no full driver.

So if they drive wit no license they are covered??? Heard it from the horses mouth

While the above is unfortunately not really enforced by the insurance companies, in this specific case, she would most likely not be covered, because she didn't have a driving license at all.

Unregistered39

downonthefarm wrote: »

Ah this country is joke anyways they waste all this time and money chasing people down for Mickey mouse stuff yet the people who really need to get hauled over the coals get off Scott free

If you read it again I asked 'What are you claiming exactly?' Who are the people who need to get hauled over the coals and in what way does this mean it's OK for your wife to break the law? I don't see the connection, just more people with no accountability.

And if you think I'm holier than thou just because I don't think any of us are above the law then fine, I'll wear that label.

tbh

downonthefarm wrote: »

my wife drives her to work and was stopped at checkpoint,she has allowed her licence to lapse,third provisional i think and of course when asked for it she said dont have it,she now has ten days to produce said liscence ,will she be able to get it in time if she applies for renewal,;)or does she need to get a new suit?:eek:

it doesn't matter whether she gets a new one, the ten days is for her to prove she was in possession of a valid license when she got stopped. She'll probably get two points for driving unaccompanied and possibly two more if she didn't have her l-plates up. She should produce the expired license anyway.

tbh

adam88 wrote: »

Are you sure about that because the head fellow from the rsa was on the radio not so long ago saying that if the insurance companies wanted to they could refuse covering learner drivers that had no full driver with them as what they were doing was illegal, this is for someone who has a license just no full driver.

So if they drive wit no license they are covered??? Heard it from the horses mouth

probably what would happen there is that the insurance company would pay any costs for other motorists affected, but none for the non-license having driver. They'd also probably go after the OP's missus for costs, and of course she'd pay through the nose for insurance hereafter.

I got hit by an uninsured motorist a while back, my insurance company paid out and went after her for costs. Unfortunately she didn't respond to them and they admitted to me that they couldn't do much more about it.

HorseSea

The Insurance will not be null and void, however only third party injuries will be covered, third party property damage will be paid with the insurers having the option to recover it from the proposer, your wife or whoever's policy she is on. Any damage to her own vehicle would not be paid. It is also likely that her premiums would increase in the future if convicted of driving without a licence.

alphabeat

8 week waiting time for new licenses test or no test , learner or full .

adam88

mdebets wrote: »

While the above is unfortunately not really enforced by the insurance companies, in this specific case, she would most likely not be covered, because she didn't have a driving license at all.

My point exactly

downonthefarm

wife went in 2day said to guard he licence was away for renewal,guard said yeah that is sound no more said about it

ScrubsfanChris

Great, so your wife is (now)still driving on the road with no license?

SpaceTime

Eh, she'd want to apply for one ASAP!

Faith+1

downonthefarm wrote: »

wife went in 2day said to guard he licence was away for renewal,guard said yeah that is sound no more said about it

F*cking love this Country! Sure it'll be grand :rolleyes:

downonthefarm

yeah love the country coppers

Boskowski

This whole learner permit system is a total joke.
Not is it totally inadequate to begin with but even at that its being abused and whats worse people are getting away with it and they think nothing of it.

Waiting for the day when your bag of nerves but great boobs wife kills someone or puts them in a wheelchair for life. See what your holier than thou line will do for you then..

downonthefarm

yeah the system is flawed but it gave her the scare she needed to play by the rules. nobody died and nobody was hurt