No licence/ insurance/ my kids

wdmfapq4zs83hv

My father has been driving all his life and had a licence but somewhere along the way it expired & was never renewed. He's been driving without a licence now probably over 20 years.

He has recently been talking about getting car seats to bring my toddlers out in his car. Now I have no worries about his driving at all but wondering about the implications of having no licence. Specifically the insursance end. Im assuming his insurance is void without a licence. What does this mean for my children if they are involved in an accident?

homer911

You could end up having to take your father to court!

The Diddakoi

You may be better off moving this to the Motors section.
Personally I wouldn't allow my kids to travel in a car with someone I knew had no license, as I think it would invalidate the insurance.
I'm surprised your father has never been asked to provide his license when insuring his car, as I have to photocopy and send in my license each year.

wdmfapq4zs83hv

Mods please move if in wrong place. I don't know how either he has been able to do it so long, I think his insurance is through work, I don't know how they never asked for a licence! Homer, in what circumstances would I bring him to court? I'm looking for examples I can tell him so he's not upset about me not wanting him to drive the kids. Ie dad if this happened this might happen etc...

Mrs W

He's not insured if he doesn't have a licence, I wouldn't let my child travel in that car.
If he had an accident you would end up suing him or the mibi would pay you and sue him.
You could tell him the guards would seize the car if he was stopped and you don't want your kids at the side of the road? That's the way they do it in the uk but probably not here on a first stopping

oldyouth

His insurance cert will have 'providing he holds a licence or having held a licence and is not disqualified from holding a licence'.

His insurers will treat passengers injured as a result of negligence of the insured like they would any other third party

coylemj

oldyouth wrote: »

His insurance cert will have 'providing he holds a licence or having held a licence and is not disqualified from holding a licence'.

His insurers will treat passengers injured as a result of negligence of the insured like they would any other third party

+1 As long as he is not disqualified and held a licence at some stage in the past, he is fully insured according to what his policy says.

Your insurance does not lapse when your licence expires, it's an urban myth that's still out there and repeated above but it's just not true.

The people who need a current licence for insurance cover are the people who borrow your car because according to the clause covering open driving, such a person must (typically) be between 25 and 70 and hold a licence. The same condition (to hold a licence) does not apply to the insured or named drivers.

wmpdd3

A family member was stopped and the same situation was discovered, no licence with over a decade.

The police allowed the person to show evidence of applying for a licence as soon as possible.

It was a good few years ago though, as they just missed the theory test but had to set the test again as it was expired so long.

She passed the test no problem, the issue was the eye sight report, new spectacles has to be fitted before they would pass her.

coylemj

wmpdd3 wrote: »

A family member was stopped and the same situation was discovered, no licence with over a decade.

The police allowed the person to show evidence of applying for a licence as soon as possible.

It was a good few years ago though, as they just missed the theory test but had to set the test again as it was expired so long.

She passed the test no problem, the issue was the eye sight report, new spectacles has to be fitted before they would pass her.

But given the discussion that's gong on in this thread - was he/she prosecuted for no insurance by virtue of having no licence?

You're correct of course about the effect of the time lapse - the OP's father will have to do the licence application all over again just like a teenager learning to drive.

The Diddakoi

According to the RSA It is an offence to drive a car wIthout a valid license.
http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Driving%20Licence%20Changes%202013/Plastic_Card%20_NDLS_General_Public.pdf

Page 5.
So it is against the law at the very least. Can he not just apply for a new license ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

wmpdd3

coylemj wrote: »

But given the discussion that's gong on in this thread - was he/she prosecuted for no insurance by virtue of having no licence?

You're correct of course about the effect of the time lapse - the OP's father will have to do the licence application all over again just like a teenager learning to drive.

No there was no prosecution on the condition that a licence would be applied for ASAP, but the police man made it very clear that it was a serious offence.

MugMugs

oldyouth wrote: »

His insurance cert will have 'providing he holds a licence or having held a licence and is not disqualified from holding a licence'.

His insurers will treat passengers injured as a result of negligence of the insured like they would any other third party

As he's over the ten year period he's not entitled to a licence!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No they can't. Once he has held a licence in the past and is not disqualified, they cannot void cover.

The hoops that he will now be required to go through to get a new licence does not negate the fact that at some stage in the past he did hold a licence so he was insured on the day and the fact that the Gardai did not prosecute him for no insurance bears this out.

oldyouth

coylemj wrote: »

No they can't. Once he has held a licence in the past and is not disqualified, they cannot void cover.
.

They can if he specifically told them he has a current full licence

Toots

Moved to Motors.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

toyotaavensis

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Disqualified means banned. It is simply driving without a licence and if he left this go on for 10 year he will need to go get lessons before applying for a test.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ABajaninCork

Why did your father allow the licence to expire? And can your father not just apply for a new licence? OK it entails re-taking the test and all the hassle that would bring, but it would take the supposition out of your situation.

And I'm with the others. No way would he be allowed to drive the kids around until he got it sorted. It wouldn't even be a discussion.

SleeperService

He's insured.

Up to you whether you think he is safe.

He should have a current licence, to comply with the law, but insurance wise he is ok - if in doubt get written confirmation from insurer that the cover still applies where a licence has expired but no driving ban (disqualification*) is involved.

*I have only ever heard disqualification used in terms of a driving ban, rather than a licence expiring

corktina

not having a valid license dis-qualifies you from driving. Kind of obvious

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

not having a valid license dis-qualifies you from driving. Kind of obvious

Ah shure, but isn't it Ireland, sure everyone has a God-given entitlement to be on the road, it is reflected in people failing their test and driving home, driving around for 10 years on a provisional licence and this malarkey.
That a lot of people have the attitude of "sure he's grand, what harm is he doing, just get a new licence, be grand!"
In Germany if anyone said "Do you guys thinks it's OK to drive without a licence", do you think the answer would be "Ah be grand, just get a new one, in your own time, no rush"?
It would "Nein! and if I hear about you driving the car even for one meter, I'm calling the cops on you. There would be serious fines and points and you could wave good bye to your licence for many, many years.
Only here would people say "Ah sure it's grand"

Happyman42

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Ah shure, but isn't it Ireland, sure everyone has a God-given entitlement to be on the road, it is reflected in people failing their test and driving home, driving around for 10 years on a provisional licence and this malarkey.
That a lot of people have the attitude of "sure he's grand, what harm is he doing, just get a new licence, be grand!"
In Germany if anyone said "Do you guys thinks it's OK to drive without a licence", do you think the answer would be "Ah be grand, just get a new one, in your own time, no rush"?
It would "Nein! and if I hear about you driving the car even for one meter, I'm calling the cops on you. There would be serious fines and points and you could wave good bye to your licence for many, many years.
Only here would people say "Ah sure it's grand"

10 or so years ago I came across an accident on a German autobahn, two people dead when an out of control SUV ploughed into the side of them. It was estimated the guy in the SUV was doing crazy speed on a wet motorway. Why was he doing crazy speed? Because he was allowed to and the two innocent people had no chance.

Not sure what the German translation of 'Ah sure it's grand,' but nowhere is perfect. Calm down, society isn't falling apart because one man is personally disorganised.

SleeperService

Ugh, thread death spiral has begun.


OP, he may not be too happy to be asked, but the only definitive answer here is to ask him to get written confirmation from his insurer of whether the insurance is valid or not with an expired licence (and any other details that should be declared for insurance purposes)

Anything else is just arguing on the internet...

tin79

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have no idea what you are talking about IMO. You are just posting your own theories without any idea of legal reality.


Not getting at you personally but a lot of people post things like this here as if it were fact and its very misleading.


His third party insurance will not be void for this.

biko

Tbh OP, the insurer is best to ask about this. Start by reading their terms and conditions and then send them an email (I don't think you need to ad personal information).

ted1

Mrs W wrote: »

He's not insured if he doesn't have a licence, I wouldn't let my child travel in that car.
If he had an accident you would end up suing him or the mibi would pay you and sue him.
You could tell him the guards would seize the car if he was stopped and you don't want your kids at the side of the road? That's the way they do it in the uk but probably not here on a first stopping

Can you provide a link to prove this?

Red Crow

I've been with a few insurers and most require a valid licence.

Axa for example explicitly state that the policy doesn't cover you if "you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence"

Implicating that a previous valid licence is not acceptable.

SleeperService

Red Crow wrote: »

I've been with a few insurers and most require a valid licence.

Axa for example explicitly state that the policy doesn't cover you if "you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence"

Implicating that a previous valid licence is not acceptable.

Nope, not in their online policy document. What it actually says is no cover if disqualified or never held a licence...

filbert the fox

Kristopher Important Farmhouse wrote: »

My father has been driving all his life and had a licence but somewhere along the way it expired & was never renewed. He's been driving without a licence now probably over 20 years.

He has recently been talking about getting car seats to bring my toddlers out in his car. Now I have no worries about his driving at all but wondering about the implications of having no licence. Specifically the insursance end. Im assuming his insurance is void without a licence. What does this mean for my children if they are involved in an accident?

Great debate all round . I'd imagine that in these straightened times a prudent insurance company would find the smallest scintilla of an excuse not to pay out in the event of an accident.

Otherwise, what does all this say about the performance of the Gardai? Even if checkpoints aren't used, surely the records of licence holders versus registered owners/ insured can be checked and a simple headed letter to the defaulter can work wonders.

tin79

Red Crow wrote: »

I've been with a few insurers and most require a valid licence.

Axa for example explicitly state that the policy doesn't cover you if "you have not got a licence, or if you have had a licence"

Implicating that a previous valid licence is not acceptable.

I bet that's not exactly what it says because that wording makes no sense.
Agree with the above that recommended talking to the insurance company. its the only way to put your mind at rest maybe. You could email them yourself.

Red Crow

SleeperService wrote: »

Nope, not in their online policy document. What it actually says is no cover if disqualified or never held a licence...

Em yeah I gave the policy in front in me
:rolleyes:

dr.fuzzenstein

Happyman42 wrote: »

10 or so years ago I came across an accident on a German autobahn, two people dead when an out of control SUV ploughed into the side of them. It was estimated the guy in the SUV was doing crazy speed on a wet motorway. Why was he doing crazy speed? Because he was allowed to and the two innocent people had no chance.

Not sure what the German translation of 'Ah sure it's grand,' but nowhere is perfect. Calm down, society isn't falling apart because one man is personally disorganised.

No he was not:



If the carriageway is wet, you must do the appropriate speed.
He would have been had for careless or dangerous driving, maybe even vehicular manslaughter.
German Police is known for being absolute pigs, being over-zealous, having zero sense of humour and taking delight in absolutely screwing you to the wall for everything they can get you for.
And you know, I think that is a good thing. The Gardai have a reputation for liking Yorkie bars and breakfast rolls and pointing a hairdirer down the road every now and then. With the advent of speed cameras they don't even do that anymore. That is the only reason I can possibly imagine anyone getting away with driving without a licence for 20 years. It's not "grand" and it definitely is pathetic for a "developed" country.
Why the absolute fcuk do the rest of us even bother? It makes me mad beyond words.

Driving without licence should be jail time for repeat or persistent offenders who are doing it knowingly. Same for insurance.

Happyman42

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

No he was not:

The driver of the SUV faced no charges.

The Gardai have a reputation for liking Yorkie bars and breakfast rolls and pointing a hairdirer down the road every now and then.

The above kinda rules you out of having anything sensible or rational to say.

SleeperService

Red Crow wrote: »

Em yeah I gave the policy in front in me
:rolleyes:

Get on to them quick, their online version must be wrong!

dr.fuzzenstein

Happyman42 wrote: »

The driver of the SUV faced no charges.

The above kinda rules you out of having anything sensible or rational to say.

Where you involved in the case or did you follow it afterwards?

Red Crow

SleeperService wrote: »

Get on to them quick, their online version must be wrong!

Instead of trying to be a smartass maybe you should look at page 35 which says exactly what I said on the ONLINE policy document.
Maybe you should read something in FULL before you make a foolish statement like that.
:rolleyes:

Stella Virgo

[QUOTE=Kristopher Important Farmhouse;88756761]My father has been driving all his life and had a licence but somewhere along the way it expired & was never renewed. He's been driving without a licence now probably over 20 years.

He has recently been talking about getting car seats to bring my toddlers out in his car. Now I have no worries about his driving at all but wondering about the implications of having no licence. Specifically the insursance end. Im assuming his insurance is void without a licence. What does this mean for my children if they are involved in an accident?[/QUOTE]

do you seriously expect us to believe,that in 20 YEARS this man has never been stopped at a checkpoint,never been asked to produce the licence,never ever been asked by an insurance company........get up the yard will ya,:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Happyman42

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Where you involved in the case or did you follow it afterwards?

Involved in the sense that the person I was working for was involved as a witness. He was driving the car I was in.

SleeperService

Red Crow wrote: »

Instead of trying to be a smartass maybe you should look at page 35 which says exactly what I said on the ONLINE policy document.
Maybe you should read something in FULL before you make a foolish statement like that.
:rolleyes:

Read it again. And again. You'll get there.

It's actually a reworded version of what I said above. Knowledge of commas, sentence structure etc needed for comprehension. Damn this phone, no roll eyes...

Your interpretation means that no one would ever be covered by axa.

_Kaiser_

Stella Virgo wrote: »

do you seriously expect us to believe,that in 20 YEARS this man has never been stopped at a checkpoint,never been asked to produce the licence,never ever been asked by an insurance company........get up the yard will ya,:rolleyes::rolleyes:

It's very possible depending on where the man lives

I was stopped at a tax checkpoint last week down the country and it's the first time in about 4 years that I have. No license asked for either.

Insurance never asks me for a copy of the license either as I just renew it every year (get a good deal through my broker).

So I wouldn't be so quick to assume it can't be done

Happyman42

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Insurance never asks me for a copy of the license either as I just renew it every year (get a good deal through my broker).

It's almost 10 years since I have been asked to produce mine. I have insurance under a group scheme.

oldyouth

I have being driving for 33 years and have always been insured with Zurich. I have never once been asked to provide a copy of my licence. However, there have been no material facts that I have had to disclose to them at any time in that period. If I had any endorsements or let it lapse, I would feel obliged to notify them

Red Crow

SleeperService wrote: »

Read it again. And again. You'll get there.

It's actually a reworded version of what I said above. Knowledge of commas, sentence structure etc needed for comprehension. Damn this phone, no roll eyes...

Your interpretation means that no one would ever be covered by axa.

Clearly not. Had is past tense. Read it again.

My licence expired during the term of the current policy and I rang Axa and posed this exact question to them. They told me I would not be covered as I would be in violation of their policy t&cs if I drove on an expired licence.

What you're claiming is that Axa's policy documents and staff are wrong on this issue and you're correct. Well done.

djimi

oldyouth wrote: »

I have being driving for 33 years and have always been insured with Zurich. I have never once been asked to provide a copy of my licence. However, there have been no material facts that I have had to disclose to them at any time in that period. If I had any endorsements or let it lapse, I would feel obliged to notify them

Generally speaking you are asked to provide a copy of your license when you take out a new policy. Not all insurers will ask for this (I dont think Liberty requested it from me this year), but its pretty standard when switching to an insurer. Once you are staying with them I doubt you would be asked again unless they had reason to believe that something has changed with your situation.

djimi

Red Crow wrote: »

Clearly not. Had is past tense. Read it again.

My licence expired during the term of the current policy and I rang Axa and posed this exact question to them. They told me I would not be covered as I would be in violation of their policy t&cs if I drove on an expired licence.

What you're claiming is that Axa's policy documents and staff are wrong on this issue and you're correct. Well done.

Id love to know how this would hold up in court if challenged legally. An expired license is nothing more than a pink piece of paper (or plastic I guess nowadays!) with the wrong date on it; it does not impact your ability to drive, nor does it in any way change the risk that you pose on the road. Id love to see how they could justify voiding insurance cover because you didnt pay a €50 tax for a new piece of paper.

Pro Hoc Vice

From ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) REGULATIONS, 1962.


PROHIBITED CONDITIONS

(f) by limiting the cover to cases where the person driving a vehicle either holds a driving licence to drive the vehicle or having held such a licence has not been disqualified for holding it,

To the best of my knowledge that has not been repealed.

From EC Directive 2009/103/EC

Article 13
Exclusion clauses
1. Each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that any statutory provision or any contractual clause contained in an insurance policy issued in accordance with Article 3 shall be deemed to be void in respect of claims by third parties who have been victims of an accident where that statutory provision or contractual clause excludes from insurance the use or driving of vehicles by:
(a) persons who do not have express or implied authorisation to do so;
(b) persons who do not hold a licence permitting them to drive the vehicle concerned;

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Id love to know how this would hold up in court if challenged legally. An expired license is nothing more than a pink piece of paper (or plastic I guess nowadays!) with the wrong date on it; it does not impact your ability to drive, nor does it in any way change the risk that you pose on the road. Id love to see how they could justify voiding insurance cover because you didnt pay a €50 tax for a new piece of paper.

Well, you could liken this to medical qualifications and re-exams. Some of which you have to be revalidated every 90 days. If you treated someone and you were out of revalidation even by a day, you could end up in court. Granted it makes no difference to the level of care you provide or your ability to act, but legally there cannot be grey areas. Same with a firearms permit, you could have a gun all your life, but if your permit is out by a day, then your legally not entitled to hold one.

I view a driving license as such a 'permit' Within the specified dates, I have a right to drive on the nations road, outside those times or if expired, I don't. I wouldn't expect an insurance company to cover me with an expired license.

dr.fuzzenstein

Happyman42 wrote: »

Involved in the sense that the person I was working for was involved as a witness. He was driving the car I was in.

So it went badly. Accidents happen here as well.
If someone drives too fast in the wet, they should be done for careless driving at least, it's not like you're allowed to drive at 260 km/h in the lashing rain in rush-hour traffic.
My point is, that in Germany more is being done to make sure only people who are properly qualified get onto the road.
That includes the proper licence (as well as having tax, insurance, TUV, etc).
The police once tried to do me for driving without a valid licence on a scooter with 50cc and a registered top speed of 60 km/h.
My licence states I can drive any bike with no more than 50cc and top speed of 50 km/h.
The scooter I had came from East Germany and was covered by an exemption under German law. The policeman who stopped me (and there where lots of stops, no point chancing it), disagreed or was unaware of the exemption and proceeded to prosecute me.
Nothing came of it, because I didn't break any laws, but had I done, I would have been in a sh*te heap of trouble.
The same goes for one accident where I stuck my car out too far at a main road and a car drove into me. She had whiplash and the state prosecutor informed me that it is standard procedure to prosecute anyone involved in an accident that caused an injury, no matter how or what, for causing bodily harm.
He me told me that there was no chance that this will actually go to court and will be thrown out, but this is the procedure and there was no deviating from it.
When I first came to Ireland it was a novel change from Germany, but when you hear stuff like this thread, it wears a bit thin.