quick question

Bemused100

Was stopped for no nct on the car a while back.......got the fixed penalty notice today...you all know the score I'm sure....BUT my driving licence is so far out of date its frightening and its in shreds anyway...how can i pay the fine with no licence and if im summoned for no payment any ideas on what could happen ?

loremolis

You should drive to the nearest garda station and explain what has happened. Make sure to bring the penalty points notice and your expired licence in case they need to check them. They'll sort it out for you.

goz83

How far out? What type of license (learner permit, full irish etc)?

Bemused100

believe it or not a learner permit...never took the test !

GerardKeating

Bemused100 wrote: »

believe it or not a learner permit...never took the test !

Do you need the licence to pay the this ? Can someone else pay it for you.

Are you expecting another Fixed Penalty notice for Non production of Driving Licence from when you were stopped?

MarkAnthony

You need to speak to a solicitor, No permit = no licence = no insurance.

Ban for the eventual licence and hefty fines in the offing, open to correction of course.

Pro Hoc Vice

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You need to speak to a solicitor, No permit = no licence = no insurance.

Ban for the eventual licence and hefty fines in the offing, open to correction of course.

Incorrect. This has been gone over and over, third party insurance is in place unless correctly revoked by the insurance company, which can not be after the fact.

Also no permit is no licence in fact a permit is also no licence as a permit is a learners permit not a licence.

MarkAnthony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Incorrect. This has been gone over and over, third party insurance is in place unless correctly revoked by the insurance company, which can not be after the fact.

Also no permit is no licence in fact a permit is also no licence as a permit is a learners permit not a licence.

If his permit is out of date for that long I find it hard to believe he has insurance regardless of anything else.

While its fair to say someone will have insurance when driving on their learners permit (which has been gone over and over), you're saying that insurance will remain in place even though the licence/permit has expired, notwithstanding the terms of the insurance?

Shredded would also suggest the paper licence, surely they're over a year out of date at this stage?

pedroeibar1

MarkAnthony wrote: »

......you're saying that insurance will remain in place even though the licence/permit has expired, notwithstanding the terms of the insurance?.....

From memory most policies state 'Holds or has held a valid licence'

Gerry T

If the OP lied and said he had a valid license/permit, would that invalidate the insurance or is their an onus on the insurance company to check these things.

pedroeibar1

Gerry T wrote: »

If the OP lied and said he had a valid license/permit, would that invalidate the insurance or is their an onus on the insurance company to check these things.

Insurance is based on Uberrima Fides / utmost good faith and the onus is on the proposer to give correct info. Any lies / false declarations and there will be no insurance; the policy will be avoided if the proposal declaration is a condition precedent to the contract. I've looked at my own motor policy and under "Exclusions" it states :

We will not pay for any accident, injury, loss or damage if:
b)
The Insured Vehicle is driven by any person who does not hold a licence to drive such a vehicle. This doesnot apply if the person has held such a licence, and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining
such a licence.

Cover for the OP will depend on what is in his own policy.

goz83

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Insurance is based on Uberrima Fides / utmost good faith and the onus is on the proposer to give correct info. Any lies / false declarations and there will be no insurance; the policy will be avoided if the proposal declaration is a condition precedent to the contract. I've looked at my own motor policy and under "Exclusions" it states :

We will not pay for any accident, injury, loss or damage if:
b)
The Insured Vehicle is driven by any person who does not hold a licence to drive such a vehicle. This doesnot apply if the person has held such a licence, and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining
such a licence.

Cover for the OP will depend on what is in his own policy.

Firstly, we can assume that the OP said he had a provisional license (a permit, rather than a license). So the insurance company who has such a condition should not be providing insurance in the first place, as the proposer would not meet the criteria and would have stated this in the fact that they said they had a provisional license.

Secondly, the condition above does not say that the license needs to be in date.

OP, how long out of date are we talkinhpg? You did not say. In any case, i believe you have 5 years from the expiry date, in which to renew your permit, without the need to take a theory test and start over.

Though I suspect you were well aware that it was long out of date. You will definitely need a solicitor. Expect a ban and a hefty fine.

Pro Hoc Vice

MarkAnthony wrote: »

If his permit is out of date for that long I find it hard to believe he has insurance regardless of anything else.

While its fair to say someone will have insurance when driving on their learners permit (which has been gone over and over), you're saying that insurance will remain in place even though the licence/permit has expired, notwithstanding the terms of the insurance?

Shredded would also suggest the paper licence, surely they're over a year out of date at this stage?

Third party cover can not be revoked after the fact of a incident. It's really to protect the innocent third party and as any third party would be covered then the driver has insurance, it's that simple.

Pro Hoc Vice

Gerry T wrote: »

If the OP lied and said he had a valid license/permit, would that invalidate the insurance or is their an onus on the insurance company to check these things.

No again this is to protect the innocent third party. Of course the insurance company can withdraw cover under the regulations but it must be done correctly and can not be done to avoid cover after an incident.

Pro Hoc Vice

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Insurance is based on Uberrima Fides / utmost good faith and the onus is on the proposer to give correct info. Any lies / false declarations and there will be no insurance; the policy will be avoided if the proposal declaration is a condition precedent to the contract. I've looked at my own motor policy and under "Exclusions" it states :

We will not pay for any accident, injury, loss or damage if:
b)
The Insured Vehicle is driven by any person who does not hold a licence to drive such a vehicle. This doesnot apply if the person has held such a licence, and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining
such a licence.

Cover for the OP will depend on what is in his own policy.

While you are correct in most insurance for motor there are specific regulations both national and EU at play to protect any third party. Once a motor policy exists even if lies then cover exists for third parties unless withdrawn before any incident.

Of course a different offence could be commited for lieing for insurance.

pedroeibar1

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

While you are correct in most insurance for motor there are specific regulations both national and EU at play to protect any third party. Once a motor policy exists even if lies then cover exists for third parties unless withdrawn before any incident.

Of course a different offence could be commited for lieing for insurance.

That is why I specifically used the word “avoided”. In most insurance contracts the proposal form and its declarations form part of the contract (and for good reason). One of the conditions of the prop form is that the proposer makes full & truthful declarations. If s/he does not do so, a condition precedent is broken so there is no contract of insurance. It does not exist and therefore it cannot be withdrawn. The policy is avoided. That is one reason why there is a “fund” for uninsured drivers.

goz83

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is why I specifically used the word “avoided”. In most insurance contracts the proposal form and its declarations form part of the contract (and for good reason). One of the conditions of the prop form is that the proposer makes full & truthful declarations. If s/he does not do so, a condition precedent is broken so there is no contract of insurance. It does not exist and therefore it cannot be withdrawn. The policy is avoided. That is one reason why there is a “fund” for uninsured drivers.

While I do see what you're saying, it is simply incorrect. The policy exists, even if it was obtained under false pretenses. The insurance company cannot escape liability in the event of a claim being made by a third party. Hiwever, the insurance company can go after the proposer for damages paid out, as the insurance was obtained under false pretenses.

pedroeibar1

goz83 wrote: »

While I do see what you're saying, it is simply incorrect. The policy exists, even if it was obtained under false pretenses. The insurance company cannot escape liability in the event of a claim being made by a third party. Hiwever, the insurance company can go after the proposer for damages paid out, as the insurance was obtained under false pretenses.

Nope.

234

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is why I specifically used the word “avoided”. In most insurance contracts the proposal form and its declarations form part of the contract (and for good reason). One of the conditions of the prop form is that the proposer makes full & truthful declarations. If s/he does not do so, a condition precedent is broken so there is no contract of insurance. It does not exist and therefore it cannot be withdrawn. The policy is avoided. That is one reason why there is a “fund” for uninsured drivers.

The remedy of avoidance arises because the policy is voidable, not void.

pedroeibar1

234 wrote: »

The remedy of avoidance arises because the policy is voidable, not void.

Yes. Now, as false declarations were knowingly made with intent to deceive, the remedy of "avoidance" is neither harsh nor unmerciful, the next question is should the premium be returned?

Meauldsegosha

The OP didnt have insurance. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94246025

234

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Yes. Now, as false declarations were knowingly made with intent to deceive, the remedy of "avoidance" is neither harsh nor unmerciful, the next question is should the premium be returned?

You could never get the full thing. Looking at it from the point of view of restitutionary remedies, failure of basis seems unlikely as there was no total failure since the policy was simply voidable rather than void so the cover ran until avoided.

Can't see it fitting into any other areas of restitution and even if it did, you would probably only get the relevant proportion.

whomitconcerns

Op drove for over two years with no license(and never held one), no insurance, no tax and no nct.... No sympathy..

Gerry T

God help a third party hit by the OP. Sounds like the Insurance company would contest a claim and there could be yrs spent arguing the case.

OP If I were you I would seek a solicitor, experienced in this field and tell him everything.

pedroeibar1

234 wrote: »

You could never get the full thing. Looking at it from the point of view of restitutionary remedies, failure of basis seems unlikely as there was no total failure since the policy was simply voidable rather than void so the cover ran until avoided.

Can't see it fitting into any other areas of restitution and even if it did, you would probably only get the relevant proportion.

Ok, I see where you are coming from now. I should have been clearer. A contract of insurance IMO never existed because conditions precedent were not met. So the contract was avoided ‘ab initio’. If there was no contract, should the premium/consideration be returned? By not doing so the insurer could be open to a claim that there was a contract? (Hypothetical, not looking for advice as I’ve no connection with motor insurance /claims)

234

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ok, I see where you are coming from now. I should have been clearer. A contract of insurance IMO never existed because conditions precedent were not met. So the contract was avoided ‘ab initio’. If there was no contract, should the premium/consideration be returned? By not doing so the insurer could be open to a claim that there was a contract? (Hypothetical, not looking for advice as I’ve no connection with motor insurance /claims)

Non-disclosure isn't usually treated as failure to meet a condition precedent: it's treated as breach of an implied term of utmost good faith, the remedy for which is avoidance.

You would need to look at his policy specifically to see whether it was a condition precedent that a full licence rather than a learner permit had to have been held.

I'm not familiar with the statutory overlay in respect of third party protection, but statute can of course lead to results that don't make on a logical contract analysis. So even if the contract never came into existence the effect of the statute could be for it to take effect as if it did but only in respect of third parties.

Pro Hoc Vice

Gerry T wrote: »

God help a third party hit by the OP. Sounds like the Insurance company would contest a claim and there could be yrs spent arguing the case.

OP If I were you I would seek a solicitor, experienced in this field and tell him everything.

They can not refuse to payout its that simple they may have a claim against the insured person but the insurance company can not avoid payment anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong, unless the insurance company has withdrawn cover as per the regulations

Pro Hoc Vice

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nope.

Because of compulsory insurance regulations you are simply wrong. While correct in insurance law a statutory scheme overrides that.

MarkAnthony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

They can not refuse to payout its that simple they may have a claim against the insured person but the insurance company can not avoid payment anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong, unless the insurance company has withdrawn cover as per the regulations

Even then the person would likely have recourse through MIBI.

Pro Hoc Vice

Meauldsegosha wrote: »

The OP didnt have insurance. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=94246025

Yes he did!

MarkAnthony

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Op drove for over two years with no license(and never held one), no insurance, no tax and no nct.... No sympathy..

Sorry to be insulting but how can anyone be stupid enough to think they would be insured under someone else's policy in a car with no NCT, No tax and a licence that was two years out of date.

I never thought I'd pass, I eventually took solace in the fact that if some of the borderline morons out there could pass, I probably could.

MarkAnthony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Yes he did!

Sorry, but where?

Hi all........well bluntly put was nailed last week at a checkpoint.....asked to produce details within 10 days......no licence....no nct and I wasn't insured........no excuses and I'm not going to make any....all I want to know is how long will it take for me to recieve summons and when can I expect to appear in court...can I plead guilty and not attend

Yes I know I was and indeed am a total fool...or worse but need some help please

Licence expired ages ago.......is dumped in bottom of a drawer.........car belongs to mother in law...thought I was covered by her open drive but she changed that 2 years ago

Pro Hoc Vice

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry, but where?

The OP in this thread has only said no licence. The thread you quoted talks about an error based on open insurance. In this thread the OP has insurance simply.

MarkAnthony

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The OP in this thread has only said no licence. The thread you quoted talks about an error based on open insurance. In this thread the OP has insurance simply.

Yes but it's the same OP. In fairness the link was provided. Granted that does not invalidate your corrections to my and other posters faulty assumption regarding the law.

goz83

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Nope.

Very convincing rebuttal. You win :rolleyes:

plodder

Sorry, just rephrasing my question. What is the situation hypothetically for a named learner driver on someone else's policy, and where there's a condition that the learner must be accompanied by a fully licensed driver. Would they be covered (3rd party even) if they drove on their own, and had an accident?

goz83

plodder wrote: »

Sorry, just rephrasing my question. What is the situation hypothetically for a named learner driver on someone else's policy, and where there's a condition that the learner must be accompanied by a fully licensed driver. Would they be covered (3rd party even) if they drove on their own, and had an accident?

Yes, they would be covered....or rather more technically, the 3rd party would be able to claim off the policy, regardless of what conditions the holder of the policy holder, or named drivers failed to meet, conditions wise.

However, the policy holder , or named driver could then be chased for every penny the insurer paid out, because the policy holder was not meeting the terms of the policy at the time of the incident. If the policy holder was sued, he could then sue the named driver for the loss, but I am not fully versed on this. There would also be a separate issue on the legal side, where the permit holder could be in trouble for breaking the law....driving unaccompanied.

Edit: I would also add that the policy holder and the named driver would lose their NCD. And the policy holder might also be in a position to claim that permission to use the vehicle was not given. But, that's a whole other can of worms.

goz83

Bemused100 wrote: »

Was stopped for no nct on the car a while back.......got the fixed penalty notice today...you all know the score I'm sure....BUT my driving licence is so far out of date its frightening and its in shreds anyway...how can i pay the fine with no licence and if im summoned for no payment any ideas on what could happen ?

This was the OP....

plodder wrote: »

Sorry, just rephrasing my question. What is the situation hypothetically for a named learner driver on someone else's policy, and where there's a condition that the learner must be accompanied by a fully licensed driver. Would they be covered (3rd party even) if they drove on their own, and had an accident?

Plodder, are you also a named driver of the OP account?

plodder

goz83 wrote: »

This was the OP....



Plodder, are you also a named driver of the OP account?

No. I posted a question, and then noticed it might have been answered. So, I rephrased it. My interest in it is a daughter who is learning to drive, and is pestering me to be allowed drive on her own. I've noticed it is rampant, and was wondering what the story is. Not sure, I'd take the risk anyway.

pedroeibar1

goz83 wrote: »

Very convincing rebuttal. You win :rolleyes:

Apologies. No offence intended. I was thinking about avoidance in general. Thanks to all for the informative replies.

Pro Hoc Vice

plodder wrote: »

No. I posted a question, and then noticed it might have been answered. So, I rephrased it. My interest in it is a daughter who is learning to drive, and is pestering me to be allowed drive on her own. I've noticed it is rampant, and was wondering what the story is. Not sure, I'd take the risk anyway.

It's simple it's illegal to drive on a learners permit unless accompanied by a qualified licence holder of at least 2 years.

plodder

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

It's simple it's illegal to drive on a learners permit unless accompanied by a qualified licence holder of at least 2 years.

That wasn't the question though.

Pro Hoc Vice

plodder wrote: »

That wasn't the question though.

In answer to the question the third party will be paid by the insurance company who in turn may take a case against the insured for the amount they have to pay out. But the illegal explanation may be easier to say to a child.

goz83

plodder wrote: »

No. I posted a question, and then noticed it might have been answered. So, I rephrased it. My interest in it is a daughter who is learning to drive, and is pestering me to be allowed drive on her own. I've noticed it is rampant, and was wondering what the story is. Not sure, I'd take the risk anyway.

If it's her car and she is 18, let her do what she wants and if caught, let her deal with the consequences. Remind her that it is illegal though.

If the car is yours and/or she is under 18, tell her she will be grounded and refused access to the car for a month if the pestering continues.

She needs a full license, or she has no license.

MarkAnthony

Driving on the LP used to be rampant but there has been a recent change in the way this is being dealt with. Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) are now being issued coupled with a reduction in points needed for a ban to 6 points.

Unless you live in the arse end of nowhere it's simply not worth the risk anymore. I used to do it, I knew barristers on circuit that used to do it no one I know does it any more. There was a great exchange by a certain junior barrister whose ugly mug pops up now and again pimping a certain private third level institution giving out yards to a Devil friend of his (in the nicest slightly pissed way possible); had us in stitches and prompted me to get my act together.

My crap anecdotes and everything else aside there is a real possibility that an inexperienced driver will panic at an accident and make things much, much worse for themselves. If she's good enough to drive on her own, she's good enough to pass the test so simply do it.

barman linen

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Driving on the LP used to be rampant but there has been a recent change in the way this is being dealt with. Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) are now being issued coupled with a reduction in points needed for a ban to 6 points..

A Garda outside any middle class secondary school would hit his annual target in a week if he actually did look for this offence. I have a daily game with my daughter asking her about her friends driving into school in the Mini Cooper/ VW has passed her test....answer is usually no. The L plate rather than the N Plate is a dead giveaway.

As for the general thread....there is a lot of focus on the 'third party' - in this case there was none. It was a traffic stop. As far as I can see from the combination of the two threads he has no licence (permit ) or insurance and a day in court beckons.

my 2p worth....am not a lawyer

MarkAnthony

barman linen wrote: »

A Garda outside any middle class secondary school would hit his annual target in a week if he actually did look for this offence. I have a daily game with my daughter asking her about her friends driving into school in the Mini Cooper/ VW has passed her test....answer is usually no. The L plate rather than the N Plate is a dead giveaway.

As for the general thread....there is a lot of focus on the 'third party' - in this case there was none. It was a traffic stop. As far as I can see from the combination of the two threads he has no licence (permit ) or insurance and a day in court beckons.

my 2p worth....am not a lawyer

The garda traffic corp could hit it's yearly target of anything in a week if they went looking for it. They'll eventually get round to having a crack down again and there will be many tears, much posting and some happy solicitors.