Driving Without Insurance - Penalty?

NewQuery2016

Hi all,

Yesterday I was involved in a minor RTA which I was slightly injured in while driving my partner's car.

The third party and their insurance company have already accepted full liability as the third party ignored a traffic light.

I was driving my partner's car (which is a company car). My partner was verbally advised by their HR department that my driving of the car is covered under their policy.

I also have my own policy on my own car, however, as I am under 25, my policy does not extend to driving other vehicles.

As a matter of course, the Garda attending the RTA requested a copy of my insurance certificate. When my partner proceed to retrieve this from their employer it came to light that the employer's policy only covers partners/spouses aged 25-70.

In other words, the employer's policy does NOT cover my driving of my partner's car contrary to the advice they had previously given (their HR department had confirmed I was covered by making the assumption I was over 25).

Ultimately, ensuring I have valid insurance is 100% my responsibility and I should have queried more forcefully and asked to see the certificate when previously advised that I was covered under my partner's employer's policy. That is a lesson I will learn and be more thorough about in the future.

Now, my situation is:

- Driving partner's car, with their permission, and believed to be covered under their employer's policy but actually not covered due to my age (I am two months under 25)
- Not covered under my own policy as it does not cover driving other cars for the same reason (under 25)

Whilst I believe I have shown absolute good faith in doing my utmost to 'try' to be insured, ultimately, I was not legally insured to drive the car when the RTA happened and that is my responsibility.

There is no question of liability and the third party and their insurance have already accepted liability (although this new information may cause further discussion there).

My questions are:

1. What is the most likely outcome when I present all of the above information to the Garda in question?

2. What is the most likely outcome in court when the Garda, presumably, charges me with driving without insurance and there is a mandatory court appearance?

3. How likely am I to receive 'just' 5 points and a fine vs. a driving ban (or worse?)

Thanks for any feedback.

whippet

Regardless of the backstory you have committed an offence.

You will be unable to provide the guard with an insurance cert to cover you for the day in question so it will go to court.

The only advice I could give is to engage a solicitor and offer the back story as a defence. It will boil down to how the court views the story on the day.

Liam McPoyle

NewQuery2016 wrote: »

Hi all,

Yesterday I was involved in a minor RTA which I was slightly injured in while driving my partner's car.

The third party and their insurance company have already accepted full liability as the third party ignored a traffic light.

I was driving my partner's car (which is a company car). My partner was verbally advised by their HR department that my driving of the car is covered under their policy.

I also have my own policy on my own car, however, as I am under 25, my policy does not extend to driving other vehicles.

As a matter of course, the Garda attending the RTA requested a copy of my insurance certificate. When my partner proceed to retrieve this from their employer it came to light that the employer's policy only covers partners/spouses aged 25-70.

In other words, the employer's policy does NOT cover my driving of my partner's car contrary to the advice they had previously given (their HR department had confirmed I was covered by making the assumption I was over 25).

Ultimately, ensuring I have valid insurance is 100% my responsibility and I should have queried more forcefully and asked to see the certificate when previously advised that I was covered under my partner's employer's policy. That is a lesson I will learn and be more thorough about in the future.

Now, my situation is:

- Driving partner's car, with their permission, and believed to be covered under their employer's policy but actually not covered due to my age (I am two months under 25)
- Not covered under my own policy as it does not cover driving other cars for the same reason (under 25)

Whilst I believe I have shown absolute good faith in doing my utmost to 'try' to be insured, ultimately, I was not legally insured to drive the car when the RTA happened and that is my responsibility.

There is no question of liability and the third party and their insurance have already accepted liability (although this new information may cause further discussion there).

My questions are:

1. What is the most likely outcome when I present all of the above information to the Garda in question?

2. What is the most likely outcome in court when the Garda, presumably, charges me with driving without insurance and there is a mandatory court appearance?

3. How likely am I to receive 'just' 5 points and a fine vs. a driving ban (or worse?)

Thanks for any feedback.

It really depends on the guards and the courts tbh.

If they are to follow the letter of the law then you will be charged with driving without valid insurance.

The penalty points / fine would be the least of your worries though because you will now have a driving conviction on your licence.

This will have to be declared to any insurance company, including your own, in the future.

Most insurers will decline to quote someone with a conviction / endorsement, particularly for driving with no insurance, that is a massive red flag for insurers and the belief would be that you are a ne'er do well that will eventually cost them money, no matter how innocent the offence was.

Its a shyte situation to find yourself in so as the poster above said, engage with a solicitor and give them all the information. You just have to hope you get a sympathetic guard or judge.

Atlantic Dawn

You won't get a ban, but as far as I know once it goes to court it's a 5 point offence and there's no lower points can be given than that, then there's a fine it can be up to €5k but likely a few hundred would be outcome. If it does go to court have copies of all certs of insurance and explain your mistake.

coylemj

It's a pity that your partner didn't get an e-mail or piece of paper from HR stating that you were covered - it wouldn't have made any difference to whether you were actually covered or not but it would certainly count in mitigation if/when you get a summons for no insurance.

As it is, the probability is that the person in HR will now deny that they said what they did - way of the world!

coylemj

PeteK* wrote: »

Will your own insurance on your own car not cover you for 3rd party at all?
You'd just be left with the bill of repairing the company car.

The OP doesn't have a problem with a claim, the other side in this case is 100% at fault so he's not looking for cover. His problem is that the accident and subsequent investigation has uncovered the fact that he wasn't covered to drive his partner's company car, either under his own or the company policy.

Typically people under 25 and/or without a full licence and with insurance in their own name are only covered to drive their own car - no 'driving other cars' cover.

PeteK*

coylemj wrote: »

The OP doesn't have a problem with a claim, the other side in this case is 100% at fault so he's not looking for cover. His problem is that the accident and subsequent investigation has uncovered the fact that he wasn't covered to drive his partner's company car, either under his own or the company policy.

Typically people under 25 and/or without a full licence and with insurance in their own name are only covered to drive their own car - no 'driving other cars' cover.

Oh yeah, I forgot about the investigating part.
I was always allowed drive cars as a teenager on a provisional licence with Quinn Direct.. was handy! :pac:

BreadnBuddha

PeteK* wrote: »

Oh yeah, I forgot about the investigating part.
I was always allowed drive cars as a teenager on a provisional licence with Quinn Direct.. was handy! :pac:

No you weren't.

bear1

PeteK* wrote: »

Oh yeah, I forgot about the investigating part.
I was always allowed drive cars as a teenager on a provisional licence with Quinn Direct.. was handy! :pac:

That wasn't possible.

Supergurrier

Pretty standard stuff.

Most company policies I've seen require three things.

1. 25-70 years of age
2. An employee (for obvious reasons)
3. Vehicle being used for business related and businesses commuting (ties in with point 2)

FobleAsNuck

slap on the wrist + e100 poor box donation

PeteK*

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

No you weren't.

bear1 wrote: »

That wasn't possible.

Then I was breaking the law.
I'm pretty confident it was the case though, that it was allowed. As far as I know, Quinn were the only ones.

uck51js9zml2yt

There was a time in the distant past where you could drive on your first and third provisional. Not on your second.

JohnBoy26

Marlowe Attractive Dipstick wrote: »

There was a time in the distant past where you could drive on your first and third provisional. Not on your second.

You sure? I'm fairly certain you could once drive unaccompanied on your second provisional but not on your first.

coylemj

Marlowe Attractive Dipstick wrote: »

There was a time in the distant past where you could drive on your first and third provisional. Not on your second.

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

You sure? I'm fairly certain you could once drive unaccompanied on your second provisional but not on your first.

First, second or third provisional had nothing to do with insurance folks.

From the perspective of insurance, if you were a named driver on a policy and had a provisional licence, it didn't matter if you were driving accompanied by a person with a full licence or alone and it didn't matter if your provisional licence was current or not. All that mattered was that you were not disqualified.

carzony

Up until this year I always had 'drive other cars' on my policy's but most of the insurers have stopped that. I acually called axa this week to ask if I could add it and they just won't allow it because i'm under 25.

Just hope the Guard doesnt show up to court on the day if the charge goes forward...

carzony

...................

BreadnBuddha

coylemj wrote: »

First, second or third provisional had nothing to do with insurance folks.

From the perspective of insurance, if you were a named driver on a policy and had a provisional licence, it didn't matter if you were driving accompanied by a person with a full licence or alone and it didn't matter if your provisional licence was current or not. All that mattered was that you were not disqualified.

The point being made is that a teenager was not permitted to drive other vehicles on a Quinn Direct policy extension. Never happened.

Other posters are correct in stating that 1st and 3rd provisional licenses allowed you drive unaccompanied, 2nd provisional license holders were supposed to be accompanied.

Attitudes have changed, just as they have in relation to speeding and drink driving, resulting in changes in policy and Garda enforcement.

jimmycrackcorm

OP, don't panic. The most likely outcome is the actual outcome which is that the matter is already agreed on a civil basis. I.e. There's not going to be a court argument over who's to blame.

So you've just been asked to produce insurance. So hand in your own and your partners cert. It doesn't matter that your not covered technically by a few months. It only matters if it has to go to court and there's going to be a dispute on liabilities settled on technicalities.

coylemj

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

OP, don't panic. The most likely outcome is the actual outcome which is that the matter is already agreed on a civil basis. I.e. There's not going to be a court argument over who's to blame.

Correct, there won't be a court case because the other side has has admitted liability and their insurance will settle things. Not the issue here though.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

So you've just been asked to produce insurance. So hand in your own and your partners cert.

You can't hand in multiple certs, you need to produce one cert. - the one that says that you were insured to drive the specific car on the day.

If the OP produces his own insurance cert., it will say that he was insured to dive his own car only and his partner's company will not supply a cert. to say that he was insured to dive their car

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It doesn't matter that your not covered technically by a few months.

Where did you get that gem from?

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

It only matters if it has to go to court and there's going to be a dispute on liabilities settled on technicalities.

Incorrect. If you're caught driving uninsured, you will be summonsed for driving with no insurance and you can expect to get hammered.

FobleAsNuck

Incorrect. If you're caught driving uninsured, you will be summonsed for driving with no insurance and you can expect to get hammered.

unlikely "hammered", if this was an honest mistake. I was caught driving new car, when I thought my OH transferred insurance from old one (which she didn't) and got away with e100. technically I wasn't insured, when I thought I was - that was my case

blade1

I have seen cases thrown out of a court near me if the defendant donates to the court poor box.
Not saying it'll work in your case but it may be an option.

To Elland Back

FobleAsNuck wrote: »

unlikely "hammered", if this was an honest mistake. I was caught driving new car, when I thought my OH transferred insurance from old one (which she didn't) and got away with e100. technically I wasn't insured, when I thought I was - that was my case

That's dependant on the individual judge and the mood he/she is in. Penalties can be harsh for driving without insurance and the facts are proven in this instance.

Regardless of it being a light fine or a suspension etc., the biggest problem will come with declaring the fact to future insurers if any conviction is handed down

JohnBoy26

coylemj wrote: »

First, second or third provisional had nothing to do with insurance folks.

From the perspective of insurance, if you were a named driver on a policy and had a provisional licence, it didn't matter if you were driving accompanied by a person with a full licence or alone and it didn't matter if your provisional licence was current or not. All that mattered was that you were not disqualified.

True. It is more the law at the time that I and the other poster you quoted were talking about. I think it was another poster mentioned something about a provisional and insurance.