Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Court summons questions - Vehicle owner allow learner driver use vehicle unaccompanied

Options
13»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 617 ✭✭✭randomstuff


    When the offence you are being prosecuted for doesn't make sense to the judge... What would you call that?



  • Registered Users Posts: 617 ✭✭✭randomstuff




  • Registered Users Posts: 238 ✭✭AmpMan


    The pair of them should have spent a few nights in the joy for this heinous crime.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,630 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    I’d call it a judge that failed to keep up with legislation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,870 ✭✭✭CoBo55


    The Judge saw it for what it was, much ado about nothing, the woman had since passed her driving test, she was insured at the time, taxed and tested had received the required penalty points and paid the fine, he did what any sensible person would and dismissed the remainder.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Driving a vehicle without a valid licence is a serious offence, allowing a vehicle to be so used is also. So what if she passed her test since, if I was stopped with no insurance but bought a policy before the court date would that be grand too?

    BTW as she wasn't validly licensed then her insurance was invalid also

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,630 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    She wasn't insured if she was driving unaccompanied. You don't get insurance cover to drive illegally. Driving within the law is a condition of your insurance.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,870 ✭✭✭CoBo55


    Rubbish, this tripe gets trotted out all the time. Why wasn't she done for no insurance then? Because she was insured.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,870 ✭✭✭CoBo55




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2 EuCitizen07


    Thanks for the prompt response.

    kindly advise me that how did you proceed?

    did you pleaded guilty and than put your points forwarded or you didn’t pleaded guilty and then responded accordingly.

    I am sorry for pushing it further but I am very concerned as any fine or conviction would have great impact on my livelihood.

    plaese explain as much as possible so I can act accordingly

    thanks



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Rubbish. Read your policy, in conjunction with your certificate. Also, an innocent 3rd party being compensated by your insurer in the event of an accident does not mean you have cover in place



  • Registered Users Posts: 14,197 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Interesting.

    • Allowing an unauthorised driver to operate your vehicle.

    I suspect most motor insurance policies have declarations that drivers agree to, including that the person driving has a valid license and is legally allowed to drive it.

    https://missquote.ie/blog/post/what-invalidates-car-insurance#



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,660 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    the 'ah sure it's grand' approach to road policing in ireland. the roads are barely policed as it is, and when a garda catches someone red handed, the judge allows it. and we wonder why the gardai are not fussed about roads policing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Have a read of your policy sometime, it's there in black and white.

    Why wasn't she prosecuted? ask the Gardai and DPP but imo she should have been.

    People who do this are taking the piss, it needs to be stopped.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    She was charged for driving without a licence. That necessarily also involves driving without insurance, but it's not the practice to charge a second offence when both offences are constituted by exactly the same conduct. It's a principle of legality that it's unfair and oppressive to punish someone twice for the same conduct. If you were to be charged with two offences for the same conduct, you'd almost certainly only be convicted of one or, if convicted of both, only sentenced for one.

    If I deliberately run you over in my car because I want to cause you harm, that ticks all the boxes for the elements of offences of murder and manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving. But I won't be convicted of all three offences; just of one. Same principle.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Seems odd that because you're committed an offence which usually has a lower punishment, you can't be charged with the other offence you committed which usually has a higher punishment

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,630 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    There was some talk last week of changing that approach for drivers, and charging them with ALL offences that apply.



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Driving without a licence and driving without insurance attract the same statutory penalty (a maximum of a €5000 fine and five penalty points).

    If the offences attract different penalties, you'll usually be charged with the one that attracts the higher sentence.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,958 ✭✭✭kirk.


    Is it a pending prosecution ?

    Insurers always ask that question anyhow



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 617 ✭✭✭randomstuff


    I don't remember exactly what I plead, was quite a stressful time, with lots of emotions but... I think guilty. To quote another poster in this thread

    "The best advice to take here on the internet is to not take advice here on the internet."

    Please seek out a solicitor if you are unsure.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    That is a prohibited condition and can't be used to avoid a claim from a third party. All that is required is that there is insurance in place to compensate third parties.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Both offences are usually charged if there is evidence they were committed. The judge will usually impose a fine on one and take the other into account.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    In theory

    In practice driving without insurance seems to be treated more harshly (unless your lack of licence was due to disqualification)

    Seems some judges still don't treat LP violations seriously - but it is unlicensed driving. Just because it was tolerated here for decades didn't make it right.

    In this thread we've seen twice now drivers which were both unlicensed and uninsured but only charged with being unlicensed (and that not really being taken seriously enough, at that).

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 34,258 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    They do. But the post you were replying to was about a case struck out, so prosecution failed.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    The 3rd party has to be compensated by the insurer, due to legislation. However, this doesn't mean 'cover'is in place and indemnity provided. This gives the insurer the right to recover their outlay from the policyholder



  • Registered Users Posts: 26,195 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    As with nearly all offences, the legislation sets out a maximum penalty. The penalty that is actually applied in any particular case is decided by the court in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, and different penalties are applied in different cases.

    In general, the courts will treat more leniently —

    — driving without insurance, where the lack of insurance is a consequence of the (usually not premeditated) breach of a policy condition, as opposed to cases where you have simply failed to effect or renew insurance;

    — driving without a licence, where the lack of a licence is a consequence of the (usually not premeditated) breach of a licence condition, as opposed to cases where you have simply failed to get a licence, or have been disqualified.

    In the circumstances of this case, if the defendant had been charged with driving without insurance, I don't think they would got a more severe penalty. They had actually effected a policy and paid the premium, and that usually makes a big difference in sentencing.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,168 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    All that is required by law is that there is a policy in force by which an injured thrid party will be compensated. there is such a policy. The fact that there is a breach of contract by the policyholder is irrelevant. The injured party will be compensated, that is the whole point of it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,951 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    The policy can be voided for breach of contract conditions, meaning no cover is in place. The 3rd party will be compensated, as I previously stated.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement