Driving un-insured unknowlingly. please help.

[tire1]

I have comprehensive insurance policy holder and was sitting in my car (owned by me) as a passenger which was being driven by my brother. I had my children and wife in the car as passenger. My brother is a named driver on his wife’s car and his wife has ‘comprehensive insurance policy’. My brother does have not comprehensive insurance policy.


Yesterday, a person rammed into my car from the rear. Policed was called and police said that my brother is uninsuranced driver and ceased the car. He handed over a paper “Seizure of Motor Vehicles” and said that my brothers needs to go to court and magistrate will decide on him.

He always belived that he is authorised to drive other car as he is a named driver on his car.He would have bought a policy on his own name had he known!

Has he got any options if so, what are they? What will happen in the court when he go there? What is maximum punishment he will get and how can it be kept as low as possible?

 

[fisicx]

Points on his license, a fine of up to £5000 or even a ban. And you could be in trouble as well - as the owner of the vehicle it's your responsibility to ensure any driver is insured.

The are no options - he (and probably you) will face some sort of punishment.

 

[Newchodge]

Does your comprehensive policy permit any driver?

Does your brother's wife's insurance policy allow any driver?

If not, your brother was driving while uninsured.

He was driving your car with your permission, you may be charged with aiding and abetting driving while uninsured? On what grounds do you believe that he was insured to drive your car?

Admit and apologise, is your and his best bet, adducing as much information as you may be able to, to prove that you and he reasonably believed that he was insured.

 

[tire1]

I talked to my insurance company they said that anybody can drive my car as long as their insurance company allows to do so.
But my brother's wife insurance company does not allow any of them to drive any car.

I been driving for over 10 years and all my previous insurance companies allowed me to drive any car with the owner permission. That made to and my brother to belive that he is insured.

 

[STDFR33]

You are both looking at a min of 6 points from a quick search of Google. One result is here:

http://www.dieselcar.com/features/legal-i/permitting-use-of-a-motor-vehicle-without-insurance/

 

[MikeJ]

If your brother thinks that his wife's policy will allow him to drive any car, he's an idiot.

 

[IanG]

Not insured, fairly open and shut case.

When you're writing in to plead guilty leave out all the extraneous waffle about your wife and kids

 

[Clinton]

Sorry for your problem, but hopefully this will encourage you (and your brother) to read contractual terms properly.

People laugh at me for reading contracts before signing them. Various insurance companies have, over the years, expressed annoyance with me for demanding a copy of the policy document before taking a decision. The reason they get so annoyed is because most people happily sign documents without reading them and understanding the terms.

These folk, with their casual attitude towards what they are signing, cause problems for the rest of us because many companies now expect everybody to "just tick the bloody box" and move on.

I attended a BUPA hospital recently for a procedure and the receptionist gave me a form to sign with a whole page of small print on the reverse. When I got my glasses out to read it she wasn't happy. Then I discovered the small print mentioned that by signing I was also agreeing to another set of terms ... terms which had never been presented to me. So I asked politely at reception for a copy. They couldn't find one because "nobody has ever asked for that before"! (What they probably meant to say was, "We've never had an awkward b*st*rd like you before.")

I refused to sign up to something I hadn't read .... and they had to reschedule my procedure. It was most inconvenient.

People who don't read contracts before signing them are part of the problem. And they sometimes end up in trouble like in your brother's case. Part of me feels sorry for them, but then a part of me thinks that stories like this are good as they may encourage one or two more people to RTF Everything.

 

[stender]

The problem is you either accept or they don't give you your new kidney.

Bit like with websites. "We are going to track where you go" ACCEPT or don't come on our website. not, ok you haven't accepted but can still come in.

But with the op it's open and shut you're not insured. Bit different to the usual insurance small print such as yes you are covered but there is a £1000 excess we kept quiet about.

 

[NuBlue]

Had car insurance for 40 years and can't remember any time when a standard comprehensive policy covered a named driver to drive another car. Until some years ago, comprehensive always covered the policy holder with 3rd party insurance to drive another car. To keep prices competitive, that's now become an option on most policies.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

To put it bluntly... he was a named driver on his wife's car... on what planet did he think he was automatically covered to drive any other vehicle other than his wife's car?

You both deserve a slap on the wrist... sorry but it's true.

 

[Paul Norman]

Painful, and harsh as it is, your brother was uninsured. Not having read the policy is not a defence.

The most pain free way forward is to take the penalty handed out.

 

[The Byre]

Sorry for your problem, but hopefully this will encourage you (and your brother) to read contractual terms properly.

It would not surprise me if he still has not read the damn thing! The police don't care - they just look up the name. It could be that he is actually insured, albeit just 3rd party, but to find out, he will have to sit down and read the thing.

 

[IanG]

It could be that he is actually insured, albeit just 3rd party

He'd be the first person in the world to get cover just by being named elsewhere.

 

[The Byre]

No, but the car may be insured 3rd party. Perhaps?

 

[Newchodge]

My husband and I had vehicle insurance, in his name and with me as the only other named driver. I am as sure as I can be that the policy also included that we could both drive any other vehicle (except private hire) with the owner's permission, and be covered third party. This would have been about 5 years ago.

 

[STDFR33]

According to the below link, even with the cover, it's not supposed to be used for a shopping trip etc:
https://www.confused.com/motor-insurance/your-cover/driving-other-cars-on-your-car-insurance

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Small print is by far the worst thing for insurance...

Our engineer was pulled over about 12 months ago.

Had his vehicle impounded... he was driving, fully insured towing... no issue at all... but the vehicle flagged up as having no insurance.

He contacted his Dad and asked for copies of the insurance documentation to be emailed to him... his Dad did so, even drove to where he had been stopped by the police to offer assistance, i.e. take the trailer off and tow it out of the way... there was a safe on the trailer, and it had to be on site by 12.00pm ready for the hiab to drop it into the building... anyways...

The copper asked "Dad" for his insurance documents... as to which he passed them over... and carried on hooking up the trailer... copper then stopped "Dad" and stated that he wasn't able to remove the trailer as both the trailer, the van AND "Dad's" car was going to be impounded as neither of them had the right insurance!

something really stupid in the small print - about how towing is only legal if not for business purposes... on both insurances! yet "Dad" had been with the same company for over 30 years! had a fully comprehensive insurance (as far as he was aware!) that covered any individuality of issue whether business or pleasure... Except for towing?!

The fact that the van was clearly a business vehicle, the insurance company only saw it as a non-business vehicle if he was towing something?

Stupid is as Stupid does I guess?

In the end it cost the engineer £800 to get his vehicle back, his Dad £500 ish or so... plus losing all their no claims bonus for having driving "illegally"...

 

[Don Smith]

Had car insurance for 40 years and can't remember any time when a standard comprehensive policy covered a named driver to drive another car. Until some years ago, comprehensive always covered the policy holder with 3rd party insurance to drive another car. To keep prices competitive, that's now become an option on most policies.

Same here, always able to drive other cars third party on a comprehensive policy (main driver only, obviously). It was only a couple of years ago It changed and now very few policies come with this. I bet there's a good few people who have driven uninsured without knowing it.

As for the op, have to agree you need to be a total doughnut to think being named on another policy allows you drive any car

Here's a tip many people aren't aware of. If you have kids who are new drivers get you and your spouse as named drivers on their policy, reduces the premiums substantially.

 

[Clinton]

Small print is by far the worst thing for insurance...

I'm not so sure.

A lot of insurance companies, and other financial institutions for that matter, seem to have cleared up their T&Cs considerably over the last few years and now
a) use simple English that my ten year old can understand and
b) make it easy as possible for the reader. For example, when they update their terms they issue a summary of the changes.

Not so with bloody Apple. They keep updating their T&Cs several times a year and expect you to read the full 40 pages each time. Same with several other large online firms.

IMO, it's tech firms that are now the worst when it comes to small print, not insurance companies.

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

I'm not so sure.

A lot of insurance companies, and other financial institutions for that matter, seem to have cleared up their T&Cs considerably over the last few years and now
a) use simple English that my ten year old can understand and
b) make it easy as possible for the reader. For example, when they update their terms they issue a summary of the changes.

Not so with bloody Apple. They keep updating their T&Cs several times a year and expect you to read the full 40 pages each time. Same with several other large online firms.

IMO, it's tech firms that are now the worst when it comes to small print, not insurance companies.

I have a Vauxhall Frontera - 4x4 complete with bull bars and tow bar/ball thingy majiggy... insured with a 4x4 specialist... who... have it in the small print that I am not allowed to tow anything, despite my licence stating that I can tow!

My licence also states that I can drive anything up to 7.5tonne... but I'd rather not as parking can be a bit of a git

My licence also says I can ride a motor bike but I can't get insurance because of my balance!

 

[IanG]

something really stupid in the small print - about how towing is only legal if not for business purposes... on both insurances!

The fact that the van was clearly a business vehicle, the insurance company only saw it as a non-business vehicle if he was towing something?

Something which you haven't covered is that if you're towing commercially with a combination of over 3.5t then you'd fall within tacho regs. So either be running a tachograph or be relying upon one of the exemptions meaning you didn't have to. This is perhaps why the insurer didn't see fit to cover - their policy seems to mirror the entitlement to drive.

That doesn't explain why the car he attended it was also uninsured, can't answer that one.

Either way the moral still stands, you're better finding out before you're stopped.

 

[JEREMY HAWKE]

Everybody has a responsibility to make sure they are insured . It is never wise to assume and take the word of another
He will get an affordable fine and six points. I don't actually think the op will be charged with anything

 

[smallclaimsassistance]

It is a common misconception that if you are mentioned on a car insurance policy, you are covered to drive any vehicle. This misconception is, in part, driven by the compulsory insurance requirements of the Road Traffic Act (1988), section 145, which requires car policies to cover the liability of the "driver" (emphasis because driver means whoever has control of the car, even if that happens to be a passenger who pulls on the handbrake, for example).

This misconception has been fed by insurer behaviour, which used to be inclined towards a blanket "driving other vehicles" extension on all policies. Insurers have always had the right to refuse indemnity if the policy conditions are not met, That does not mean that they can get out of paying a claim (unless they have grounds for voiding the policy ab initio, which is a whole different situation), but they are bound to pay the claim, but can recover their outlay from the party who has breached the contract/tortfeasor (wrongdoer), which is usually their policyholder or driver.

The change people have seen is that insurer behaviour has become substantially more aggressive in the last 10 years, not only in relation to third party claims, but also in relation to claims from their own policyholders, for loss and for indemnity for third party claims. More insurers are now not including cover for driving other vehicles. Once again, this doesn't mean that they won't have to pay any third party claims if their policyholder injures someone. They will. What it means is that they are expanding the parameters of cases in which they can recover their outlay in relation to third party claims.

Where this is going is that it is now more important than ever that you read your policy. If you are responsible for an accident when driving a vehicle not insured by you, and you are not covered on the vehicle's policy, and do not have "driving other vehicles" cover on YOUR policy, a few points on your license and a fine are the least of your worries. You are likely to end up having to repay £1000s to the insurer after they have paid the injured party for your negligence.

Happily, that eventuality doesn't look likely here, as the OP was hit from behind, but we are all aware that there is a race to the bottom in terms of car policy premiums, benefits, add-ons (and meerkats) and what all must understand is that these come at a price. That price can only be found by reading the small print, and if you don't do so, you could suffer life changing penalties if you, or a driver authorised by you, accidentally injures someone else.

Read the policy carefully. Always.

@tire1 , you may be covered, despite what the police say. Look at any policies which cover you and the vehicle carefully. If you want further advice, drop me a PM.

Dean

 

[Root 66 Woodshop]

Something which you haven't covered is that if you're towing commercially with a combination of over 3.5t then you'd fall within tacho regs. So either be running a tachograph or be relying upon one of the exemptions meaning you didn't have to. This is perhaps why the insurer didn't see fit to cover - their policy seems to mirror the entitlement to drive.

That doesn't explain why the car he attended it was also uninsured, can't answer that one.

Either way the moral still stands, you're better finding out before you're stopped.

Not me, the engineer - it's his own vehicle

Anyways - it was something to do with both him and his son being on the two vehicles - which rendered both insurances void due to the towing. The van was only a little berlingo style van and the car was another citroen.

 

[smallclaimsassistance]

The change people have seen is that insurer behaviour has become substantially more aggressive in the last 10 years, not only in relation to third party claims, but also in relation to claims from their own policyholders, for loss and for indemnity for third party claims.

PS: In the news today, excellent example of said behaviour:

Facebook blocks Admiral's discount plan.

What no one is reporting (probably because only those who have worked in the industry know it goes on), is that most insurers, and not just Admiral, have for years been routinely accessing the social media accounts of innocent claimants to try to catch them making comments to friends which would undermine the veracity of their claims. In other words, you suffer an injury, trivial or catastrophic, and the insurer is very likely to access your Facebook account and try to use your comments against you. Despite many years in the industry, I still don't know how they access your account, but I don't believe informed consent is involved.

The reason given publicly is "Admiral says that firstcarquote offers a way for young drivers to identify themselves as safe rather than having to wait years while they build up a track record and a no claims bonus"

Just think about that for a moment. This behaviour has been going on for much of the last 10 years, and is one of the favourite insurer anti-fraud investigation methods. Unless they plan stopping use of your Facebook accounts for this purpose as soon as this policy is rolled out, why have they not mentioned this as a reason?

Because they don't want you to know.

Please don't consider this a rant, as it's not. It is intended to serve as an illustration of my comments above, with an everyday news story from today's news, thus demonstrating that, when I said above

we are all aware that there is a race to the bottom in terms of car policy premiums, benefits, add-ons (and meerkats) and what all must understand is that these come at a price. That price can only be found by reading the small print, and if you don't do so, you could suffer life changing penalties if you, or a driver authorised by you, accidentally injures someone else. Read the policy carefully. Always.

I mean it. You have no idea. Actually, that's wrong. After the Facebook story, you now have a much better idea.

With insurance, especially now, ALWAYS read the small print.

Dean

 

[The Byre]

Dean has handed us an excellent run-down of the state of play at the moment.

My only 'point-of-order' (if that is the expression I am looking for!) is that for decades and possibly a few centuries, cheating insurance companies was regarded by many as a kind of people's sport.

"Sorry to hear about your carpet shop burning down last week, Sid!"

"Shush, you fool! Not last week, that's next week!"

Add to that, the fact that people are in the UK, hopelessly and totally over-insured (IMO). They are insured against every stupid little thing you could imagine. The household pets have health insurance, the household contents is insured. The business contents is insured. Even if the car cost less than £10k, they buy fully comp insurance. They buy stupidly expensive smartphones and the very first thing they do, is insure the damn things. Instead of being sensible and NOT living on a floodplain, they live on a floodplain and expect to get flood insurance as a right!

Bonkers!

As a result of this crazy behaviour, far too many people think the insurance companies own them something back.

"Jeez Alice, we're spending £5,000 a year on insurance. I know! Let's get something back and fake a claim!"

Life is full of risk. Live with it! And, instead of wasting thousands on stupid and pointless insurance policies, look after your stuff!

 

[MikeJ]

As a general rule - insure what you are legally required to, and insure what you could not comfortably afford to replace.

I was offered insurance on a £20 kettle a few years ago.

 

[Gecko001]

If all it took to get insurance to drive a car is to be a named driver on a policy that someone else is paying for on their particular car then it would be just a charter for people to drive whatever car they wanted to do without paying a penny of insurance.

Maybe it is a case of if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[webgeek]

6 points, 300 quid fixed penalty plus the cost of recovery/storage. This is not one you'll be able to contest and get dropped.

 

[Ian J]

people are in the UK, hopelessly and totally over-insured (IMO). They are insured against every stupid little thing you could imagine.

I was chatting about this the other day and mentioned that whilst the house and it's contents are all insured if the lot burnt down I'm not sure that I could claim as I probably wouldn't remember who it was insured with.

Similarly my important files are automatically backed up to the cloud but I can't remember which particular piece of cumulus they are backed up to

 

[cjd]

Has he got any options if so, what are they? What will happen in the court when he go there? What is maximum punishment he will get and how can it be kept as low as possible?

If he gets a fixed penalty notice in the post, pay it and be glad. It will come with 6 points.

If he has to attend court, he needs to plead guilty straight away. If he contests it without a defence - which he seems not to have - he pays higher costs and loses a 1/3rd discount on the fine for a guilty plea.

The fine on a guilty plea is Band C based on his income. So if his income is £25,000pa he'll pay £480 plus costs of £85 and a surcharge of £48. Plus the 6 points.

It's a tough law.

 

[Don Smith]

I was chatting about this the other day and mentioned that whilst the house and it's contents are all insured if the lot burnt down I'm not sure that I could claim as I probably wouldn't remember who it was insured with.

Similarly my important files are automatically backed up to the cloud but I can't remember which particular piece of cumulus they are backed up to

I wouldn't worry about it. We had a house fire ten or so years ago. Like you didn't have a clue who we were insured with. However with the fire brigade they also send a victim support unit and with a quick phone call they had our insurance details and got authorisation for boarding the windows and emergency accommodation, they also arranged for a claims handler to contact us first thing in the morning, which actually happend. I don't know who they called to get our insurance details but there's obviously a database somewhere.

As for you backup's, keep them in a metal container in a room as far away from your computer as possible. So many people keep their backup discs sat next to the computer which is not ideal should you have a house fire. Personally I wouldn't just use the cloud.