Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: highchiro on July 22, 2024, 02:07:28 pm
-
It would help, if you intend to defend it, to get a witness statement from the driver explaining her side of things. The problem is that the prosecution may contest the statement which would require her to attend but if it was kept fairly neutral and not make too many assertions it would help the case I think and may be less likely to be contested.
-
It's not boolean ("binary" now has it's own meaning).
If the OP's sister believed that she was insured, then she believed that the implied condition of the permission was satisfied and therefore believed that she had his consent. Whether she would be able to understand the previous sentence is another matter.
-
...The key word is 'permitting' you did not permit it,...
So was the vehicle taken without consent, then?
-
... In the meantime, i'd get the driver to ask for a recording from the insurance company from when they phoned and confirmed drive other car was in place. The key word is 'permitting' you did not permit it, teh driver not only told you they was insured they took additional steps to check they was insured. That is not a defence for them, but it is a defence point for you...
Isn't it a problem that the US insurance company never cofirmed that the OP's sister was covered because - for some God unknown reason - she never thought to mention she was visiting the UK and that that was where the cover was needed? Any recording from the insurance company is likely to confirm that she wasn't covered rather than that she was.
I'm all for the OP pleading not guilty - if charged with permitting to drive without insurance - on the basis that his sister assured him that she was covered and he had no reason to disbelieve her. But I don't think a recording from the US insurer is likely to help that plea.
I'd also be concerend that a court might consider that most UK drivers would know that a US policy would not cover someone driving in the UK.
(If I were the OP I'd want my sister to pay any fines and increased costs stemming from this...)
-
I suspect that wont wash as the letter I have had sent to me says "its unlikely if the hold a policy where they live, that it would cover them to drive in this country". And turns out they are right.
Maybe, maybe not. But lets not shoot yourself in the foot just yet. If anything it shows that your belief they was insured was in good faith. Let them make the decision. They might just accept it with the other documents they've asked for.
In the meantime, i'd get the driver to ask for a recording from the insurance company from when they phoned and confirmed drive other car was in place. The key word is 'permitting' you did not permit it, teh driver not only told you they was insured they took additional steps to check they was insured. That is not a defence for them, but it is a defence point for you.
The reason for the letter saying 'are you sure' is because a number of people name a foreign driver to try and get out of it when it was them themselves driving, the letter is a chance for them to see the error of their ways. Hence the request to see proof they was in the country. Obviously in your case it is genuine.
-
Case law on permitting is inconsistent. In a case where the driver told the keeper that they were insured and asked to borrow the car, it was found that the permission was conditional upon the driver being insured, and as they were not, the implied condition was not satisfied and therefore permission had not been given. In another case, the keeper asked the driver if they were insured and the driver incorrectly told the keeper that they were. The permission in that case was found not to be conditional. It is widely considered that the second case was wrongly decided.
-
Is genuinely being told by the borrower they are insured (to be fair without me doing any further checks) actually a defence for this?
Unlikely.
I suppose I need legal advice.
You just had it, for free too!
-
Sorry, it’s only coercive on someone inclined to lie… as noted the wording is due to the number of people who claim a foreign driver as a ‘wizard wheeze’ to get off their own speeding offence, you know you named the right person so this can’t be considered coercive.
You know who was driving, to lie now carries the very real risk of circa twelve months in prison, so the reality is you’re going to have to accept you messed up and take the punishment (and hideous insurance premiums coming).
-
Newjudge thats pretty fair response. Horrible situation admit genuinely believing my sister was insured when I find out today she wasnt, and get stuck with 6 points and £300, or have made a "mistake" as the police are suggesting and get a speed awareness course. It is coercive IMO as it does encourage someone not to tell the truth.
I get they must get many people trying it on, but from the otherside it certainly encourages the genuine ones to be untruthful.
Is genuinely being told by the borrower they are insured (to be fair without me doing any further checks) actually a defence for this?
I suppose I need legal advice.
Thanks eveyone who has replied.
-
Whats slightly galling (this is my first NIP letter) is the coercion to make me say it was me.
Where is the coercion to say it was you?
As above, to say that you were the driver when you know you were not is attempting to pervert the course of justice. That inevitably ends in jail time, even for MPs:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/11/chris-huhne-vicky-pryce
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-47040912
I'm not sure they would succeed with the strategy of "...we were unble to accept your previous driver nomination without these details." The law requires you to provide "...such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police." You've done that. You do not need to give proof that they were in the country or that they were insured to fulfil that obligation. However, they can ask you to provide proof of insurance cover and if you cannot provide it they can take action.
The police are naturally sceptical when they receive a nomination involving a foreign driver. By giving you the opportunity to consider whether you have made a mistake they are, in my view, giving you the chance to nominate who really was driving in the event you made a false nomination. It's their way of not getting too heavy when they suspect a false nomination was made. They do the same if (say) the driver was clearly male from their evidence and a female was nominated.
That is clearly not the situation you are in, but it seems you are very likely to be stuck with the no insurance allegation.
-
Hard one to prove I would have thought, if she was going to then didnt and a "genuine mistake" was made. Kind of not the point though.
-
I would suggest maybe the inference of a "mistake" is in.. are you sure your sister was driving AT THE RELEVANT TIME, however if you were to realise she in fact wasn't that would still leave you open to the possibility of allowing to drive uninsured as you have admitted she (at dome point) drove the vehicle.
-
If persued the permitting will typically be £300 and 6pts if dealt with via fixed penalty.
-
I suspect that wont wash as the letter I have had sent to me says "its unlikely if the hold a policy where they live, that it would cover them to drive in this country". And turns out they are right.
Whats slightly galling (this is my first NIP letter) is the coercion to make me say it was me. Please provide proof Mrs xxx was in the country and had insurance. The onus is on you to provide these details, and if you cannot provide them it leads to additional more serious offences being conidered. However we were unble to accept your previous driver nomination without these details. We have enclosed a new for in case you have made a "mistake". Seriously oops I accindetly contacted my relative in California, got copies of her lisence etc etc by mistake.
Why dont they just openly say we want your £100 for the least effort possible.
-
As it stands at the moment i'd send them the American certificate, which assuming they are like the UK ones, will state drive other car cover on there and play dumb for now.
-
Yes they have asked for insurance details, thats prompted the post on checking only today have we realised she wasnt insured.
-
Do I now say I was driving to make this go away as its a less serious offence
You'll find that perverting the course of justice is a considerably more serious offence.
-
Do I now say I was driving to make this go away as its a less serious offence
That would be a very stupid thing to do .....and would potentially involve a jail sentence. In the circumstances, do you think they would believe you ?
It is your responsibility to ensure anyone driving your vehicle is insured to do so - you say "they" (we assume the police) asked for proof she was in the country, have they actually asked anything about her insurance cover ( yet) ?
-
My sister was on holiday from the USA. She phoned her insurers who said she had 3rd party cover, but didnt say she was in the UK. We both thought she was insured. Subsequently she got caught speeding 71 in a temporary 60mph. I nominated her as driver. They have asked for proof she was in the country which I have provided. She then checked her insurance (she is back in the USA) and she has now told me the insurers were wrong she was only third party covered for vehicles in the USA.
Do I now say I was driving to make this go away as its a less serious offence or is this a defence for letting someone (unknowngly) drive my car uninsured which seems like a worse offence to me. I am 54 and only ever had one speeding ticket this is all new to me.
Thanks