Driving Quiery

[hammerman]

Friends son, 19, passed driving test a year ago got pulled over a week before xmas whilst driving his mates car to "see what it's like" despite having no insurance. His mate, the car owner was in the car and fully legal.

The lad was very remorseful and was even crying at one point. Apparently, they didn't take his details (?) and he's heard nothing from the Police yet.

He would almost certainly lose his licence but having not heard anything, how long does does it take for the Police to sort it out?

[yogi-bear]

If the police didn't take his details, it's highly unlikely to be chased up. He could of said he was trying out the car to, perhaps, buy it...Did he?
Did the police take anyone's info details or was it just a slap on the wrist?....

[Baldric]

Would be rare for the Police to ignore Driving without Insurance imo.

[yogi-bear]

It is very important for your friends son to remember exactly what the police officer told them.....and what decision they had come too....he/she would have informed them .I
Bearing in mind it's been almost three/four weeks since, I think nothing will happen, as your friends son would have received a letter in the post by bow, if he was asked to submit his details.

[yogi-bear]

^^now, not bow

[New Judge]

If he is convicted (or accepts a Fixed Penalty offer) for driving with No Insurance he faces six points. His full licence will be revoked but he can apply for a new provisional one immediately. He can drive (subject to its conditions - 'L' plates and an accompanying qualified driver) but he will have to take his test (both parts) again.

If his details were not taken the police will struggle to take further action. Though, as Baldric suggests, it would be most unusual to treat No Insurance with a slap on the wrist.

The offer of a Fixed Penalty (if it is to be made) should follow within a couple of weeks.

[New Judge]

I forgot to add that if they decide on court action instead, they must begin that action within six months of the date of the offence.

[hammerman]

Thanks everyone. It does make me wonder if the lad is telling his mum the whole story but he's adamant he didn't give any details. This was a month ago. I'll get the Mrs to dig a bit deeper.

[Kidas]

It *might* be that the friend (car owner) had fully-comp, so another driver would have been insured for at least 3rd party Fire & Theft.

I wouldn't know, but I think sometimes (normally?) if the owner is fully insured, then someone else driving with the owner's permission is insured to the minimum level.
Maybe the Police were putting the fear of the law into the young driver - and it seems to have worked...

[yogi-bear]

Apparently, they didn't take his details (?) //

It's that part, New Judge, that's a bit baffling....if no details taken...and it's been 4 weeks plus since the incident ...after totally that driving without insurance is hardly going to be overlooked, just that with the lads reaction... crying etc, was any conpassion shown?
Hopefully, hammerman will clarify.

[yogi-bear]

^^ agree totally. ..predictive text is pants!!

[New Judge]

"It *might* be that the friend (car owner) had fully-comp, so another driver would have been insured for at least 3rd party Fire & Theft."

Not many policies (particularly those covering younger drivers) have an "any driver" extension these days.

[Guilbert53]

I dont think Fully Comp gives the right for anyone to drive your car.

[furrypusscat]

Does your friend's son have fully comp cover for his own car if so he could be driving legally by driving under his own insurance but 3rd party only for his mate's car.

[New Judge]

"I dont think Fully Comp gives the right for anyone to drive your car."

No it certainly doesn't, Guilbert. It has to be specifically provided under the terms of the policy and most policies do not provide it.

I have seen many drivers fall foul of this misunderstanding and end up with six points.

[New Judge]

"Does your friend's son have fully comp cover for his own car if so he could be driving legally by driving under his own insurance but 3rd party only for his mate's car."

That's a more likely possibility. Such terms are not limited to comprehensive policies but once again there has to be a specific clause permitting it. Also once again, such clauses are less likely on policies for younger drivers.

[furrypusscat]

My policy covers me for fully comp for my vehicle plus 3rd party only for driving a vehicle with the owner's permission which isn't owned or hired by me. I have held a policy for numerous years if that makes a difference.

[ABerrant]

... although the last few posts fly in the face of the stated "despite having no insurance"

[Arrods]

I believe the lad's friend is also, potentially, committing an offence of allowing someone else to drive their car uninsured.

[New Judge]

He certainly is. And the penalties for "permitting" are the same as those for "doing".