Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

Not me, but someone in my team.  Driving without insurance following very minor accident in a car park.  He was insured with a work hire car to go from point A to B yet decided to do a massive detour in the opposite direction to see his brother.  Unbeknowst to him this invalidated the insurance and has now been summoned to court.  He will be pleading guilty in person so that he can plead exceptional hardship.

I have sent an email details the case with motorlawyers.co.uk who offer a self-representation pack which will detail what he should say to mitigate any punishment.  Basically he's a new driver and if he gets 6 points his license will be revoked which means he stands a fair chance of losing his job, esp in this climate of cuts in my line of work.

I will be going up there to present the mitigating circumstances but I am wondering if anyone here has any experience of this type of thing of getting barristers to help out or will a well-reasoned argument by yours truely be fine?

[CaptainZok]

Has he checked the wording of the insurance?
Whilst company policy etc may forbid him being off route the actual insurance policy may cover his unscheduled detour, unless they are taking the line that he's taken without the owners consent.

[CaptainZok]

To be honest Matt with the possible severity of the outcome on your collegue's career isn't professional advice worth having even if it costs?

[Dishevelled Den]

Unless you personally know a solicitor or barrister and can get advice 'on the side' from them I've always found, over the years, that barristers in particular are reluctant to involve themselves in the absence of a formal brief from a solicitor.

Although the offence is absolute in terms of ignorance being no real defence to law, there can be no harm in putting a case for leniency.

As Capt. Z suggests it would also be helpful to establish if the insurers will or will not cover the claim in terms of the precise wording of the schedule - although now that he has been reported, that point may well be moot.

I would be careful however in being too 'full-on' as your friend seems to have avoided a tug for TWOC which, in the strictest sense, he opened himself to by disobeying the instructions to use the vehicle to go from point A to point B only.

A clear outline of the facts, presented without drama and an appeal to the bench for the plea of leniency to be considered, is perhaps the most that could realistically be done in the circumstances.

[I_want_an_Omega]

I cant see how this has invalidated the insurance as what constitutes "work" and "personal" is nothing to do with the hire company.

Yes, he probably needs a bit of a bo**ocking - but that's one of those growing up moments in life isn't it?

Surely if the Police checked with the hire co then they wouldn't know what it was being used for. Unless of course it was hired using the company insurance and someone is playing hardball with him - which is what it sounds like to me.

[Tony H]

The mitigation in this case may be the answer o.k he is probablty guilty in  however if he stands to loose his job if he gets a ban a lenient magistrate may take that into consideration. On radio 2 the other day such cases were debated, the maximum points one guy had was 54 and he still kept his licence and many more had 20 plus points. The circumstances of the crime seemed to influence the outcome of the penelty in a lot of case. Keep us posted how he goes on.

[Dishevelled Den]

I cant see how this has invalidated the insurance as what constitutes "work" and "personal" is nothing to do with the hire company.

Yes, he probably needs a bit of a bo**ocking - but that's one of those growing up moments in life isn't it?

Surely if the Police checked with the hire co then they wouldn't know what it was being used for. Unless of course it was hired using the company insurance and someone is playing hardball with him - which is what it sounds like to me.

This doesn't be appear to be a straightforward case of vehicle hire Rob.

There seems to have been an arrangement made available for vehicle hire to those within the workforce for specific purposes only.

If it was stipulated that the insurance cover was valid for certain duties/journeys only, then G's friend was in breach of that by going outside this agreement.

[I_want_an_Omega]

I agree that he has breached an internal agreement with his company, but don't see how the insurance can be selective with the hire company  - from the perspective of a Police check anyway.

If this is the case then it should have been spelt out very clearly that you are not insured for any non-business activity - sign here!

[Mr Skrunts]

Maybe a one off, but hire cars are insured under a group policy where as any one can drive the company 's vehicle.  Then a hirer pays an ammount to be covered within that main group policy. (which in turn goes towards the hire companies insurance premium)

So had there been a major accident on the motorway and created a 60 mile detour then how does that affect the insuarce, as the driver still went from A to B, just a longer way round.

[Dishevelled Den]

I agree that he has breached an internal agreement with his company, but don't see how the insurance can be selective with the hire company  - from the perspective of a Police check anyway.

If this is the case then it should have been spelt out very clearly that you are not insured for any non-business activity - sign here!

It may have been government insurance Rob.

[Gaffers]

Ok, seems I have gotten to the bottom of the issue.  It would appear that he was insured!  The department which had been setup to centralise bookings got it wrong.  Spoke to the local office from where the car came from and they said "Here's the certificate".  The central office has since been disbanded, good job as I would be swinging for them right now! 

Unfortunately he already has a summons so we have to go oop north to plead not guilty and show all the evidence.  He's still in trouble with us and will get the full wrath of what I can throw at him but at least he wont get his license taken away and thus keep his job 

[Mr Skrunts]

Good news in a round about way, but a massive lesson learnt by hom and for others to learn from.

Allways make sure and check insurance no matter what you and up driving.

[hotel21]

Does the chap have insurance on his own car and if so, does it give driving other cars cover?  Geussing its a young squaddie and, guaging by the insurance limitations that my own two have (27/24) they cannot D.O.C.

[Dishevelled Den]

Ok, seems I have gotten to the bottom of the issue.  It would appear that he was insured!  The department which had been setup to centralise bookings got it wrong.  Spoke to the local office from where the car came from and they said "Here's the certificate".  The central office has since been disbanded, good job as I would be swinging for them right now! 

Unfortunately he already has a summons so we have to go oop north to plead not guilty and show all the evidence.  He's still in trouble with us and will get the full wrath of what I can throw at him but at least he wont get his license taken away and thus keep his job 

Splendid news all round G - there's nothing like a good old bollocking to clear the air all the same - happy days. 8-)

[CaptainZok]

Looks like you've got a candidate for weeding that parade ground we were discussing General.