Jump to content
Account Notice
  • To post a recruitment query in the "Recruitment Areas" or in the "Force Specific Areas" you will require a Recruitment Pass or a Membership Package. Click HERE to read more.
  • Your Account Is Currently Limited
Alf Ventress

Use, Cause, Permit

Recommended Posts

Alf Ventress

driver A has a policy in place for their own vehicle and is allowed to drive other vehicles.

 

driver A’s boyfriend (B) has a vehicle but no policy at all.

 

driver A takes B’s vehicle out fully believing he has a policy and she is covered on her own (she is not named on another policy)

 

driver A is reported at roadside whilst driving B’s vehicle and the vehicle is seized.

 

Can B (who wasn’t at the scene) be reported re Use, Cause, Permit offences as he allowed A to drive the vehicle and certainly gave them the impression they had a policy.

 

two bites at the cherry???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BlueBob

You confused us a bit in the middle by swooping him/her with A/B. But guessing the options, we are saying car was driven without insurance.  You are saying that the driver has a motor policy but it is conditional thatif they driver another veh, that the other veh must also have a policy in place.  On this occasion, that condition is not met.  How that came about is fairly irrelevant.  Might be mitigation but we still have one car, one driver and zero insurance.

the person driving commits the using offence.  Tick

the owner, if they are  in the veh at the time, are using also.  If not in the veh then they have 2 choices.  State they gave permission to drive so are permitting, or state it was taken without consent so owner has no offence but is the complainant/witness for second offence for the driver.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

SD
9 hours ago, Alf Ventress said:

 

driver A has a policy in place for their own vehicle and is allowed to drive other vehicles.

 

driver A’s boyfriend (B) has a vehicle but no policy at all.

 

driver A takes B’s vehicle out fully believing he has a policy and she is covered on her own (she is not named on another policy)

 

driver A is reported at roadside whilst driving B’s vehicle and the vehicle is seized.

 

Can B (who wasn’t at the scene) be reported re Use, Cause, Permit offences as he allowed A to drive the vehicle and certainly gave them the impression they had a policy.

 

two bites at the cherry???

 

Was A’s policy checked to be sure they weren’t covered? As not all are the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Indiana Jones




two bites at the cherry???



Two cherries, no? Not two bites of the same cherry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Mazza

It sounds like you’re getting confused a bit because the offence is Use, OR Cause/Permit. You don’t use and cause and permit.

You report A for Use and you report B for Cause/Permit. It’s not two bites of the same cherry at all, that’s the whole purpose of the legislation.

Is there any reason you would think you can’t charge for a cause/permit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Alf Ventress

Thanks..sorry for confusing wording..it was late!!

Owner of vehicle B was not present but it is clear (from a very heated phone call at scene) has allowed A to drive with A believing that B’s vehicle has a policy. No doubt it will be awkward when they chat in private about this.

Does B need to be interviewed for this pre-reporting (for cause/permit) as I doubt he would oblige voluntarily? Arrest, due to distance, is not ideal.

TWOC will clearly be defence but in reality, B gave A full consent (they are partners) but just didn’t tell A there was a policy in place.

A, has independent policy on their own personal vehicle (which clearly was not at the scene).

B was not at the scene.

Also, just to clarify—if B hypothetically was at the scene and a passenger—they would both be reported for ‘Use’ as they are in the vehicle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Alf Ventress

Basically, the primary offender in my eyes is most certainly B.

A, clearly should have made sure policy of B’s vehicle was in place but took B’s word for it and really had no reason to disbelieve—genuine shock!

B certainly needs dealing with and 6 points will take their endorsements over 12 when totting up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BlueBob
1 hour ago, Alf Ventress said:

Thanks..sorry for confusing wording..it was late!!

Owner of vehicle B was not present but it is clear (from a very heated phone call at scene) has allowed A to drive with A believing that B’s vehicle has a policy. No doubt it will be awkward when they chat in private about this.

Does B need to be interviewed for this pre-reporting (for cause/permit) as I doubt he would oblige voluntarily? Arrest, due to distance, is not ideal.

TWOC will clearly be defence but in reality, B gave A full consent (they are partners) but just didn’t tell A there was a policy in place.

A, has independent policy on their own personal vehicle (which clearly was not at the scene).

B was not at the scene.

Also, just to clarify—if B hypothetically was at the scene and a passenger—they would both be reported for ‘Use’ as they are in the vehicle?

Okay, the vehicle owner has two choices.  Either they say they did not give consent to drive the vehicle  OR its permitting no insurance.  IT will knot be causing as causing need a bit more persuasion by the owner to encourage/make the driver drive without insurance.

If the owner is in the vehicle as a passenger, then they  commit the USE offence as they are there and using the vehicle.  An dyes, more than one person can be USING the vehicle at the same time.  If the owner is not present then it is just permitting.  Insurance is an absolute offence and with that comes the absolute requirement on the owner as well.  How it goes at court may vary but we are at the hypothetical stage.  As I said earlier, we are assuming that the driver's insurance is conditional.  Many are not but you have set out the criteria which leads to the offences.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


SD

I still don’t think it’s been confirmed A isn’t insured to drive the car. They can drive other vehicles so why are they not covered? Has the policy been seen or insurers spoken to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

BlueBob
39 minutes ago, SD said:

I still don’t think it’s been confirmed A isn’t insured to drive the car. They can drive other vehicles so why are they not covered? Has the policy been seen or insurers spoken to?

I looked on that in this scenario, the driver’s Insurance was not sufficient. The OP is about use/cause/ permit rather than the nuances of cover. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


BlueBob

Alf, sorry missed a bit did you.  The driver is the clear main offender.  If they inew their  ins was conditional on B having a policy, then failing to check it was in place is the key factor

B doesn’t get to use TEOC as a defence.  They make a statement that leaves unambiguous that they either did or did not give consent to drive whilst uninsured. Usually that means the make the TWOC allegation. - typically parents/children partners etc.  They might add their reluctance to attend as a witness but the whole point is consent . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

SD

Even if B says they gave consent they just have to say they made reasonable steps to check. A believed they were insured so why would B think otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


BlueBob
5 hours ago, SD said:

Even if B says they gave consent they just have to say they made reasonable steps to check. A believed they were insured so why would B think otherwise.

Not an problem.  And wouldn’t the easiest and most reasonable step have been to have viewed driver A’s certificate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

SD
7 hours ago, BlueBob said:

Not an problem.  And wouldn’t the easiest and most reasonable step have been to have viewed driver A’s certificate?

 

Do you check the small print of your friends and families insurance every time they borrow your car? I would suggest most people don’t but simply ask and accept what’s they’re told.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


BlueBob
1 hour ago, SD said:

Do you check the small print of your friends and families insurance every time they borrow your car? I would suggest most people don’t but simply ask and accept what’s they’re told.

Not saying what I / you/ we might do.  BUT, when it comes to it, if our friend/family don't have the right docs then that is when it all comes apart.  If we think about it, the only way that a driver, in law, can assume they are insured by someone else is in the employer/employee relationship.  even then, they commit the offence and use the exemption to show their position.  
I understand what you are saying and that is a degree of common sense, now extend it to the less common sensed amongst us.  There is just a small step between you lending me your car and you ask about my insurance ( I am conditionally insured) and simply letting me drive your car and you ask no questions or I even say that I am uninsured.   Insurance is far more than that. And it is not checking the small print on page 27, it's almost always on the front page of the certificate in common language.  

This is one of those things that was highlighted a short while ago in a campaign about potential buyers of a car taking it for a spin before buying it - who is insured or not.  And the press / police were quite clear about the obligations on the seller to ensure that the potential buyer had sufficient insurance cover auto take a car for a spin and the consequences if not. Not sure I see this differs at all from the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

There are 5 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

About us

Police Community was originally founded in 2014 by two serving Police Officers.

In 2016 it was incorporated as a limited company called RAW Digital Media Limited and then purchased 3 other forums; Police Specials, UK Police Online and Police UK to form the largest policing discussion forum network in the UK.

Get in touch

  • 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
  • contact@rawdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • 0844 357 0111
  • Forums In Our Group - Police.Community - UKPoliceOnline.CO.UK - PoliceSpecials.COM - PoliceUK.COM

Twitter

Facebook

    Meet The Team

  • Chief Bakes
    Chief Bakes Management
  • Chief Rat
    Chief Rat Management
  • Chief Cheetah
    Chief Cheetah Management
  • Rocket
    Rocket Global Moderators
  • David
    David Global Moderators
  • Fedster
    Fedster Global Moderators
  • Devil
    Devil Global Moderators
  • MindTheGap
    MindTheGap Global Moderators
  • blakey
    blakey Global Moderators
  • Techie1
    Techie1 Global Moderators
  • Sir Penguin
    Sir Penguin Global Moderators
  • PCW
    PCW Global Moderators
  • Hoofing
    Hoofing Global Moderators
  • XA84
    XA84 Global Moderators
  • Remmy
    Remmy Global Moderators
  • job_done
    job_done Global Moderators
  • Sapor62
    Sapor62 Global Moderators
×