Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Provisional Licence Holder not accompanied-Insurance valid?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
43 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   CoolHand1960

CoolHand1960

    I'm New !

  • Newbie Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 11:04 AM

I would like the answer to this question which has been really bugging me - Is a provisional licence holder insured in the event of a claim if driving whilst unaccompanied?

Lets say he is a named driver on his wife's insurance and the car is in his wifes name on the log book. Would she also be aiding and abetting him if she knew of this offence and also if she denied knowing of the offence is he taking the vehicle without the owners consent?

But my main question is he insured in the event of a claim?

#2 OFFLINE   jamieMET

jamieMET

    UKPOLICEONLINE Associate Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 11:10 AM

No, because they would be driving on an invalid lisence (being unsupervised)

#3 OFFLINE   The Black Rabbit

The Black Rabbit

    UKPOLICEONLINE Full Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 11:41 AM

I would like the answer to this question which has been really bugging me - Is a provisional licence holder insured in the event of a claim if driving whilst unaccompanied?

Lets say he is a named driver on his wife's insurance and the car is in his wifes name on the log book. Would she also be aiding and abetting him if she knew of this offence and also if she denied knowing of the offence is he taking the vehicle without the owners consent?

But my main question is he insured in the event of a claim?



Not on your life!!!!!

#4 OFFLINE   blueb

blueb

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,777 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 04:36 PM

As most insurances say they will cover if the person holds or has held a driving licnece, then more likley to be covered than not. The non comp;iance in the OP would be equally valid of the learner had no rear L plate, but would you really expect the Ins Co to void the cover in those circs? Non compliance with one rule does not negate the Ins - otherwise all drink drivers would commit the offence.
As for the llater options of aid/abet or theft then you are looking for more options and chances of the driver not being covered.

#5 OFFLINE   explodJP

explodJP

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 04:58 PM

The insurance would still be valid , allthough it would only cover third party (insurers decision) .
With regard to second part, the wife would either be permitting or the driver would be twoc , twoc is really keepers consent , as the keeper is the person responsible at law , not neccessarily the owner .
If it turns out to be twoc then keepers insurance would not be liable .

#6 OFFLINE   SimonT

SimonT

    -

  • Account Closed
  • 7,290 posts
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 01 April 2010 - 06:20 PM

Provisional with no one else there us driving otherwise in accordance. you dont get cover while doing that

#7 OFFLINE   Grumpy275

Grumpy275

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 08:48 PM

I believe ExplodJP is right.
When I was in training I passed a comment about Insurance being invalid is a not too discimilar senario. My Skipper told me I was wrong in the comment I had made, which was based on public idea. I was told that the third party component of the insurance could only be stoped by cancellation of the policy. The comprehensive component might be void but not the third party risks.
As for aiding . It is my opinnion that if the wife allowed the named driver to use the vehicle on the understanding the driver had a supervisor then she is not commiting an offence. I dont believe the law can hold her to account for the non compliance of the driver If on the other hand it can be dhown she knew that would put a different slant on things.

#8 OFFLINE   5panky

5panky

    UKPOLICEONLINE New Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 01 April 2010 - 11:42 PM

The insurance would still be valid , allthough it would only cover third party (insurers decision) .
With regard to second part, the wife would either be permitting or the driver would be twoc , twoc is really keepers consent , as the keeper is the person responsible at law , not neccessarily the owner .
If it turns out to be twoc then keepers insurance would not be liable .


Sorry but the insurance is NOT valid, it clearly states that a provisional driver has to be accompanied in the car by someone holding a valid full uk license.

If they are on their own in the car they are not driving in accordance with the license conditions and that would immediately invalidate any insurance.

It has nothing to do with the level of cover, thats like saying that if someone has fully comp ins and has to wear glasses, that if they forget their glasses they are only 3rd party......doesn't work that way......I know because I have first hand experience of this and it cost me alot of money!!!

If the owner of the car gives consent to the provisional driver to drive without supervision they are commiting an offence aswell unless they were led to believe the driver had a full license.

Edited by 5panky, 01 April 2010 - 11:46 PM.


#9 OFFLINE   Soren

Soren

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 07:16 AM

Insurance will normally cover third party risks in this case.

#10 OFFLINE   Bluebird

Bluebird

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 448 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 11:24 AM

You have to remember that insurance companies will find every little reason not to pay out. Iv known them to refuse to pay out for less

#11 OFFLINE   Grumpy275

Grumpy275

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 11:39 AM

5panky

Revisit this after you get in and have had some guidance. I dont mean this unkindly but Soren is right some insurance companies make their money on the claims they dont pay.

In fact you dont even have to have insurance.

Rog

#12 OFFLINE   The Black Rabbit

The Black Rabbit

    UKPOLICEONLINE Full Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 01:27 PM

C'mon people, wake up and smell the coffee!

Insurance Companies are there to make money, not throw it away. They only need the slightest reason to invalidate/withdraw cover when faced with a claim.

If, for example, you simply changed the radio in your vehicle for a better model, this could come under the category of a 'modification' and without informing them, this could invalidate your insurance in the event of a fire/theft claim (Ive known people who have had similar happen).

Driving without the proper licencse is a no brainer. If you were the insurance company, would you be prepared to take what may be a significant loss in the event of a claim, bearing in mind the Share-holders dividends, or would you refuse to pay out?

'You've got to have Bubbly at the share-holders party' :w00t:

#13 OFFLINE   linus2

linus2

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Interests:Moaning about stuff

Posted 02 April 2010 - 01:35 PM

There is a massive difference between the insurance company refusing to pay out and not having insurance through it being invalidated.
It's all in the wording of the policy. Mine says "holds or has held a licence entitling the insured to drive such a vehicle, and is not disqualified from driving".
A provisional licence is such a licence, therefore the insurance company would have to honour 3rd party risk, which is all that is required in law.

#14 OFFLINE   blueb

blueb

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,777 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 03:35 PM

Sorry but the insurance is NOT valid, it clearly states that a provisional driver has to be accompanied in the car by someone holding a valid full uk license.

If they are on their own in the car they are not driving in accordance with the license conditions and that would immediately invalidate any insurance.

It has nothing to do with the level of cover, thats like saying that if someone has fully comp ins and has to wear glasses, that if they forget their glasses they are only 3rd party......doesn't work that way......I know because I have first hand experience of this and it cost me alot of money!!!

If the owner of the car gives consent to the provisional driver to drive without supervision they are commiting an offence aswell unless they were led to believe the driver had a full license.

Are you saying that the need to be an accompanied learner is on the insurance certificate or do you mean it is part of the Motor vehicle (Driving Licence) Regulations. If you mean the former then if that is what is said on the policy, I would agree. If you refer to the conditions for a provisional driver, then I would disagree with you.
Your comment about dropping from fully comp to 3rd party oly highlights that even failing to copmply with the insurance policy, they still appeared to have provided 3rd party liability, which after all, is the minimum legally required. Dropping from fully comp to 3rd party is not an offence.

#15 OFFLINE   firestick

firestick

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 174 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 04:35 PM

The insurance company will honour the third party.

#16 OFFLINE   Grumpy275

Grumpy275

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 779 posts

Posted 02 April 2010 - 09:57 PM

Are you saying that the need to be an accompanied learner is on the insurance certificate or do you mean it is part of the Motor vehicle (Driving Licence) Regulations. If you mean the former then if that is what is said on the policy, I would agree. If you refer to the conditions for a provisional driver, then I would disagree with you.
Your comment about dropping from fully comp to 3rd party oly highlights that even failing to copmply with the insurance policy, they still appeared to have provided 3rd party liability, which after all, is the minimum legally required. Dropping from fully comp to 3rd party is not an offence.

blueb

You do not have to have insurance "by law". I said this earlier and was waiting for someone to jump on it.

The fact is if you have a lot of cash available you can deposit a sum with the treasurey (I think) and obtain a certificate of Indemnity.

I have only seen two of these certificates, one I carried when driving an MoD vehicle.

THere is so much misunderstanding regarding Insurance I think this is how some companies manage to get away with disallowing claims. It would be interesting to see what the percentages are for claims paid against disallowed.

Rog

#17 OFFLINE   SimonT

SimonT

    -

  • Account Closed
  • 7,290 posts
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 03 April 2010 - 10:33 AM

Im still a but unclear, though my traffic knowlidge is poor.
If you are provisional and you are alone surely you are driving whilst otherwise in accordance. I have seized plenty of cars for peope doing same when they have no license as no license = no insurance.

i cant see why any insurance comany would entertain paying anything if someone has driven without a full license holder in the car. its definately an offence.

#18 OFFLINE   explodJP

explodJP

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 12:28 PM

The insurance company has to cover the third party liability, (by law) ,as they have taken a contract to , which if you think about it they are paying out due to some fault on your part, eg without due care, failure to maintain etc , but they can refuse to pay your loss, , and frequently do . HTSH

#19 OFFLINE   gloryhornet

gloryhornet

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 03:23 PM

Im still a but unclear, though my traffic knowlidge is poor.
If you are provisional and you are alone surely you are driving whilst otherwise in accordance. I have seized plenty of cars for peope doing same when they have no license as no license = no insurance.

i cant see why any insurance comany would entertain paying anything if someone has driven without a full license holder in the car. its definately an offence.


Surely in that kind of case you seized the car for 'no licence' not 'no insurance'? It's the same law. This assumes of course they are named on a policy of insurance for that vehicle. If so they can't be said to have no insurance. As said above the insurance company will almost certainly refuse to pay out for anything but third party expenses but that doesn't invalidate the whole policy.

#20 OFFLINE   The Black Rabbit

The Black Rabbit

    UKPOLICEONLINE Full Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 04:24 PM

The insurance company has to cover the third party liability, (by law) ,as they have taken a contract to , which if you think about it they are paying out due to some fault on your part, eg without due care, failure to maintain etc , but they can refuse to pay your loss, , and frequently do . HTSH


A contract is a mutual agreement, and both/all parties have to fulfill their part of it.

It could be deemed that the driver forfeited said 'conract', by driving on a provisional license whilst not being accompanied by a qualified driver etc, contrary to any contract made. Thus making the 'contract' null and void :unsure:

#21 OFFLINE   explodJP

explodJP

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 03 April 2010 - 07:30 PM

They are unable to revoke or cancel the third party part, subsequent to a liability, otherwise they could just use your failure of any sort , to not pay out to the third party which would negate the whole reason for having a third party ( otherwise known as road risks only) insurance requirement which is a requirement of the road traffic act . The only exemption being a statutory deposit system as mentioned in a previous post .

#22 OFFLINE   flabber-my-gast

flabber-my-gast

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 729 posts

Posted 04 April 2010 - 09:00 AM

I think the insurance would cover third party damage. The majority ive seen state the insurance is valid as long as the person has a licence to drive that category of vehicle and is not disqualified.

Just diversifying ever so slightly. If someone steals my car and smashes another, would it be my insurance that pays for the damage to the other car??

#23 OFFLINE   explodJP

explodJP

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 04 April 2010 - 12:15 PM

If your car gets stolen your insurance will not pay for third party damage ; if you are third party only they wont pay anything to you either.

#24 OFFLINE   SimonT

SimonT

    -

  • Account Closed
  • 7,290 posts
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 04 April 2010 - 12:15 PM

As i am very pedantic i have checked my policy and it very clearly states that if you are not driving according to your license you dont get Any cover at all. None, not one bit.

It even has a section specifically for provisional holders not driving with someone else. you get no cover.

#25 OFFLINE   explodJP

explodJP

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,150 posts

Posted 04 April 2010 - 02:58 PM

Road traffic act 88 s145 on




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users