Safe Speed Forums

Can anyone help me urgently please.

This isn't for me but I have offered to help by making enquiries on this site.

If an employer gave you the keys to a vehicle to use on works business.....would you assume he had it insured for said business.

Then subsequently you got stopped, and NO, SAID EMPLOYER ISN'T INSURED.along comes a letter to appear in court for driving with no Insurance......who is to blame in eyes of the law...

Help needed urgently please as time isn't on our side.

Regrads DD.

The employers.

Absolutely. Employees acting in good faith have solid protection in law.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I was always under the impression that it was down to the driver to ensure that everything (including paperwork) was in order before getting behind the wheel?

Even if it is the employers fault, it still doesn't negate the fact that the driver has committed the offence of driving without insurance and the OP's friend will be found guilty of that regardless of who is to blame.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

would it depend on the license the employee had, didn't they change the ruling on categories of vehicles the a new license holder can drive compared to say 10 yrs ago

There is a defence for employess who have been told they are insured. What the exact requirements are, I'm not sure. Asking on the Pepipoo forum is probably a good bet.

No, because if the OP's friend wasn't entitled to drive a vehicle by class then he (or she) would also be up on driving without a license.


According to the OP's question, the driver "assumed" they were insured rather than being told they were insured.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

If your employer tells you to drive then it is fair to assume they're insured, without explicitly badgering them.

I don't think there'll be any problem getting off.

How can the OP's friend possibly escape conviction?

Regardless of the circumstances, a motor vehicle was used on a public road without insurance being in force.
I have no doubt that once it is explained to the magistrates how it came about then the penalty will be minimal, but a conviction has to be forthcoming because the law has been broken.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

By the employer. Read up, you'll see.

The employer didn't drive the vehicle without insurance though, the OP's friend did.

If anything, the employer should also be in front of the beak on a charge of "allowing or causing a motor vehicle to be used without insurance".

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

It's a specific defence in law. The employer commits the offence, not the employee.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Well taking that to it's extreme, does that mean that if my employer tells me to kick the crap out of his business rival then the employer is guilty of GBH?

Don't get me wrong, I too would blame the employer in the real world....but we are talking letter of the law, and we all know that the law sometimes couldn't be further from the real world if it tried.

Do you have a link to UK law that specifically states that being instructed by an employer to drive a vehicle without insurance absolves you of any responsibility?

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Not offhand, but it is well known in certain circles, I assure you.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

The law is :-

If an employed (not just a mate but someone working for a company) driver can prove

a) that the vehcile did not belong to him AND was not being purchased or leased by him OR being loaned to him

AND

b) he was using it in the course of his work (not using for private purposes like moving furniture for his granny)

AND

c) that he did not know and had no reason to believe ( balance of probabilities only) he was not insured

he cannot be convicted

This question is a regular on the Traf Pol's exams

I posted up a series from one exam paper a bit back (Improve section - there's a cluster of them from ca March 2005 ...I think? )

Anyway - one of the fave questions involvs chap stopped whilst driving the boss's car.. only to find it not insured .. as it had expired under the direct debit or was a hire car - hired on basis that firm takes out own inusrance .. and they forgot to add to the list. Lbanghead: (It does actually happen .. numpty middle managers ) Driver claims he was employed and vehicle used in course of the emploment.


The candidate is asked - usually - if BOTH were prosecuted .. with whom does the burden of proof lie?


Well .. .. in the case of the driver.. with the defence.

In the case of the RK /lease holder - the prosecution.


The RTA 1988 S143 (3) provides a statutory defence for an employee - if he or she is using the employer's vehicle without insurance provided that he or she is NOT the owner of said vehicle and if used in the course of the emplyment and he or she had no reason to suspect it was not - er - insured .

BUT .. this burden of proof lies with the employee and the issue is normally judged on the balance of probabilities (case to refer to R v Carr-Briant 1943)

Where the OWNER is suspected of committing an offence of using, causing or permitting the use of a vehicle on a road without insurance - the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to show the driver was acting in the course of the emplyment. The word of the driver taht he or she was doing so will not be enough to convict the owner of the offence of using/allowing use of the car without insurance. (Jones v DPP 1999)

You need to see a lawyer .

We would probably send to crushers here. We are a bit 'ard that way up here in't North. We do proper policing here.. not speed cams as such

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!

Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.

I only know of a similar case where employer had overlooked renewing insurance, and the employee was not even prosecuted once the circumstances had been investigated.

However, in the illustrated case above of an employee being asked to commit GBH, the employee should know he was being asked/told to commit an offence, whereas, the OP's friend was asked to carry out a task with the reasonable expectation that it was legal and above board. In effect he was hoodwinked into committing an offence, and is therefore "innocent" in law.

There is a parallel with the case of drivers who insured with a fraudulently set up insurance agents, who pocketed the money and issued worthless certificates.
If I recall correctly, when the scam was exposed, drivers were warned that they were committing an offence if they continued to drive, and to insure with a reputable company, but they were not prosecuted for the offence they had committed prior to the scam being exposed.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Quite! Let us make no mistake, whilst the current administration would like to reduce every aspect of our lives to a series of binary choices governed by strict liability offences, most in law are not so, and require a mens rea, in addition to the actus reus. Hence the offence is not driving without insurance - you either have it or you don't and if you don't and you drive you're guilty - but knowingly or recklessly driving without insurance (meaning reckless to whether you're insured or not, not the manner of your driving).

If the reasonable man would have no reason to doubt they were insured when driving a vehicle provided to them by their employer then no offence has been comitted by that driver, because only part of the criteria has been fulfilled. Similarly to Ernest's case with the 'fake' insurance; the reasonable man would have had no grounds to doubt the veracity of the documents they had been provided with, and so no offence was committed despite no insurance being in place. Once it was brought to their attention then an offence would have been committed had they continued to drive, since they were now in possession of fact to, at the very least, make them doubt their insured status.

In that case I stand corrected...I was always under the impression that driving without insurance was an "either/or" offence and that was the end of it.

_________________
What makes you think I'm drunk officer, have I got a fat bird with me?

Nice to find that out. Now similar question - hasen't happened , but it could - head office sends out reminder to get van in for MOT. Reminder gets lost. Driver gets pulled for no MOT - but MOT cert always sent by MOT station to firm, no copy given to driver to keep in van: no reminder on windscreen as van is only just 3 year old.

Who is responsible, and how can drivers take steps to ensure van has MOT ??