Driving No Insurance

[dacouc]

Please do not look at the policy wording to see if you are covered to drive other cars.

 

The only document that is relevant to your situation is the "Certificate of Insurance" this is the legal document that confirms your cover for the police and courts.

 

The relevant wording is normally situated in the same section of the Certificate that confirms who is covered to drive. (It's probably in section 5 of your Admiral Certificate)

 

The wording you're looking for is along the lines of "The policyholder may also drive private cars not belonging to him"

 

Read your certificate carefully and report back whether it has wording to the above effect, it's what is shown on the Certificate that is what matters to the police / courts.

[dacouc]

Good point, but haven't we all dealt with clueless imps in various CS depts.

Mind you if they say yes, get them to fax/mail confirmation on headed paper if it clashes with what cert of ins says, if they say no, still check certificate of insurance as dacouc suggests just in case.

 

We just need a yes from Elephant somewhere.

 

Spot on.

 

Asking an Insurer's customer service staff about Driving Other Cars cover is very hit and miss due to the varying degrees of their knowledge.

 

The only thing that matters is whether the Certificate of Insurance says you are covered to drive other cars, the Certificate is a legal document that is governed by the Road Traffic Act as to what information it can contain and that the information it contains is what you're covered for in respect to damage to third parties.

 

What the policy booklet and the Insurance company say about DOC is largely irrelevant as the court should only take notice of what the Certificate of Insurance says is covered.

 

The only exception to this is what's known as a "Letter of Indemnity" which the Insurer can issue in rare circumstances, it's basically a letter from the Insurer confirming that they would have covered the driver against third party claims on X date and X time (Normally the time the police stopped you). Such a letter may be issued for instance when you or the Insurer have entered the the wrong registration number on the Certificate so the police are looking to prosecute as the Certificate does not confirm you're covered but the Insurer felt they were on cover.

 

In summary, it's well worth ringing the Insurer to check as a) you may be covered b) they may make a mistake and confirm you're covered c) they may HAVE made a mistake and feel you were covered, however if they do not confirm you're covered then check the Certificate as this is the relevant document that confirms whether you were covered or not

[dacouc]

I've contacted them and they have confirmed i was not covered to drive other cars Took me 54 years to finally get a license. 30 minutes to lose it My own fault i'm just really upset about it. I'll go to court plead guilty and tell them all circumstances and hope for the best. I have to because i need to pay bit by bit either way.

 

Thanks very for the huge amount of help. Very grateful. Wish me luck

 

Don't take their word for it, check your Certificate of Insurance

[dacouc]

I've checked the policy and the only reference anywhere on it to this is one sentence that says 'The driving of other cars extension is not included for any driver named on the policy.' its not mentioned anywhere else. I called and they said i am not covered. I looked online and it seems Admiral don't cover people to drive other cars. At least most i've looked at said they don't.

 

Admiral do provide cover for driving other cars to most of their customers but do not offer it for certain risk profiles. Google "Admiral Driving other cars FAQ" and you will find their website explaining it.

 

Please do not look at your policy, you need to look at the Certificate of Insurance and most likely section 5 of the Certificate which will give you the definitive answer

[dacouc]

As others have already mentioned, the magistrates are instructed not to avoid giving points where it could affect the revocation of a new drivers licence.

 

It is possible for the magistrates to avoid giving points for some offences with a possible revocation on the horizon, but it's very rare

[dacouc]

Hello there.

 

Would you mind posting a link to where you found the quote please? We're not meant to quote without attributing it.

 

HB

 

Looks like here

 

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/drivingbannewdrivers.htm#Is_there_any_way_I_can_avoid_revocation_of_my_driving_licence

[dacouc]

Found this, which is what I was saying.

 

From a website that makes money by providing motoring lawyers.

 

It's always worth remembering that your lawyer will still get paid whether you lose a case or win a case.

 

Here is the guidance Magistrates have received about issuing a ban instead of points to avoid revocation of the licence.

 

"Drivers who incur six points or more during the two-year probationary period after passing the driving test will have their licence revoked automatically by the Secretary of State; they will be able to drive only after application for a provisional licence pending the passing of a further test (Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995). An offender liable for an endorsement which will cause the licence to be revoked under the new drivers’ provisions may ask the court to disqualify rather than impose points. This will avoid the requirement to take a further test. Generally, this would be inappropriate since it would circumvent the clear intention of Parliament."

 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/8-new-drivers/

 

It's not unheard of for magistrates to go against this advice and not apply points but it is very rare as they've been instructed that it's not appropriate.