damage to courtesy car - am i liable?

[gbjadyy]

actually if you carefully read my posts you will notice i am actually neither one way or the other and i give may opinions on both sides of the fence unless i know specifically about a particular detail !

[petej2811]

actually if you carefully read my posts you will notice i am actually neither one way or the other and i give may opinions on both sides of the fence unless i know specifically about a particular detail !

 

Which makes me wonder why you post at all since you posts are neither specific, nor in detail.

[Glenn UK]

Incidentally its a defence in law when charged with driving without insurance that the driver could reasonably believed that cover was provided by, for example their employer when driver a works vehicle.

 

It may be that the same defence would be open to someone using a courtesy vehicle.

 

I'm thinking that my insurance cover doesn't cover me for cars hired to me, could be wrong mind.

 

Incidentally re the op, he doesn't have anything to worry about unless he did it and the garage has a witness to the fact.

 

JMHO

 

Glenn

 

PS Jon you'll argue with anyone you will!!! No offence

[JonCris]

Incidnetally its a defence in law when charged with driving weithout insurance that the dirver could reasonably believed that cover was provided by, for example their employer when driver a works vehicle.

 

It may be that the same defence would be open to someone using a courtesy vehicle.

 

Im thinking that my insurance cover doesnt cover me for cars hired to me, could be wrong mind.

 

Incidentally re the op, he doesnt have anyhting to worry about unless he did it and the garage has a witness to the fact.

 

JMHO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

GLenn

 

PS Jon you'll argue with anoyne you will!!! No offence

 

I know...................got to stop it

 

Also it's a mitigation not a defence.......to think you had been provided with insurance........when you haven't..........so there!

[patdavies]

I know...................got to stop it

 

Also it's a mitigation not a defence.......to think you had been provided with insurance........when you haven't..........so there!

 

No, it is a defence. If it applies, you cannot be guilty of an offence to be mitigated. However, it only applies to employers vehicles being driven. It does not apply to courtesy cars in any way.

 

Section 143, RTA 1988

 

143.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

• (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

• (b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

 

(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

• (a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

• (b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

• © that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

[Glenn UK]

Lol Pat/Jon

 

Well i did try, it was a long time ago i had to read RT law.

 

Still thik the OP is in the clear subject to any evidence being produced to the contrary though.

 

Glenn

[gbjadyy]

has to be said here guys!!!

in most cases now there is a very clear difference between a courtasy car and a hire car and the two should not be confused,

most trade insurances these days will have clear guidlines on what is or is not covered dependent on whether the car is a courtasy vehicle or a hired vehicle (hired being for reward or gain)

 

Infact most insurances now will charge a higher premium to the policy holder if they intend to hire the car out due to them having to have a higher level of cover to enable member of the public to use such cars.

 

 

If a car is used as a "courtasy vehicle" the garage would be acting irresponsibly if they asked the customer for any form of money for the use of the car,

[jonni2bad]

gbjadyy - Does this have any relevance what-so-ever to the person who started this thread?

 

They have asked for advice on the question of their liability for damage which a garage claim happened when the car was in their care.

 

I would suggest that you please try and keep to the issues of the thread - otherwise you will be seen as hijacking it and the posts will be deleted.

[gbjadyy]

i think there mybe some relavence as many comments here are being refered to as courtasy car and hire car and they are being treated as the same which they are not (for insurance purposes anyway)

sorry if i am wondering alittle off topic but though it worth mentioning so theres an understanding of differences that can have noticable effects of the legal side of insurance for these cars

[jonni2bad]

The insurance for these cars?

 

What of the actual liability of the OP? How is this affected by the nature of the insurance, and what differences would it make to the OP if the car is called 'hire' or 'courtesy'?

 

Did the garage issue a form to the OP at the start of the period when the car was 'issued' to them, which clearly highlighted the condition of the car?

 

No.

 

Did the garage get the OP to sign anything on return which showed the car as being damaged?

 

No.

 

How can the garage show a court that there is a balance of probability, at the very least, that the OP caused the damage to the car?

 

For all we know, the OP may have damaged it (I do not believe they did, but I am just posing the thought!) but there does not seem to be any evidence that the garage can show either way.

 

Questions about what the car might be referred to or the differences in insurance for each would make what difference, precisely?