Uninsured Vehicle Not At-Fault

[Sengsouk]

I was involved in a car accident, and someone reared in me and pushed me towards the other car in front of me.  The girl that hit me is at fault and has car insurance, however, I am in the process of changing car insurance and do not have insurance at the time of the accident.  Because I am not at fault during this accident, will I be in trouble for not having car insurance at the time of the accident?  Will the girl who is at fault (her insurance) pay for my health and car damages?

[Oneeyedvic]

If you did not have car insurance at the time of the accident and you were driving it or keeping it on a public road then you were breaking the law.

I doubt that her insurance company involved will pay you a penny - they may even report it to the police.

 

Personally speaking, I hope they do and that you get a nice big fine as well as no money from the insurance comany.

[Ding-Dong]

Hear hear - and they should make the fine punitive, and at least double what it would've cost to buy insurance - better still, crush the car.

This may sound harsh, but there really is no excuse to be on the road without insurance. If you were changing insurance, then the new policy should have been incepted as the old policy was lapsed - this is how it works - there is no such thing as being 'in the process of changing car insurance'. You knew you didn't have insurance, and therefore should not have been on the road.

I mean, christ, what if you had caused an accident? or what if you had mown into a bus queue? The other parties would then have had to pursue claims against the Motor Insurers Bureau which takes a lot of time - and guess where they get their funding? Yep, that's right, from a levy against motor insurers, who in turn pass that levy onto to those of us who are conscientious enough to buy insurance. So, you failing to buy motor insurance puts the cost up for everybody else.

Thanks. Thanks a bunch.

And I'll go one further - I don't believe you were 'in the process of changing insurers' - that just doesn't happen: I believe you have regularly driven without insurance in order to save money.

It is about time that driving without insurance had the same stigma attached to it as driving whilst drunk. Would you do that?

And why the hell should the other persons insurance pay for your damage???? You shouldn't have been on the damn road.

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

[Grunty]

I hope you feel better for that Ding-Dong.  I feel better for reading it.

We should also remember that driving without insurance is not only committed by the deliberate actions of people like Sengsouk.  It is also done by people who do not enquire into the cover that they have.  Many women are driving on insurance that only covers their husbands.  Other people use the car for business purposes when they have it covered for social, domestic & pleasure and for travelling to work (i.e. not for popping out to by stationery or to post the works mail, or even to buy milk for the office tea).

[Oneeyedvic]

Grunty - there is something called intent. From the way Sengsouk phrased his/her question there was obvious intent to drive knowing they haven't got insurance.

The examples you give tend to be more ignorant that intended illegal acts. Whilst ignorance is not a defense in law, there should be different penalties accordingly.

As an example, dropping your post off after work, whilst only having sdp (Social, domestic & pleasure) and commuting to and from a fixed palce of work, is hardly the same as someone who deliberately drives with no insurance and should (and I believe would be) treated differently by the police / insurance companies.

[woofgang]

well said ding dong!!

[JudgeJ]

As oneeyedvic says, the question of intent is often cited in court cases. However, whilst for some offences the question of intent can actually result in an acquittal ("I didn't mean to kill him, only to maim him") this is not the case for driving with no insurance.

This offence is what is known as a "strict liability" matter. That is, one either has insurance or one does not. The onus is on the driver to ensure that all the niceties such as driving on business, wife driving on husband's insurance etc., are sorted out. The question of intent may only be used to mitigate the offence.
It would be up to Sengsouk to convince the court that he genuinely believed he was insured, and from what he says he might find this difficult.

He would be better off keeping a low profile rather than pressing anybody for compensation. Although this is not now always the case, in my view you should only be entitled to protection from the law if you abide by it.

[Loosehead]

in a Leslie Philips voice: "ding --- dong" Ding-dong!

[patriciather]

There is such a thing as "inbetween policies"I wanted to change my insurers and the one i was with dragged there bloody feet so much giving my new insurers proof of my "no claims "{4 years plus}in writing that i was uninsured for 2 days ..no i didnt drive without,

[Ding-Dong]

No, in the circumstances described, there is no such thing as 'inbetween polices'.

[patriciather]

Ding-Dong i know what you mean but im just stating a fact that i encountered.No one should drive whilst uninsured.That is why we all know the reason for our insurance going up.

[Ding-Dong]

Fair enough.

I think Sengsouk (and this is only an opinion) has been driving unisured for a long time, and has been lucky to get away with it for so long, which is why I'd like to see stiff penalties.

If his/her annual insurance bill would normally be, say, �500, I'd like to see the fine at least �1,000 - it might, therefore, encourage people to decide its not worth the risk of a hefty fine, and stump up for the insurance (even better, I'd like to see the car confiscated and auctioned or crushed).

As it stands at the moment, a �100 or �200 fine is just simply no deterrent, and is less than an annual insurance premium.

OK, so they get six points - but people who are happy to drive uninsured are also happy to drive unlicensed, so the points don't really bother them: chances are, there's also no MOT, so the cars they drive are potentially unsafe as well.

Hit them where it hurts, and hit them hard - in the pocket.

Interesting that Sengsouk has been quiet on the subject with no attempt at a defence!

[patriciather]

Same thoughts as you -why do the honest loose out?so many scroungers out of work aswell,{goin off the subject}lol ,makes my blood boil!!

[woofgang]

Can I go off the point here a little and point out the other big cause of people driving without insurance when they think that they are insured and that is undeclared illness...doesn't have to be huge or life threatening

[LINCOLN]

Finding it hard to understand why anyone should ask such a question and expect advice. idiot...

[brachiopod]

Sengsouk posting again on this thread? Hardly bloody likely now !!!!

(Hi Picks - long time no....type. How have you been?)

[brachiopod]

Oh, another thing, Patriciather, there is no need for there to be such a thing as "in between policies".
Once the prospective Insured has accepted a quotation, any respectable Insurance company or Broker would normally issue a Cover Note on trust that the information you supplied to them is correct. This means you are then covered whilst full details / proof of NCD are collected.

Expect (upward) adjustments to your premium or even refusal/cancellation of your policy if it turns out that important particulars you provided turn out to be mis-stated, such as saying you have 6 years NCD when you have none, and conveniently forgetting that Drink Driving conviction from two years ago.

[KebabMeister]

I drove without insurance for nearly a year once because of a corrupt insurance broker.  I had just bought my first car (I used my Mum's previously) and went to this broker for my insurance.  I paid �414 third party (back in 1993) and he gave me a cover note so I could tax my car.  I carried on driving but never received my insurance certificate.  Over the next year he gave several excuses and gave me a few cover notes and I being naive accepted it until the end of the year when I went to renew.  He said there were some problems about getting my 1 year no claims.  I then heard about other people have problems so I contacted Norwich Union whom my cover note was with.  They investigated the broker and found that he was pocketting everyones money and not insuring them!  For my first year driving my own car and dealing with insurance, which was totally alien to me, this wasn't a very good experience.  Lucky for me Norwich Union honoured the entire year and gave me 1 year no claims plus assured me that if I had an accident then they would have paid and sued the broker (plus the broker being an official NU representative).  The broker ended up having to pay everyone back plus got sent to prison.  So, I was extremely fortunate to get nearly �350 back (the cover notes had to be paid for) and being legally covered by Norwich Union.  I had to really thank NU for that, the thought of driving uninsured really freaked me out and looking back I should have put more pressure on the broker in getting my proper certificate, but being naive and young and dealing with a criminal it's very easy to be persuaded that things are 'ok'!

[landie]

It's about time the cost of insurance was put on fuel. It would be difficult to escape paying then.

Also the fuel companies could issue credit card type thingys that specified the levy per litre that was due per individual driver to cover the insurance.

[KebabMeister]

You'd just get people buying petrol for each other or using jerry cans.  Plus if someone had a Ferrari and only did 50 miles a year in it, do you think the cost of buying 'insured petrol' would help cover the cost of repairing the Ferrari if it was involved in an accident?

Insurance on fuel would never work and if it did work they'd be so many loopholes around it.