Vehicle Handover, Duty(S) Of Care?

[HenryFord]

Hello, I work in the vehicle movement industry. So briefly what we do is get paid to move vehicles from on place to another. We drive the vehicles. The process is simply this, a customer asks us to collect a vehicle from point A and deliver it (by driving it) to Point B. We send a driver to collect the vehicle and he collects and delivers it to point B. My question is this...should point A check that a driver is licensed and insured before allowing them to drive the vehicle or is it sufficient for point A to rely on the word of the driver (or the company he works for). Is there any duty of care (legal or otherwise) required by Point A, before handing the keys over to our driver. Thanks in advance

[Buenchico]

I worked as a trade plater for 2½ years and the firms (or individuals) that I collected vehicles from never required me to prove that I held the relevant driving licence, nor that I was covered by 3rd party insurance. (Indeed, I was often expected to accept a vehicle which would have been illegal to drive. It wasn't unusual to be told that "You don't need to worry about the MOT, mate" or "OK, yes, it has got four bald tyres but you'll be alright". People got quite uppity when I refused to accept such vehicles!).

However, should a case come before a court, it would be up to that court to rule upon what constituted "to cause or permit" (unless there was a relevant precedent that could be referred to)

Section 87(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states "It is an offence for a person to cause or permit another person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising that other person to drive a motor vehicle of that class".

Similarly, Section 143(1)(b) states "a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place 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"

My view is that a court would rule that, should a driver accept a vehicle when he didn't hold the relevant licence and/or insurance, it was the firm that sent him to do the job, rather than the firm he'd collected the vehicle from, that had 'caused or permitted' the offence. i.e. it's up to a firm employing trade platers to check that a driver holds the correct licence and to ensure that either the driver or their own firm has taken out appropriate insurance cover.

However (unless there's a binding precedent) a court must consider each case individually, so there could possibly be certain circumstances where the firm handing over the vehicle could be held liable though (although I certainly can't think of any such example).

[Zacs-Master]

Surely there's some paperwork involved sent by your head office to the customer which checks these things?

[New Judge]

My view is somewhat at odds with 'Chico's.

When you are "keeping" a vehicle (i.e. you have it in your possession, have the keys, are responsible for its security, etc.) it is incumbent on you to ensure that each and every person who you allow to drive it is licenced and insured. Failure to do so renders you liable to be prosecuted for the "permitting" offences which 'Chico mentions. The person who sent the driver is not the "keeper" of the vehicle and so, in normal circumstances, could not be convicted of the "permitting" offences. The vehicle is not his and is not in his possession so he cannot permit anybody to do anything with it.

Having said that it would be most irresponsible of a company employing people to move vehicles in the way you describe to fail to ensure that proper insurance cover is in place. But I cannot see how they could be convicted of permitting a vehicle - with which they have no connection other than being asked to move it - to be used whilst uninsured or whilst the driver is not properly licenced.

Whilst not entirely the same, imagine this: you buy a car and want somebody else to go to pick it up for you. You send your mate who you know is not insured to drive it. He arrives at the seller's who asks no questions and simply gives him the keys. Who has permitted him to drive whilst uninsured? It cannot be you because you were not in a position to allow him to drive it away or otherwise.

[Buenchico]

NJ:
You might well be right but a couple of points occurs to me:

Firstly, there can obviously be circumstances where someone, who isn't the registered keeper of a vehicle, can 'cause or permit' it e to be driven without a licence and/or insurance. For example, many company employees are permitted to take their works' vans home overnight and at weekends, with the company's insurance specifically covering such use (but not any other non-business use). If such an employee allows his mate to borrow his work's van over a weekend it seems obvious to me that it's the employee who's 'causing or permitting' the vehicle to be driven without appropriate insurance cover and not the (unknowing) registered keeper of the vehicle.

Secondly, vehicles being moved on trade plates acquire a rather unusual legal status in that they effectively 'become' the vehicle linked to those trade plates. For example, if a delivery driver collects a vehicle with the registration number AB 01 CDE and affixes his trade plates, bearing the registration number XYZ 789, it becomes irrelevant as to whether or not AB 01 CDE is taxed and insured, as it's XYZ 789 that must be so. (Road tax is charged on trade plates and trade platers carry insurance covering them to drive any vehicle driven on such plates). So when a delivery company sends the bearer of trade plates to move a vehicle, they're effectively becoming its 'keeper' (since they temporarily 'keep' any vehicle bearing those plates).

[I had a feeling that this was going to get complicated!]

[New Judge]

//If such an employee allows his mate to borrow his work's van over a weekend it seems obvious to me that it's the employee who's 'causing or permitting' the vehicle to be driven without appropriate insurance cover and not the (unknowing) registered keeper of the vehicle.//

No, I'm not talking about the Registered Keeper (RK), 'Chico. I'm talking about the "person keeping the vehicle". They are often two separate entities as you readily explain. Much of Road Traffic legislation refers to the latter (Section 172, for example, where the obligations of the RK and "the person keeping the vehicle" are different). The RK of a leased or company car or van is seldom the "person keeping the vehicle".

There's certainly a (complicated!) argument about a vehicle with trade plates as you describe. I'm still not sure how a company giving the trade plater a set of plates and telling him to go to Birmingham to collect a vehicle enables them to "permit" him to drive it away from Birmingham. But as you say, an argument which m'Learned Friends would no doubt revel in. :-)