Driving ban question

[Kymmy]

Why?? I didn't say what I answered? and even if I did answer 20 then I have actually answered truthfully based on the question..

I have though tested it out and answered both and came up with the same premium... but as we own a traders policy that covers use for bikes and cars it is a mute point it's just that as we were talking about licences I just thought I'd ask that question as it's been bugging me for ages

[WHISTLED]

If you answered 20 in relation to a standard car policy it would invalidate the policy and a claim would almost certainy fail.

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yep. No license or insurance and your car is removed under Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.

Being slightly pedantic here, but no licence would mean no insurance - and therefore liable to seizure of the car. No licence per se wouldn't mean seizure of the car.
A condition of the insurance policy is that you hold a licence for the vehicle insured - hence if you have no licence, or an expired licence, disqualified, or provisional licence and are driving without a qualified driver - then you invalidate your insurance and you have no insurance - hence seizure of the vehicle.

---------- Post added at 22:33 ---------- Previous post was at 22:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Why then doesn;t the question specify FULL CAR LICENCE...instead it always just asks for FULL LICENCE... which before I passed my car test I held a full licence...

There's no difference between a full car licence and a full motorcycle licence apart from a catagory..

It's just all so confusing Anyway before I drag this more off-topic I've asked in one of the motorcycle forums I belong to as one of the other mods is an insurance journalist

I think they mean how long have you held a licence for the class of vehicle which you wish to insure.

I have the reverse problem - a car licence for some 30 yrs which includes moped, but when they ask how long I have been riding a moped, then I have to say truthfully only a couple of years.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

There is talk of the roadside machines being accepted as evidential samples (at least up here in Scotland) as they are pretty accurate these days. Far better than the old crystals in a bag. As far as I know that is still at the discussion stage and everyone over at the roadside is carted off for a go on the intoximeter.

These machines only determine whether the suspect is over the legal limit. It does not determine how much.

---------- Post added at 00:42 ---------- Previous post was at 00:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Wayfair

They don't ask for your licence details when you apply for insurance only when you make a claim, so you can have apply and pay for insurance but it would be invalid if ever needed, although he could of had insurance for a car he owns while being a provisional licence holder.

Insurance companies do ask and they check with DVLA at the inception of the policy. When they find out you have lied, the insurance is invalidated and you will be reported for fraud. This is a criminal offence and the police are informed.

---------- Post added at 00:47 ---------- Previous post was at 00:42 ----------

Originally Posted by AndyCambs

Being slightly pedantic here, but no

- and therefore liable to seizure of the car. No licence per se wouldn't mean seizure of the car.
A condition of the insurance policy is that you hold a licence for the vehicle insured - hence if you have no licence, or an expired licence, disqualified, or provisional licence and are driving without a qualified driver - then you invalidate your insurance and you have no insurance - hence seizure of the vehicle.

No exactly correct. If the driver has no licence then he would not be insured to drive any vehicle. However, the car itself would still be insured and therfore still be legal to be on the road.

---------- Post added at 00:53 ---------- Previous post was at 00:47 ----------

Originally Posted by blackthorn

I`ve tried googling for an answer to this but I`ve not had much success so I`m hoping someone on here might be able to clarify this for me.
One of my staff at work was off the other day and when he returned to work he told me that 2 days previously he was followed from the local supermarket to his house by the police. He said, that they followed him because he failed to use an indicator at some junction. When they got to his house, they could smell alcohol and breathalysed him, which he failed. (This is what he is telling me btw). I asked him what happened next, he said the police took his car away to the compound. I asked him if he was arrested and he said no because he fully admited to drinking and driving. ( I find that a bit weird ). He appeared in court the next day where he tells me that he has been given a 18month driving ban.
Right I have a couple of problems with this guy now. We all work at an outdoor shopping centre, which is private property. Part of his job is driving a mini road sweeper and a small mule which tows a jetwash. None of these vehicles have license plates or road tax (not needed). He tells me that the police said he was ok to carry on driving these on our site but I am not so sure. My main worry is, that he sweeps the carparks, where the public have access. So what I am asking is, what are the laws on this situation ?
Also, if anyone can tell me if it is normal procedure to take someones car away when stopped for drink driving. I would understand them taking it away if say he was stopped on a road miles from his house but he was at his own house when they done him.

From the very inconsistent account of his experiences, I would think that he has some alternative motivation behind this. Could he be swinging the lead? Has he been unhappy with the task of driving this sweeper and thinking that if he told you he had been banned from driving, you will take him off this task?

[AndyCambs]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

No exactly correct. If the driver has no licence then he would not be insured to drive any vehicle. However, the car itself would still be insured and therfore still be legal to be on the road.

If the driver of the vehicle is not insured, then the vehicle will be seized. If I insure my vehicle for me alone, and another person drives that vehicle who is not on my insurance, and who does not hold any other motor insurance, then the vehicle is seized. Section 165 of the Road Traffic Act.
I would have to pay a release fee, plus storage. But a valid certificate of insurance for the person collecting that vehicle must be produced.

The only excuse would be that the car was taken without my permission, in which case the driver is then guilty of taking without consent - or theft of the vehicle as well as any other offences.

A certificate of insurance generally covers only specific people to drive a car - insured only, insured and spouse, insured plus named individuals. It is possible to get any driver - but these are very much more expensive, as the insurance companies are not able to assess the risk to the car.

[rogerdraig]

i will hazard a guess that the offence occurred a while back and he was hoping it would go better for him in court than it did so he only told you once he got the ban

but hey i am not right every time

if the vehicels you use have no number plates its most likely ok but i would check with your insurers

you can ask see thecourt documents which might clear things up and i would get advice before sacking him

[EBD3000]

If you are unsure on the situation I believe you can request information from the DVLA.

[AndyCambs]

I think there are two questions really
1 - is the guy telling the truth about his story (and I think it's not likely to be a complete and whole truthful story).
2 - if there is no driving licence, is the guy ok to drive the company motorised vehicle around the company property. Answer to this, depends entirely on the requirements of the company and the insurance company they use. As it's not on a highway (road or public pavement) then the RTA 1985 doesn't apply. But that doesn't stop caveats from the insurance company requiring people to have licences, or for the company to insist on it. Simplest way around it is to ask all people who do this job to present their current licence for insurance purposes on a regular annual basis.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

These machines only determine whether the suspect is over the legal limit. It does not determine how much.

The ones in use with a number of UK Police forces display the alcohol reading and not just a PASS/FAIL.

There are discussions ongoing to accept the evidence of these machines in court for prosecution purposes.

[lucy7]

Update ?

Has the truth come out yet?

[Charlie_Bubble]

Originally Posted by rogermevans

i will hazard a guess that the offence occurred a while back and he was hoping it would go better for him in court than it did so he only told you once he got the ban

but hey i am not right every time

if the vehicels you use have no number plates its most likely ok but i would check with your insurers

you can ask see thecourt documents which might clear things up and i would get advice before sacking him

I think you could be close to the truth. I certainly don't think the guy is telling the whole story.

[superbiatch]

Originally Posted by superbiatch

I was a witness to a drink driver last January and it still hasn't gone to court, although i think its down to the CPS dragging their feet. I have to go and ID the guy next week at a local police station.

This guy wasn't driving the car when arrested, he'd got himself home but i was so worried about his driving i took it on myself to phone the police and give them his registration. I never expected to hear anything again, how wrong i was! As i'd given them the make/model and reg no, they basically had all the info they needed to go to his house, and when he answered the door the policeman told me he was completed intoxicated. They breathalysed him there and then and performed a few tests on the car to prove it had been used recently, temperature of oil etc.

The guy was Polish and didn't speak very good English and he was 2.5 times over the limit. He was arrested immediately and the police came back to me that night and took thorough statements.

After initially admitting it, he's now gone back and said he hadn't been driving - obviously someone has made him aware the police have to prove he was in the car, which is where i come in. I hope to god i remember his face, but somehow i think it will come flooding back when i see his face as he nearly ran me off the road twice before mounting the kerb

I'm going to do a 'video still' ID parade on this today