Discussion:
HELP? - UK Law - RTA involving unsupervised insured provisional driver?
(too old to reply)
g***@googlemail.com
2006-07-29 22:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Hi there,

New to the whole Google Group thing, not posted since back in the heady
ole days of Usenet!... Hope everyone is well, having a blast, and
looking forward to partaking more :-)

I'm looking for advice, experience, info etc. regarding a situation;
I'll try to be brief and would welcome any debate, ideally direct (to
save hogging space!) or through the Group.

For the purpose of the discussion, we ideally should keep this relevant
to English Law.

Say a person was involved in a mild road traffic accident, with no
notable injuries and the damage to both vehicles was slight. Police
were not called at the time, although it's since transpired that one
driver, although being insured as a named driver on a comprehensive
policy, was only on a provisional licence and for the moment of the
accident was driving unsupervised.

Whilst trying to judge the circumstances of the accident objectively,
it seems the provisional driver appears to be likely to be culpable
although there also appears to be fault on both sides. It seems likely
both parties will claim against the other, and there could be
contributory negligence or a 'shared liability' case.

In essence, the provisional driver was turning right at a traffic-light
controlled junction, after checking the oncoming traffic lane was clear
to allow time for her to complete the manouvre, he/she was then struck
by an oncoming vehicle as he/she almost completed the turn out of the
lane. At no time did he/she stall while driving, and sight distance for
the oncoming vehicle was approx 50m in a 30mph zone. Although the
junction was wide enough for any oncoming vehicles to swerve past,
unfortunately this was not the case. It is not apparent if the oncoming
vehicle was travelling in excess of the speed limit, or had moved from
another lane of oncoming traffic (turning right rather than straight
on), but the struck vehicle clearly did not intend to 'cut up' as could
have stayed in the turning right lane until the lane was clear.

Several questions immediately spring to mind

1) Fault apart, is the provisional driver covered by insurance despite
effectively having broken the law by driving unsupervised (apparently
there are mitigating circumstances for this to have happpened)

2) Is it the case that by driving unsupervised, her insurance company
could effectively claim cover was invalid, but cover the claim for the
other party against him/her but deny cover for the other parties claim
against him/her.

3) Do the specifics of the accident, and likely judgement/outcome, have
any fault/settlement/blame affect the provisional driver's right to
cover? That is, if the other driver was obviously at fault, would it be
a different case than one that seems to be a shared liability?

4) Has the provisional driver effectively foregone any legal right to
compensation or insurance claim by driving unsupervised? After all,
there were mitigating circumstances and this was not some 17 year old
tearaway driving with no licence, no insurance, no ownership of the
car. Facts are it was they own the car, have insurance, they are one
week away from a test, have had excellent driving lessons, many hours
of supervised practice driving and it's more of case of ill fortune
than obvious negligence.

5) What course of action should the provisional driver take regarding
the police (would it be prudent to advise the police and effectively
open up to prosecution?) and although insurance company has been
notified, haven't yet decided to lodge a claim until they seek legal
advice & representation.

6) Both vehicles have a relatively low market value, and the damage is
approx a front bumper & 2x scratched headlights for the oncoming
vehicle as opposed to the provisional driver's car bearing the brunt of
the damage (wheel, strut, wheel arch, bumper). The oncoming vehicle was
driveable whilst the struck vehicle was not, estimates appear to
suggest £600 + parts for the struck vehicle (market value 2200) as
opposed to 200+ parts for the oncoming vehicle (market value £3100).
Initial discussions with the insurance company of the struck vehicle
suggest a total loss is likely. An offer has been made of £1000 to the
oncoming vehicle as a full and final settlement, to expedite settlement
without any claims, but this has been rejected.

I would welcome any discussion/correspondence, ideally directly to save
space in the group, and thank you for your time in reading this post,

Cheers :-)
b1ue
2006-07-30 04:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@googlemail.com
4) Has the provisional driver effectively foregone any legal right to
compensation or insurance claim by driving unsupervised? After all,
there were mitigating circumstances and this was not some 17 year old
tearaway driving with no licence, no insurance, no ownership of the
car. Facts are it was they own the car, have insurance, they are one
week away from a test, have had excellent driving lessons, many hours
of supervised practice driving and it's more of case of ill fortune
than obvious negligence.
Regardless of the intention and "experience" of the driver with the
provisional licence, I would be very, very surprised if (s)he is
insured to drive the vehicle. Almost every policy I have ever had or
inspected during my short driving career of 16 years - both of 2 and 4
wheeled vehicles - specifies that I must hold an appropriate licence
for the vehicle. [**] If the licence is only a provisional then there
are certain conditions that need to be met i.e. a suitably qualified
driver being present, failure to meet these conditions usually means
that there is a complete lack of obligation on the part of the
insurance company. After all if a provisional driver driving along a
motorway with a suitably qualified "instructor" on board, would one
consider the driver to be insured in the same way as the above
scenario.


**
In accordance with s17 Road Traffic Act 1991
Post by g***@googlemail.com
5) What course of action should the provisional driver take regarding
the police (would it be prudent to advise the police and effectively
open up to prosecution?) and although insurance company has been
notified, haven't yet decided to lodge a claim until they seek legal
advice & representation.
It is an offence under Para29 Schedule 2 of the RTA 1991 (amendment to
s170 RTA 1988) to fail to notify the police of an accident where a
vehicle other than the one being driven, is damaged.
If the insurance company ask for a police incident number what is the
driver's intention? "Oops, sorry. Was I meant to get one?" While it
is normally the case that the police will take little or no action
when two vehicles collide there is still a requirement to report the
accident. Besides is the provisional driver certain that no other
party (driver of other vehicle or a witness) reported the accident to
the police?



IMO it would be better to "come clean". Report the accident to the
police before someone else does. It is highly unlikely that the
number of points received would result in anything other than a ban
under "totting up" but at least the driver's conscience would be clear
and the minds of properly qualified, insured drivers would be put at
ease knowing that one more chancer had done the right thing.


b1ue






Code Action
Points



AC20 Failing to give particulars or to report an accident within 24
hours 5-10

IN10 Using a vehicle uninsured against third party risks.
6-8

LC20 Driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence
3-6

TT99 To signify a disqualification under totting-up procedure. If
the total of penalty points reaches 12 or more within three years, the
driver is liable to be disqualified
Old Codger
2006-07-30 15:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by b1ue
It is an offence under Para29 Schedule 2 of the RTA 1991 (amendment to
s170 RTA 1988) to fail to notify the police of an accident where a
vehicle other than the one being driven, is damaged.
Are you absolutely sure about that, I thought the obligation to notify the
police was *only* if injury was caused. I have been involved in two
accidents since 1991, both causing considerable damage to each vehicle but
no injury. In each case I claimed successfully against the other driver and
nobody suggested the police should be informed.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make people
believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Toom Tabard
2006-07-30 16:20:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by b1ue
It is an offence under Para29 Schedule 2 of the RTA 1991 (amendment to
s170 RTA 1988) to fail to notify the police of an accident where a
vehicle other than the one being driven, is damaged.
If the insurance company ask for a police incident number what is the
driver's intention? "Oops, sorry. Was I meant to get one?" While it
is normally the case that the police will take little or no action
when two vehicles collide there is still a requirement to report the
accident. Besides is the provisional driver certain that no other
party (driver of other vehicle or a witness) reported the accident to
the police?
Could you explain where it says you must report to police ? The Acts
seem only to require that, where there is damage, you must stop and
give particulars. If you don't, you must report to police. Where there
is injury, and you can't produce an insurance certificate at the scene,
you must report to the police.
I'm not aware of any automatic requirement to report to police. Highway
Code section on 'Accidents' confirms my understanding.

Toom
R. Mark Clayton
2006-07-31 08:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Toom Tabard
Post by b1ue
It is an offence under Para29 Schedule 2 of the RTA 1991 (amendment to
s170 RTA 1988) to fail to notify the police of an accident where a
vehicle other than the one being driven, is damaged.
If the insurance company ask for a police incident number what is the
driver's intention? "Oops, sorry. Was I meant to get one?" While it
is normally the case that the police will take little or no action
when two vehicles collide there is still a requirement to report the
accident. Besides is the provisional driver certain that no other
party (driver of other vehicle or a witness) reported the accident to
the police?
Could you explain where it says you must report to police ? The Acts
seem only to require that, where there is damage, you must stop and
give particulars. If you don't, you must report to police. Where there
is injury, and you can't produce an insurance certificate at the scene,
you must report to the police.
I'm not aware of any automatic requirement to report to police. Highway
Code section on 'Accidents' confirms my understanding.
Toom
Indeed RTA 1988 s170 s2 - damage; s1 & s5 - injury (to anyone else).

The amendment referred to merely increases the penalties for driving
uninsured.

Where I live people complain that the police take ages to turn up to
shootings or armed robberies - how long does blue think they will take to
turn up to a damage only shunt?

R. Mark Clayton
2006-07-30 10:20:50 UTC
Permalink
<***@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:***@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Hi there,

SNIP - circ's

Several questions immediately spring to mind

1) Fault apart, is the provisional driver covered by insurance despite
effectively having broken the law by driving unsupervised (apparently
there are mitigating circumstances for this to have happpened)

IMHO driver turning right is at fault, cover is active.

2) Is it the case that by driving unsupervised, her insurance company
could effectively claim cover was invalid, but cover the claim for the
other party against him/her but deny cover for the other parties claim
against him/her.

Unlikely, although they may try and wriggle. They will have to pay out on
the third party (but might sue the driver), but may resist a claim for own
damage more strongly.

3) Do the specifics of the accident, and likely judgement/outcome, have
any fault/settlement/blame affect the provisional driver's right to
cover? That is, if the other driver was obviously at fault, would it be
a different case than one that seems to be a shared liability?

It won't be shared liability will fall on the driver turning right. If it
was the other way around then the provisional licence holder (or even an
uninsured driver) could successfully claim against the other party.

4) Has the provisional driver effectively foregone any legal right to
compensation or insurance claim by driving unsupervised? After all,
there were mitigating circumstances and this was not some 17 year old
tearaway driving with no licence, no insurance, no ownership of the
car. Facts are it was they own the car, have insurance, they are one
week away from a test, have had excellent driving lessons, many hours
of supervised practice driving and it's more of case of ill fortune
than obvious negligence.

There is an offence, and if the learner tries to evade obvious liability
then the other party may well complain to the police. Fixed penalty or
summons is the likely result. Minor admin offence should not materially
affect cover, although some policies have larger excesses if the driver is
young / inexperienced.

5) What course of action should the provisional driver take regarding
the police (would it be prudent to advise the police and effectively
open up to prosecution?) and although insurance company has been
notified, haven't yet decided to lodge a claim until they seek legal
advice & representation.

No need / undesirable to involve the police and see above.

6) Both vehicles have a relatively low market value, and the damage is
approx a front bumper & 2x scratched headlights for the oncoming
vehicle as opposed to the provisional driver's car bearing the brunt of
the damage (wheel, strut, wheel arch, bumper). The oncoming vehicle was
driveable whilst the struck vehicle was not, estimates appear to
suggest £600 + parts for the struck vehicle (market value 2200) as
opposed to 200+ parts for the oncoming vehicle (market value £3100).
Initial discussions with the insurance company of the struck vehicle
suggest a total loss is likely. An offer has been made of £1000 to the
oncoming vehicle as a full and final settlement, to expedite settlement
without any claims, but this has been rejected.

Offers "completely without prejudice" I hope otherwise your insurer will
definitely walk away. I would think it unlikely that a front end collision
for a vehicle causing that much damage to another car would be as slight as
you suggest. Ask the other party to get two / three estimates or get an
independent engineer (phone book) to go and take a look. Alternatively
offer to buy their car off them at its [pre crash] market value.

I would welcome any discussion/correspondence, ideally directly to save
space in the group, and thank you for your time in reading this post,

Groups don't work like that - knowledge is for all.

Cheers :-)


BTW I disagree with the poster in the other sub thread. The insurer should
know the licence was provisional, and assuming that it is valid for the
vehicle in question then the driver was licensed to drive it, so no offence
of driving while uninsured will have been committed.
Loading...