How can a disqualified driver be insured?
Aaron Wan-Bissaka Charged For Illegally Driving
- Thread starter SirAnderson
- Start date
Exactly. In some countries (such as where I live) cars are insured rather than the driver, but it doesn’t cover people who don’t have the right to drive!
In the UK I think it’s usually the driver that’s insured on a car anyway.
I would guess so, since every insurance policy I've ever had lets me drive other people's cars.
He isn't getting much for these charges. Community service at the worst, where he'll coach some kids a few times.
So from what I gather, in the UK you can have a section of your own insurance that stipulates you can drive a third party vehicle (ie. borrowed car) and be covered by insurance. You also need a valid drivers license and permission to borrow the car (obviously).
This feels very backwards to me. In Norway the car in insured, not the driver. For example I can borrow my friend my car, but if my friend crashes, I'll be liable for the insurance cost. If I want to borrow my car to someone under the age of 25 I need to have added insurance to cover the "higher risk" group. The reason we do it this way is *probably' simply because of tradition, but also the cost to insure is better calculated when you take into account the quality of the car, crash test results etc.
The car insurance is still valid if you lose your license, the car can still be driven by someone else and be covered by insurance, what matters is who drives.
The UK way seems like a huge hassle, requiring people who don't even own a car to have an insurance to simply borrow one.
In the UK both the driver and the type of vehicle are part of the calculation of how likely it is for the vehicle to be involved in accident. Lending cars to people isn't something that's really done over here. You can get any car cover but few people feel the need for it. One of my brothers has it but he's a car enthusiast so drive a lot of different vehicles. You can also take out short insurance policies if you really need to borrow a car, starting from 1 hour.
Where I live you cannot be insured to drive on public roads if you are disqualified.
I’m pretty sure it’s a global rule that, whatever your insurance, it becomes invalid when you lose your licence.
It’s all part of the calculation; price, level of risk of the driver, history of claims.
If you borrow someone’s car in the UK, you can actually get 1 day insurances to cover the driver on that car on that day.
So if I drive your car and cause third party damage, then my car insurance pays out and not that of the car being driven?!?! Are you really sure about this? This mean if a couple have one car they need to take out 2 car insurances in order to drive the car? Are you quite sure or should people stop talking about things they have absolutely no clue about?????
If a car causes damage when not being driven, what then?
Not exactly, and that’s not what I said. A couple could have a kind of shared insurance, which would involve one of them being the main policy holder and the other one being a named driver on that policy. But if they are not insured on your car, your partner can’t drive it.
Regarding the first question, it depends on the insurance. If you’re not insured on that car then no insurance company pays out. Your insurance only pays on the car your driving. If you cause 3rd party damage whilst driving a car you’re not insured on, you’re in trouble.
The last sentence on your message was needlessly aggressive / patronising by the way.
And if the car causes damage when not being driven?
I would imagine the policy holder would be responsible. Or whichever clown left the handbrake off.
The car is insured, however damages caused to 3rd parties caused whilst driven by a disqualified driver, drunk driver, doped up driver, etc etc are excluded
Please Google ‘third party motor vehicle insurance uk’ for Gods sake, may God give me strength.
Well I hope either Bailly or Jones are fit enough to be on the bench should he be suspended so Lindelof can cover for him. Dalot looks a recipe for disaster. 
If he’s purposely and intentionally driving whilst banned and uninsured regardless if he has a policy or not the insurer has the right to void the policy, no matter who’s name it’s set up in as he’s clearly tried to just bend the system so he can keep driving.
Who on earth has pissed on your cornflakes? You’re asking stupid questions then acting as though you are the fecking DVLA.
The car is insured in the UK, however you can purchase insurance which insures most cars you drive in, then that policy pays out (rather than the insurance of the car owner). In Norway (and the Netherlands) the car insurance taken out for the car itself always pays out. But the motor vehicle is liable and that’s why it’s the car that’s insured and not the driver.
It’s the driver who does the damage not the car.
Surely when taking out insurance you have to show you are qualified to drive a particular vehicle?
Latest guy to be charged with playing for Man Utd.
Guaranteed if he plays for anyone else this is a non-issue. Our fans in England need to protest.
Guaranteed if he plays for anyone else this is a non-issue. Our fans in England need to protest.
No, there is no requirement to provide proof of your licence. You can insure a car in your name under a provisional licence to use for lessons, provided you have an appropriate person with you in the car.
If in an accident then they will ask for your driving licence to make sure you should be on the road. Might be an idea to do it before handing out insurance.
You potentially could buy a car tax and insure it and have it sitting outside your house with no licence at all. So long as you don't drive it you should be OK.
Not where I live but then I live in the EU not Borrisland!
If you have been disqualified you don’t have a licence. Think about it.
Yet some people don’t think what he did was so bad, so they probably don’t think that people who failed their driver’s tests are very much in the wrong if they drive around anyway (as long as they don’t hurt someone).
The car is liable unless and the driver can be prosecuted in case of an offence. Third party motor vehicle insurance will however exclude damages such as caused by a driver who’s disqualified. You are obliged to insure the car for third party motor vehicle insurance even if you don’t intend to drive the car. Ie somebody who’s disqualified from driving still has to insure the cars he owns by law. Also, cars also can cause damage when not being driven and the blame does not always lie for 100% with one party (car/driver), hence…
it’s obligatory to insure the car by law for a minimum of third party motor vehicle insurance irrespective of whether you are qualified to drive or not!
Case:
Your car breaks down on a twisting tight steep lane in a blind corner. You have to leave the car (too steep and twisty to move it), you call 911 and as you are calling 911 another car crashes in to it causing damage to both cars.
What now?
Your car breaks down on a twisting tight steep lane in a blind corner. You have to leave the car (too steep and twisty to move it), you call 911 and as you are calling 911 another car crashes in to it causing damage to both cars.
What now?
If you own the car and have it on private land you don't need insurance regardless of having a licence.
Such as a forklift truck only used in a warehouse. However, I wouldn’t advise you not to insure a car as you’ll have a well of a job to prove that it’s not being used on public roads.
No you wont, you dont need to have insurance, licence or tax for a car used on private land. Who would even ask you if you have insurance, if the car is on private land?
I think that's correct. Say Mr X has a car that is comprehensively insured, as does Mr Y. The key is that Mr Y's comprehensive insurance carries a 'third party extension' which will allow him to drive another car providing the owner is OK.
So Mr Y borrows Mr X's car and has an accident causing a big financial loss. The police will see that nobody has been driving uninsured but it's Mr Y's insurance which is going to have to pay up as he was driving with the bare minimum of insurance. Usually quite messy.
IF the car is licensed they will..
But it’s the car that’s insured in third party motor vehicle insurance irrespective of which insurance is paying out.
Who are 'they'? The car does not need insurance if its private land, can be driven around with no licence or MOT as well. So long as it doesnt have public access then it is fine.
Speaking if driving offences, remember when Fergie drove all the way home on the hard shoulder because he needed a shit?
after tuesday they should throw away the key.
He actually drove back to Old Trafford after a match, but YES!
I still remember a quote from his lawyer: «The other option was unthinkable»
Edit: There it is, I was almost spot on!
Last edited:
Anyone here got any evasive action stories?