Un licensed driver

leaky5

leaky5

Messages
2,027
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
My oldest was hit in a car park by an un licensed driver, running P plates.

As soon as they got out of the cars she started to plead with him to take a cash settlement.

He spoke to a friend in the insurance industry who advised him to call the police.

Luckily the police station was quite close and they got there pretty quick.

They took it all from there and told my son and she is now in line for 12 points and a court visit.

So she could insure a car and as long as she didn’t do any thing wrong would unlikely to get pulled over as anpr would showing as insured.

My son rang her insurance and they said she was disputing it.

Once he said he has dash cam footage, police report and a witness. They were quite interested to find out she was on her own in the car.

Sounds like they will provide cover for my sons car which is good at least.

But makes you wonder how many others are out there doing the same. Guess she will probably still be one of them.

Also he gave a phone number which he was using as a temp one whilst swapping contracts and her Eastern European boy friend has already tried to contact him.
 
Last edited:
I suspect there are many people out there without licences; some simply because they can't get an appointment for a test, but probably most because they won't/can't pay for lessons etc. P plates possibly provide an excuse for poor driving so as not to draw attention. However all insurance companies require details of driving licences or how many years driving, so either way she must have lied to get the insurance, so I'm surprised (but pleased for you) that they are paying out.
 
My car got hit years ago by a young lad who was insured. His family also contacted me to badger me to take my car to their friendly bodyshop instead of going via insurance. Nope. Not a chance. That was 20 odd years ago. Nothing changes. It seems to be normal behaviour to have a go at the victim and try and make them have cash instead of using insurance.

There aren't enough traffic police out there to pick these people off the roads. If they clone plates of a legitimately owned car and don't do anything stupid it is pretty much impossible to stop them.
 
lindsay said:
I suspect there are many people out there without licences; some simply because they can't get an appointment for a test, but probably most because they won't/can't pay for lessons etc. P plates possibly provide an excuse for poor driving so as not to draw attention. However all insurance companies require details of driving licences or how many years driving, so either way she must have lied to get the insurance, so I'm surprised (but pleased for you) that they are paying out.
Click to expand...
You can get insured as a learner using you provisional license. But then to be legal you need to have someone with you.
She was legitimately insured, if she had a licensed person with her, which she didn’t
 
I think that it's just part of a much larger problem.
1. Insurance is very expensive for new and young drivers, which tempts some to think that they can manage without it. In this case, it wouldn't be too bad because she is required to be supervised, but if she passed her test it would cost a lot more for the first couple of years or so.
2. Driving lessons are also very expensive.
3. The fines imposed by Courts - for the few who are caught - are far too low.
4. Once someone has been caught, they just carry on with the offending, because once she has had her day in Court her insurance costs will go through the roof.
5. The next time she's caught, and probably for the next few times she's caught, the Court will probably just fine her and impose a longer ban, there's very little chance of her being sent to prison. My view is that anyone who disobeys a Court Order should always be imprisoned, but it just doesn't happen.

I think that it's really just about a moral compass - some of us have one, others don't.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I think that it's really just about a moral compass - some of us have one, others don't.
Click to expand...
I agree.

However, we need to ask ourselves why there are so many who lack that compass, or don't have it turned the right way. I think it has been, at least in part, the fault of the "soft left" with their obsession on "fairness". Unfortunately, too many people confuse "fairness" with licence to do as they wish, taking it as permission to override their duty to others.

As the "soft left" are over represented among teachers, this attitude is taught to children from a very young age, with the consequences we see about us. I regard myself as a socialist, with the emphasis on "social" and think that we need to to think very hard about the consequences of not punishing those who harm others, in a way that makes them far more cautious about the consequences of misbehaviour.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
As the "soft left" are over represented among teachers, ...
Click to expand...
Whilst most teachers enter the profession with a vocational desire to improve the lot of children and their future, the reasons for being less focused on discipline and morality is due to several factors:
- teachers are undervalued by society, not just in terms of pay but mores in terms of the respect they are given for the very hard work that they do
- teachers for many years, since the mid-sixties anyway, have been prevented from enforcing discipline with any significant consequences, First by the prevailing ethos of teacher training in the 60's/70's of Jean Piaget (let them learn for themselves, experimental learning) and then the attention to allocating syndrome titles to any form of bad behaviour, then most of all the problem of aggressive parents' attitudes to their children's bad behaviour and lack of interest in learning. I'm not talking about corporal punishment, although it did have a sometimes useful impact on behaviour, because violence cannot be condoned in any scenario. But what penalties can be imposed?
- religious education in schools, which in the far past focused on morality as much as Christianity specifically, is now just mostly academic rather than guidance.


IMHO, as one who trained as a teacher in the mid-70's and briefly updated in 2018. Targets now are all-consuming, schools now are largely training children to pass exams rather than to learn and acquire knowledge.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree.

However, we need to ask ourselves why there are so many who lack that compass, or don't have it turned the right way. I think it has been, at least in part, the fault of the "soft left" with their obsession on "fairness". Unfortunately, too many people confuse "fairness" with licence to do as they wish, taking it as permission to override their duty to others.

As the "soft left" are over represented among teachers, this attitude is taught to children from a very young age, with the consequences we see about us. I regard myself as a socialist, with the emphasis on "social" and think that we need to to think very hard about the consequences of not punishing those who harm others, in a way that makes them far more cautious about the consequences of misbehaviour.
Click to expand...
IMO there has been a slow creep (for on excess of 40 years) away from a civil society.......the inconsiderate & selfish are now predominanting.

Having said that it is refreshing to see and indeed be a recipient of courteous behaviour, which I always acknowledge.

The selfishness I see as a pedestrian is often the most galling. Pavements are only "so' wide and setting aside the 'phone zombies', the way groups of 3 or more (from school kids to folk my age) "occupy" the pavement expecting approaching people to yield space is constantly observed.

Equally, when we come up behind such group the "excuse me" is greeted with a sullen surprised look.
As for the 'natterers' blocking the pavement without regard to others!!!!

Personally, I walk with vigilance of what is going on around me especially behind me!
 
Marc said:
I'm a little confused. If she was unlicensed, how did she have insurance?
Click to expand...

when you insure a car a lot of companies don't ask for your licence details you can just lie
or in the above case just say you have a foreign licence etc, or the car could be insured by someone else
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I agree.

However, we need to ask ourselves why there are so many who lack that compass, or don't have it turned the right way. I think it has been, at least in part, the fault of the "soft left" with their obsession on "fairness". Unfortunately, too many people confuse "fairness" with licence to do as they wish, taking it as permission to override their duty to others.

As the "soft left" are over represented among teachers, this attitude is taught to children from a very young age, with the consequences we see about us. I regard myself as a socialist, with the emphasis on "social" and think that we need to to think very hard about the consequences of not punishing those who harm others, in a way that makes them far more cautious about the consequences of misbehaviour.
Click to expand...
Whereas other think that it is the fault of the "soft right" and their obsession with personal rights...
 
But technically she is only insured if a licensed qualified driver is in the passenger seat.
 
Mr Bump said:
when you insure a car a lot of companies don't ask for your licence details you can just lie
or in the above case just say you have a foreign licence etc, or the car could be insured by someone else
Click to expand...

LeeRatters said:
You can insure a car with a provisional licence.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, i was unaware of that.
Norkie said:
But technically she is only insured if a licensed qualified driver is in the passenger seat.
Click to expand...
I think that's what confused me as the OP said she was "running P plates".
 
I’m sure that running P Plates is to identify a recently qualified driver who is classed as provisional for a while.
 
Norkie said:
I’m sure that running P Plates is to identify a recently qualified driver who is classed as provisional for a while.
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware, it's voluntary. It just means that the driver has passed their test within the last 12 moths. If they only have a provisional license, they need to have L plates and an experienced driver (over 3 years) in the passenger seat
 
Marc said:
As far as I'm aware, it's voluntary. It just means that the driver has passed their test within the last 12 moths. If they only have a provisional license, they need to have L plates and an experienced driver (over 3 years) in the passenger seat
Click to expand...
Yeah we are guessing it was all a ploy to divert away from not have the license.

The witness said he saw her remove the p plates soon after the crash
 
leaky5 said:
Also he gave a phone number which he was using as a temp one whilst swapping contracts and her Eastern European boy friend has already tried to contact him.
Click to expand...

andya700 said:
Definitely go no contact and inform the police that her boyfriend tried to contact your son.
Click to expand...
Yes, if your son hasn't already done so, he must tell the police.

Her police bail conditions will/should include not to contact Leaky 5 Junior either directly or indirectly, and this clearly amounts to indirect contact. Police bail conditions (as opposed to Court bail conditions) are pretty ineffective, but it's a separate, serious offence to pervert, or to attempt to pervert, the course of justice.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Yes, if your son hasn't already done so, he must tell the police.

Her police bail conditions will/should include not to contact Leaky 5 Junior either directly or indirectly, and this clearly amounts to indirect contact. Police bail conditions (as opposed to Court bail conditions) are pretty ineffective, but it's a separate, serious offence to pervert, or to attempt to pervert, the course of justice.
Click to expand...
He spoke to them and said it would be harassment if they continue.
Luckily they don’t have his permanent phone number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top