oops!!!

Considering comments like "at my age" "her indoors" I'm not sure this person
is all that 'young'.

 

Interesting.

Technically/potentially, he's lied to gain insurance, and one of the clauses
is (at least on mine) that the policy is only valid so long as the facts
stated were/are true.

In this case they're not, therefore the insurance company could rightly wash
their hands of it I would have thought.

Which raises the question of if he'd had an accident, would he therefore not
be insured?

 

Well, sort of. But that's not an issue for the police, is it? ISTR
there was a dfinitive JP reply on this some time back but I can't find
it - there are several where he talks about riding other than in
accordance with a licence, and that insurance may refuse to pay out,
but doesn't suggest one would be prosecuted. e.g.
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=

Quite possibly, yes.

Quite possibly, yes.

 

As it's not me (and unlikely to happen to me) I shall flip wibble do and
browse elsewhere ;-)

 

If he was riding someone elses bike (to try it out) then he may have been
covered by his car insurance. My car insurance certificate allows me to
ride someone elses' bike or car under third party cover (my insurance is
fully comp) - so therefore, going to test someone elses' bike would be
covered by my insurance.

 

You're young? You didn't look flipping young when I met you, you looked old,
*and* scary.
~..

 

Rexx wrote in

Nope. He does not have a valid licence to ride the bike as he has a prov.
licence without a CBT pass.

 

You're in the shit,

Yes I should :-( Has this XP service pack 2 that everyone just got buggered
up anyone else's machine or just mine? (It's always the computer's fault).

 

ive just been stopped and given a producer....i was riding my

Explain it then.

 

What is more serious, and may incur a range of penalties, is that

And rightly so.

 

Well, sort of. But that's not an issue for the police, is it? ISTR

It depends on the insurance certificate. If it is a condition of insurance
as stated on the cover note that he have a CBT then he will be riding
without insurance for which he WILL be prosecuted for. If he has lied to the
insurers then there are the seperate offences of deception which would
apply. I'd imagine this would go nowhere, but the traffic CJU will
definitely send him to court for the licence.

And for the record, magistrates can't set precedents or even read hansard to
ajudge what certain phrases in acts are meant to be aimed at. So whatever a
JP says is usually total bollocks anyway. I know one that thought police had
absolutely no power to enter someone's house under any circumstances without
a warrant. Not sure they'd heard of PACE, let alone section 17! Bless them,
they do try hard...

 

DNC scribbled..

Lol, I know that, it's *all* a facade.

/me chips the veneer and peers underneath...

~..
fx: runs and hides under the bedsheets

 

On what do you base this assertion? I know of several cases where
people, including myself (albeit 26 years ago) have been done for
riding vehicles for which they've not passed the test and have _not_
been done for no insurance.

But which would _not_ be ainvestigated by the police unless the
insurance co made a complaint.

NAHAY? Our JP is the final word on all things road-law related.

 

No one reads your posts, either

--
Veggie Dave
UKRMHRC#2 BOTAFOF#08
IQ 18 FILMS http://www.iq18films.com
Extreme Racing http://www.veggie-dave.co.uk
Toxic Shock Syndrome Gets More Girls Than Me

 

Heh.

 

*ahem*

 

Ahh, you're here. So what's the verdict?

 

Can't remember exactly now but I'm fairly sure most policy's ask something
along the lines of "provided you hold or are not prevented from holding a
valid licence....". If this is the case and his car licence includes a valid
provisional for the bike, he hasn't technically lied and his insurance may
well be OK. My understanding is that the CBT is a requirement to be allowed
to ride on the road with a provisional, not a requirement for holding a
provisional, particularly as you have to produce the provisional in order to
take the CBT? Could be wrong however and you'd be best to enquire, on behalf
of a mate of course, with the plod or a friendly broker/DVLA person.

 

Firstly he will not be prosecuted for no insurance. the third party
part of insurance can no longer be invalidated by these sorts of
things - in the same way that it cant be invalidated by an illegal
exhaust etc. Its to stop insurance companies weedling out of a claim
for "minor" reasons. they can refuse to pay out on the insured parties
claims but not to any third party hence it cant be prosecuted in that
way. For a prosecution for no insurance it would take the insurance
company to make an allegation that someone has fraudulently obtained
or made a fraudulent statement. Unless this person has claimed they
already had a CBT (rather than it just being a condition of insurance
that the person will have one which is written into the policy) then
that offence isnt complete - and in anyway they are extremely unlikely
to find out anyway!
When this person produces their documents then it will depend on a
couple of things. If the officer has ticked for CBT then it will get
noticed and he will be reported for driving otherwise than in
accordance with a licence.
If that hasnt been ticked then its up to the front officer clerk to
notice that one is required - if they are civilian there is a good
chance that it will be missed. If they are police or ex police then
the chances are it will be noticed and what will often happen is that
they will issue another producer for the CBT or interview you and
report you
HTH

 

^^^^^ up there^^^^^^