Any provisional drivers caught yet?
- Thread starter xb_deai
- Start date
briancbyrne
Registered User
- Messages
- 615
yes - on both accounts
They say it is, but know the insurance companies i'ed say they will payout to the 3rd party, but not to the driver if they have comprehensive insurance.
briancbyrne
Registered User
- Messages
- 615
I doubt it very much - that would be commercial suicide.
I work in a brokers and the official word back is that all cover will remain unaffected. The only time they will not pay out (i.e. only pay out 3rd party) would be due to gross negligence / drunk driving / driving under influence of drugs - i.e. things have not changed
Hasslehoff
Registered User
- Messages
- 107
I think an insurer would have to pay a third party but would renege on paying out the insured or owner/driver if they stick to the terms of the insurance contract . If the law applies that a learner must be accompanied and in the event of a claim the driver is not accompanied ,and at fault, you think that the insurers position is to say that they have broken the law but we will not look at that as a way to avoid the policy, you must be joking ! If that were the case what matrix is then used to meaure highly illegal, midly illegal breaches of the road traffic code??? no NCT, baldy tyres, driving without a licence , unroadworthy vehicle. I am sorry but insurance is a contract and if the insurance contract repudiates cover for breaches of the road traffic act well then you will not get paid out (unless this is expressly stated on the terms of the policy). If I have no NCT and another insured has no full driver with them what is the difference , they are now both breaches of the road traffic code, do you need to see how your policy deals with that. I suggest ( as i advised to my niece) that you simply write to you insurer and ask them for a letter clarifying their position on this scenario , like her you might end up driving around with a letter stating that full cover will remain in the event that she befalls an accident while unaccompanied.
OK !
OK !
Hasslehoff has forgotten that is was always illegal to drive unaccompanied on a provisional, with the expection of second provisionals. So using Hasslehoff's logic will all those you have not received payment of an insurance claim due to the fact that they were on a first provisional please stand up?!!
Hasslehoff do you know of many contracts that expressly premit illegal activities? That's like to section of an Income Tax Return that allows you to return income from illegal activities!
This will all die down in a week or two and every provisional driver will be back on the road, which personally I agree with. It's madness to think that the first time a person sits in a car without being accompanied by some they know is the day of their test surely that puts the drivers at a disadvantage as appossed to the old circumstances? I'm assuming that people don't drive with strangers all the much and a driving instructor is there to help you so he's not going to put you off.
Hasslehoff do you know of many contracts that expressly premit illegal activities? That's like to section of an Income Tax Return that allows you to return income from illegal activities!
This will all die down in a week or two and every provisional driver will be back on the road, which personally I agree with. It's madness to think that the first time a person sits in a car without being accompanied by some they know is the day of their test surely that puts the drivers at a disadvantage as appossed to the old circumstances? I'm assuming that people don't drive with strangers all the much and a driving instructor is there to help you so he's not going to put you off.
This advice will be no use to your niece or anyone else. Insurance companies will not give out such letters. These letters are endorsing an illegal action. Has your niece tried this action?
While I did not see it in the new RSA rules, it was reported on TV3 yesterday that unless the "accompanying driver" was insured on that vehicle they would not qualify as an accompanying driver. The logic apparently being that if the accompanying driver had to take over the car they would not be automatically insured. I find this an extraordinary extension which would seriously erode the availability of accompanying drivers and wonder did anyone else hear it.
Hasslehoff
Registered User
- Messages
- 107
Iceman??? "Hasslehoff do you know of many contracts that expressly premit illegal activities?" No , that is my point if you read the email in full. Read the email again,(but to explain to you) My niece has an unenforceable promise from her insurer to deal with a claim in the event that she is unaccompanied , therefore their intention is to pay out the third party and the driver/owner. Just to inform you that illegal terms in a contract are not binding but they only become an issue when those terms are in dispute , READ AGAIN. So if everyone gets paid who will dispute ? This is the practical reality and by the way there were 27 cases last year whereby the insurer reneged cover on a motor policy due to provisional driver clause in the contract.
R
rmelly
Guest
Plus the latest change affects people on second only, it was always an offence for drivers on a provisional other than second to drive unaccompanied, and there was never previously an issue with insurers not covering.
do you think if i advertise for a person with a full licence for the minimum 2 yrs to accompany myself and my children on my daily driving routine and a possible trip to wexford for a holiday,would i get many offers and would the government pay them, because i certainly cant afford it.after all it is the law 
R
rmelly
Guest
do you think if i advertise for a person with a full licence for the minimum 2 yrs to accompany myself and my children on my daily driving routine and a possible trip to wexford for a holiday,would i get many offers and would the government pay them, because i certainly cant afford it.after all it is the law
Did you not know this was the risk you took when you became dependent on your car without a full licence?
I was worried about that as well...
sparkles08
Registered User
- Messages
- 41
Merzie I was actually wondering the same thing myself
actually i didn't, iv been driving 13yrs and never had an accident or a near miss and i have yet to be passed on my test. as far as i knew the law up to yesterday was anyone on their second provisional or over didn't need a full licence driver beside them. maybe i got that one wrong
A person on a second provisional licence didn't need to be accompanied by a fully licenced driver, but anything subsequent to that (e.g. third prov licence) did require a fully licenced driver beside them.as far as i knew the law up to yesterday was anyone on their second provisional or over didn't need a full licence driver beside them. maybe i got that one wrong
R
rmelly
Guest
Yes, it was second provisional ONLY that didn't need to be accompanied. Have you sat the test at all?