Do uninsured drivers really have no action taken against them?

[-]

iwark6161@reddit

It wouldn't matter of they had his details anyway. I was hit by someone who was being chased by the police. They caught him and he was done for driving with no licence or insurance, failing to stop for police and failing to stop at the scene of an accident. They went to court a year later and got a £73 fine and 6 points on their licence (that they don't have) whilst my insurance went up for the next 2 years 😑 absolute joke.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

No jail time?

Reply

[-]

iwark6161@reddit

Nope, just the fine

Reply

[-]

zzkj@reddit

Insurance did what it's supposed to: paid out for your parent's written off car. What happens to the uninsured driver will happen without you being told about it. If the insurance company want to recover their costs they might sue the 3rd party driver if they think there's a reasonable chance of recovery.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

That's the key, most people driving without insurance know this and have nothing to lose, they play the system and happily live their lives leeching off of society. They should be put in jail and be forced to work until they pay off the damages. It will never happen, but one can only dream.

Reply

[-]

Interrogatingthecat@reddit

I mean that sounds a lot like debtors prisons and we got rid of those for a reason...

Reply

[-]

Izwe@reddit

What was the reason?

Reply

[-]

Chevalitron@reddit

Same reason we got rid of flogging, hard labour and the death penalty. Squeamish MPs.

Reply

[-]

turntricks@reddit

No, it was because we as a society advanced past them and only troglodytes who delight in misery want to take us back there.

Reply

[-]

Chevalitron@reddit

We'll be back there anyway when weak law enforcement gives way to lawlessness, and that gives way to the rule of warlords.

Reply

[-]

Judge_Dreddful@reddit

Lighten up, Francis.

Reply

[-]

Interrogatingthecat@reddit

Believe me, I'm not the person to actually go into detail on the reasoning - I just know that we used to have debtor's prisons and then there was a law passed to ban them (minus very particular circumstances). It's likely that videos or papers about it can be found that will be far better at them than me But in my opinion, the idea of a debtor's prison is otherwise knowable as "A law that only affects those who aren't wealthy". The idea that someone can end up in debt, be unable to repay (let's take for example a single parent who had to go into debt to keep electricity or heating on in the home) and be sentenced to indeterminate labour until their debt (and the costs of keeping them imprisoned) are paid off is fucked. And you'd never see it apply to anyone upper class despite how often you hear about their £15 million debts. It's unlikely that this is the reason the law was originally passed to ban them, but I feel it's a good reason to keep them banned

Reply

[-]

Izwe@reddit

Thank-you, sounds like a YouTube rabbit hole is in my future ...

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

What do you propose? What we have now is clearly not working, when you have a large group of people who break the social contract and don't follow the rules with little to no consequence, then more extreme measures have to be taken.

Reply

[-]

lost_send_berries@reddit

Take the vehicle? Ban them from driving? And/or give them a prison sentence.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

That would be a start, especially the vehicle one and the prison sentence.

Reply

[-]

Potential-Yam5313@reddit

> What do you propose? They don't need to propose anything, my dude. You came up with an idea that is a bad idea, that historically has been shown to be a bad idea. Nobody needs to come up with a better idea as part of that counterpoint. That doesn't mean there isn't a problem. It just means it's a harder problem to solve than *you* thought.

Reply

[-]

Interrogatingthecat@reddit

Thank you for succinctly explaining far better than I could

Reply

[-]

eww1991@reddit

Then it becomes a question of why/how has the social contract broken that these people decided to ignore it. If it's not worth participating in then people are going to just go their own way and act out of self interest. And then how can we work to restore it. But at that point I think we'd be butting quite sharply against this subs rules.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

Serious consequences, that's a good place to start.

Reply

[-]

lonehorizons@reddit

But you know people who break the law don’t first sit down and do some kind of detailed cost/benefit analysis to figure out whether it’s worth doing the crime or not. The US has the death penalty and they still have a massive crime rate.

Reply

[-]

eww1991@reddit

But that doesn't actually give a reason to join in the social contract. It just punishes those who get caught in breach of it. It's not even a cure and it's far from prevention.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

If there is a good chance that you will get caught and face serious consequences, you'll be less inclined to break the law. If there are no consequences and you have no morals, then why wouldn't you? Which is what's happening now.

Reply

[-]

Tractorface123@reddit

But then a lot of the people without insurance also have fuck all to take, most I’ve seen speed about in a £500 banger, get caught and just show up again in another one, probably don’t have a lot at home either if they’re at that point

Reply

[-]

UnacceptableUse@reddit

>This is why you don't drive without insurance Also because you can get pulled over and have your car taken off you

Reply

[-]

TheInterneAteMyBalls@reddit

I was hit by an uninsured German driver (in Germany) and nothing happened. My insurance fixed my car, they deemed it not worth pursuing, and I lost my no-claims. This was around six years ago and I’m still seething over it!

Reply

[-]

FloraLynna@reddit

That’s brutal. Feels like a total failure of the system—your parents do everything right, pay their insurance, and still end up screwed. Meanwhile, the guy without insurance just drives off, no real fallout. It’s infuriating that it can happen, and it’s one of those moments that makes you question why we bother following the rules if there’s so little protection when someone else doesn’t.

Reply

[-]

VerbingNoun413@reddit

!pow

Reply

[-]

Royal_Acanthaceae693@reddit

The FloraLynna account is a content stealing bot. https://www.reddit.com/r/thumbcats/s/R3iuxprKpe

Reply

[-]

Material-Humor9237@reddit

An Eastern European taking the piss out of the system in the UK? Surely not…

Reply

[-]

antibac2020@reddit

They will usually get 6 points and a conviction for not having insurance, a fine as well. So when they do get insurance in future, their premiums will be higher. An IN10 (driving without valid insurance) is pretty much the worst conviction with points you can have. Obviously conviction codes with bans (drink driving, totting up etc) carry even higher risk and therefore higher premiums.

Reply

[-]

original_oli@reddit

Pretty much. Someone will come out and say 'yeah but you can sue them'. Good bloody luck with the states the courts are in.

Reply

[-]

BigRedTone@reddit

Who would you sue? They’ve already been compensated from the insurance. They haven’t suffered a loss?

Reply

[-]

Beartato4772@reddit

The cost of increased insurance for the next 5 years having made a fault claim.

Reply

[-]

BigRedTone@reddit

Theres no grounds to sue anyone for that.

Reply

[-]

Prince_John@reddit

There should be. It's a loss like any other.

Reply

[-]

TheFlyingHornet1881@reddit

The problem is that insurers assess that anyone who's made a claim in the past 5 years is more likely to then need to make an at fault claim than someone who has no claims. It's frustrating for the driver involved, but their potential liability is increased.

Reply

[-]

Prince_John@reddit

That could be fixed by legislation preventing them from doing so in no fault cases.

Reply

[-]

TheFlyingHornet1881@reddit

It'd just whack up everyone's premiums though.

Reply

[-]

Prince_John@reddit

Everyone who's at fault*

Reply

[-]

Grimdotdotdot@reddit

No, everyone's. They'll spread the money they would have taken across the entire customer base.

Reply

[-]

Rexel450@reddit

> They haven’t suffered a loss? Of course they have, OP said they paid a small payment. Will that be able to put them into the position they were in before the accident? If not they are at a loss.

Reply

[-]

pruaga@reddit

Presumably the small payment was what the assessed value of the written off car was. A lot of the cars people drive around in are worth a lot less than they think they are

Reply

[-]

299WF@reddit

This resonated a lot with me - I had a Golf Estate written off many years ago. Rear ended at low speed but just enough to impact the crash bar and deform the chassis meaning it was a total loss. 1.9TDI, mechanically sound, serviced every 5,000 miles or so, 4 new tyres several months previously, chassis rust-proofed annually, but I got just under £900 for it. The first that went through my mind was “it was worth way more than that”, turns out it wasn’t.

Reply

[-]

notouttolunch@reddit

No, it wasn’t (it probably was actually, even now those attract a reasonable sum), but to replace it with something equivalent would cost you much more. There is intangible value in the asset in that you are aware of its history, there is no administration or cost in you accessing it and that you don’t need to spend other money in order to use it (ie a replacement will eat into savings and liquid cash in some way). Intangible value is real and used in accounting to calculate the worth of a business. It would be reasonable to apply it to a vehicle.

Reply

[-]

mh1ultramarine@reddit

It just costs much more to get a like for like replacement

Reply

[-]

BigRedTone@reddit

Who do you suggest they sue?

Reply

[-]

Rexel450@reddit

You said they hadn't suffered a loss. I merely pointed out they had.

Reply

[-]

BigRedTone@reddit

This is a conversation about legal action. If you want to take civil action you need to prove harm, loss or breach of duty. Loss is the only grounds for suing in this case. It’s the insurance company’s job to protect against loss. So if they want to sue that’s who they sue. The insurance company are obliged to pay you the market value of your car. If they don’t then you have avenues with appeals and the ombudsman.

Reply

[-]

original_oli@reddit

In this case, sure. But unless you have bang up insurance, in an accident that wasn't your fault it's on the other person's 3rd party to pony up. Same for pedestrians/cyclists/etc. It's a bit like shoplifting. You're not meant to do it and most don't. If you just bin the rules off though, nothing will happen. So muggins here that does the right thing is losing out.

Reply

[-]

whatmichaelsays@reddit

>"What the fuck is the point of paying insurance?" Let's flip the scenario around - your parents are the ones who hit a van driver. Oops, turns out they decided insurance was a waste of money. So the van drivers insurance deals with his claim. Now, it might be an expensive, brand new van that needs replacing - that's £40k, straight out of the gate. And unfortunately, the van drivers injuries are pretty bad - he's probably going to need some extensive medical care and will almost certainly be off work for at least six months. That could be a few tens of thousands in medical costs and lost income. Just prey that he doesn't need long-term care, because that's a few million to try and find. Oh, and you thought the guys ambulance was free? Oh no, not for a road traffic accident - you'll be getting billed for that. And then what's that? Some street furniture also got damaged in the incident? The council will need that replacing - probably a few £k to replace a lamppost. Then there's just the time of the staff and solicitors just to deal with all this stuff - that ain't free either. Don't worry, the other guy's insurance will deal with their client, but they'll be coming for your parents to recover their costs. Do your parents own their own home? Best get that up for sale. Have they cashed their pensions too? Yep, don't think about spending that until this is all settled either. They'll be financially ruined, but insurance is for chumps, right?

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

So it basically boils down to two scenarios: 1- Are you a productive member of society who made a mistake? If so, we will destroy your life. 2- Are you a career criminal that has never contributed anything to society? Oh well, nothing we can do, carry on you rascal and try to not do it again! *Wink wink

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

How does anyone drive an insured car 'by mistake' ?

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

See my comments below for a few examples, with the way the industry works it could happen.

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

Your examples only prove that some people mess up, it's not the industry's fault.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

It is, you know how you get rid of most chances of that happening? By insuring the car and not the person, like most of the world does.

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

That's a fair point

Reply

[-]

whatmichaelsays@reddit

Not really, no. Firstly, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence. There is no "honest mistake" defence. Secondly, we do not know that the driver in this case hasn't been subject to some form of civil claims by the insurer - and the OP will likely never know.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

But it could be indeed an honest mistake, imagine you go to see a car at a dealership, ask to take it out for a test drive and they say sure, confirming that they are insured. But it turns out that their policy has been cancelled, you get done for driving without insurance. Is it your fault?

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

> Another one: you take out an insurance policy for a day to drive a friend's car, but make a mistake when entering the reg number. Again, honest mistake, but you end up driving witbout insurance. If someone is that incompetent at life, then maybe they shouldn't be driving?

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

You've never made a small mistake like that, really?

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

Not as an adult, no. It's not a 'small mistake' if it invalidates your car insurance. It might be easy to make, but that's why you have to make sure you get it right. It's the sort of mistake people only make if they're lazy or stupid.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

It's a mistake I've never made either, but I can see it happening to someone.

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

Yes, a stupid, lazy or irresponsible person. The world shouldn't adjust to suit them.

Reply

[-]

whatmichaelsays@reddit

In your first scenario, you would have a defence in law and the liability would fall on the dealer or owner of the vehicle. In the second scenario, that is on you. Your carelessness is not a defence. And neither of those scenarios are a "fuck it, why bother with insurance" situation, which is what the OP was suggesting. The question is frankly whether you are happy to take the risk yourself just because there is a small subset of people who can fall through the cracks. And there would be avenues open to the insurer to pursue the driver for a civil claim - we don't know the circumstances so whilst there's a chance you're correct, it's far from certain.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

You would still need to go through the stress of going to court with no guarantee that they will rile in your favor. You were still the one driving. My point is that in those scenarios, where it's not someone willingly and knowingly breaking the law, they still face much worse consequences than the criminals who do it on purpose.

Reply

[-]

spidertattootim@reddit

Whether you do it by accident or intentionally, the effect is the same - you aren't covered for your liability in the case of any accidents. That's why intention isn't really important.

Reply

[-]

Pargula_@reddit

I'm not saying that you are still not responsible for it, just that the law doesn't apply in the same way to all road users and that something needs to be done about it.

Reply

[-]

TheFlyingHornet1881@reddit

Could have been a scare story, but apparently someone a few years above me had insurance voided after a crash and they were liable for an expensive payout. I think it prevented thrm going to uni, wrecked their credit score at 18, and possibly affected their parents too.

Reply

[-]

NevilleLurcher@reddit

> What the fuck is the point of insurance[...]? To protect you financially from damage, be that caused by you or others. In this case, the loss insured is the value of the car, and they've paid out for it.

Reply

[-]

North-Village3968@reddit

But you aren’t protected really, the cost of your premium will be increased for the next 5 years to offset the payout. On top of that the payout is never ever the true value of the car, usually set at about 75-80% of its real value, according to their “books”

Reply

[-]

Interrogatingthecat@reddit

Okay but the alternative would be lawsuits every time someone dinged someone else's car by accident, and in an accidental wreck what are you going to do? The other person may well not be able to pay you back properly - would you rather go for bailiffs, hoping for value, and a payment plan? Or would you rather you had insurance and can shop around for a cheaper insurer if your premiums go up?

Reply

[-]

drplokta@reddit

But they've probably lost their no-claims bonus, which they wouldn't do for a not-at-fault accident where the other driver was properly insured.

Reply

[-]

NevilleLurcher@reddit

NCB is a bonus (hence the name) rather than an intrinsic part of insurance. You can also insure against the loss of NCB if you so wish.

Reply

[-]

spectrumero@reddit

I always found the concept of insuring the NCB amusing. It's insurance insurance.

Reply

[-]

Daveddozey@reddit

Which makes little difference, your premium is still going to shoot up

Reply

[-]

Icy-Tear4613@reddit

If your parents didn't have it then they would have no car and no money.

Reply

[-]

Daveddozey@reddit

Based on my total insurance claims and costs assuming I stuck the money into my pension instead if insurance I’d be 6 figures better off

Reply

[-]

vctrmldrw@reddit

Yeah, but also one mistake away from being 8 figures worse off. People forget that the most expensive risk that insurance covers you for is 3rd party liability. Hitting a kid and leaving them with lifelong care needs will leave you (or your insurer hopefully) on the hook for tens of millions. The cost of fixing your car is the least important part.

Reply

[-]

VerbingNoun413@reddit

And no license to drive said lack of a car.

Reply

[-]

Thebadgerio@reddit

My car was written off while parked a year ago by an uninsured driver. Dude was fined like £100 at court (I have seen the document following a freedom of info request) whereas I am stuck paying £90 a month insurance as the claim is a ‘fault’ claim on my part. *Make sure they recover the costs from the Romanian driver otherwise they may end up with the word end of the stick*

Reply

[-]

Obvious-Water569@reddit

I think you're conflating the role of an insurance company and the role of the police/legal system.

Reply

[-]

Alternative_Froyo_22@reddit

england has no police... they are sooo understaffed and busy, that they cant catch most of them

Reply

[-]

Pogeos@reddit

Everyone who think this is "underfunded police" case are wrong. It is attitude in the pice that pretty much any crime that is covered by insurance - is acceptable.

Reply

[-]

Careful-Swimmer-2658@reddit

Driving without insurance is an offence. But... The police have no money to investigate it and the courts have no money to prosecute it. Frankly you can do what the hell you like on UK roads now and unless it can be detected by an automated camera and the vehicle is legally registered to an address, the chances of getting caught are tiny. To broaden the subject, many police forces have publicly stated they won't investigate any crime where losses are less than a certain monetary figure. If you're a burglar or thief, stay below that number and your activities will never even be investigated.

Reply

[-]

HinataDarling@reddit

Sadly, this can happen. Without proper details to track him down, police might not pursue it, and your parents are left footing the bill. It’s completely unfair—those who follow the rules end up getting burned, while someone without insurance just vanishes into thin air. It’s a massive flaw in the system.

Reply

[-]

This_Rom_Bites@reddit

Last I knew, the Motor Insurers' Bureau would handle the claim and then pursue the uninsured driver to the ends of the earth to recover monies paid out; it was the untraced drivers who were more likely to get away with it. That's in addition to criminal action.

Reply

[-]

NailsOverdrive@reddit

If the police can trace them, they will prosecute.

Reply

[-]

screwfusdufusrufus@reddit

Motoring isn’t really policed in the U.K. there’s not much consequence to crappy driving You can mount the pavement and kill a kid and you stand a good chance of avoiding a custodial sentence and there’s zero chance of a permanent ban. There are thousands of drivers with more than 12 points on the road. So yeah convention dictates getting insurance but you could just join the 4% who don’t bother

Reply

[-]

KeyLog256@reddit

Well, having insurance is how your parents got the value of their written off car paid for. A "normal" person with a fixed address would have fines, points, and possibly be disqualified from driving for that. This is only "no further action" as he's likely Romani and NFA so they can't find him. I'm surprised the police didn't come out to breathalyse and drug swab him to be honest. It's simply a case of underfunded policing most of the time. If you could be bothered to put the effort in you could probably get away with it yourself and dodge the points/fines. But morally, most people wouldn't. I do think this is why car insurance shouldn't be mandatory though. We're paying huge premiums because companies know we *have* to pay it, yet plenty still don't so we're paying for their non-insurance and crashing. If insurance wasn't mandatory, anyone with half a brain would get it still, and it wouldn't be expensive.

Reply

[-]

space_coyote_86@reddit

How would things be any better if the person who crashes into you is even less likely to be insured. I get T boned by an 18 year old with no insurance. My arm and ribs are broken and my car is written off. Now what?

Reply

[-]

explax@reddit

Should do what they do in Australia.. mandatory third party insurance which covers all drivers which insures personal injury but property damage is optional.

Reply

[-]

AnUdderDay@reddit

Insurer held up their end of the contract. They paid your parents market value. Hopefully they have uninsured driver protection so they aren't slapped with a claim and premium rise.

Reply

[-]

custard130@reddit

\> given them a small payment because its not economical to repair it assuming they were fully comp, that "small payment" should have been the value of the car before it was involved in the collision. it would be for the police to persue the other driver for driving without valid insurance / due care / any other crime they may have committed and for your parents insurance company to try and recover money from the other drivers insurance or the driver themselves if they didnt have any whether either of those deliver results essentially has no impact on your parents, and i dont think they would even be told of any outcomes either way, they would have no impact on the decision to write off your parents car or how much payout they recieved your parents insurer deciding the the car was a writeoff has nothing at all to do with whether the other driver was insured or whether their van was seized and sold off to pay your parents, i would strongly suggest trying to get that idea out of your head because thinking they are linked is not going to help you if 2 vehicles collide, there are potentially 2 damaged cars that need repairing/replacing, many people who could have sustained injuries, investigations into who caused it, lawyers fighting that out, etc etc. that can get expesnive very fast to the point that even if a court ordered someone to pay it, they wouldnt have anywhere near enough money available to do so (its not that difficult to imagine a crash causing 100k in damage, but how many people have 100k in cash to pay such a bill) car insurance companies take on that risk, and instead charge customers a premium based on how likely they think that person is to be involved in a collision there is a legal requirement in the UK to have "3rd party" insurance, which means that in a collision, your insurance company is liable to pay the other drivers costs (repairing / replacing the other persons car), in practice the insurance companies will fight it out over who actually pays, but the insurance companies will fight that out not the individuals if you have "comprehensive" / "full comp" insurance, then your insurance company will also pay to repair/replace your car too when an insurance company decides that it is going to be more expensive to repair a car than replace it then it is "written off", in this case they will pay out what they calculate the value of the car to have been just before the crash, in exchange for ownership of the car, when they will then deal with scrapping it, while you use the money to buy a replacement it can sometimes be viable to take that payout but then buy the car back from the company and repair it yourself, maybe you can get better quotes from local garage than the insurers can, or maybe there are bits of the repair work you would be willing to compromise eg not replacing panels just because of a few scratches

Reply

[-]

Cylindric@reddit

The insurance did what it was supposed to. What you're looking for is "justice", and that's a different thing - nothing to do with insurance. Do you think the insurance company is who puts naughty people in jail? Do you think if the other party had insurance your would have got £millions in compensation or something? Frankly naive.

Reply

[-]

dh1805@reddit

If the courts can find them they can face fines, points, bans. How much effort will go into finding them is debatable

Reply

[-]

Soggy_Cabbage@reddit

If they're using a If they don't have a UK licence they can't be given points all they can get is a great big fine from the courts.

Reply

[-]

Shoddy_Reality8985@reddit

https://www.mib.org.uk/reducing-uninsured-driving/what-we-do/ >probably gave false details You don't know this. >No action taken? Let's just say that due to the specific facts of this case, it would be much easier to take action prior to 2020 and leave it at that, shall we? >What the fuck is the point of paying for insurance if there is zero consequence of not having it? [Is it worth 6 points and a £300 fine?](https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance)

Reply

[-]

breadandfire@reddit

But the van was driven with no insurance!!! Why don't the police come out??? 👿👿 So your parents paid for their (mistakes) wilfully not getting insurance and not taking responsibility for the accident. Oh, and increased premiums going further!!!

Reply

[-]

pothelswaite@reddit

You can challenge the amount the insurance paid out. Have a good look at some car sales sites and find some examples of your parents car, in a similar condition. If you can show that it would cost more to replace than you’ve been paid, Send theses details to the insurance and demand they pay out a proper amount. You have to be tough on them but I have done it twice over the years and got a bigger payout.

Reply

[-]

Whippywhipwhip@reddit

The social contract is broken beyond repair in this country unfortunately. No matter what is put in to the system, the public services are all shit and getting worse by the day. I feel for your parents and anyone that has to rely on the emergency services at any point as it feels like a let down for average Joe every time.

Reply

[-]

Fullmoon-Angua@reddit

There would have been consequences if the police had gotten off their arses and actually turned up to apply them to the guy - but him being foreign probably made it look like too much like hard work for them.

Reply

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Reply

Reply to Post

103 Comments