|
Post by gasify on Sept 24, 2022 11:32:57 GMT
Does nobody commenting on this know how the law works regarding car insurance? Lets (reasonably) assume that JB is insured to drive his own motor; if we also (just as reasonably) assume that said insurance is Fully Comp, then normally that would cover him (3rd party) to drive someone else’s car. However, that car also has to be insured by the owner for JB’s own insurance to be valid whilst driving it. So it is entirely possible that he borrowed the car automatically assuming the owner was insured and that consequently his insurance would cover him - no problem. As it turns out, the owner (and therefore the car) was not insured, rendering JB’s insurance invalid when he was driving it. And the judge awarded the fine and points because, in the eyes of the law, JB really should’ve checked first. I would imagine there are quite a lot of people who have borrowed vehicles from family members or friends assuming everything was fine & driven without actually having insurance cover. Of it could just be that JB is in fact the Antichrist . . . Hush you, coming on here with your sensible facts! That makes complete sense. However, it is conjecture not factual.
|
|
|
Post by olskooltoteender on Sept 24, 2022 12:50:42 GMT
Hush you, coming on here with your sensible facts! That makes complete sense. However, it is conjecture not factual. Okay - I spent a number of years working in the front office of a busy nick, and dealt with a lot of people who had been reported for what are known as minor traffic offences. There were loads of people who had quite innocently driven cars belonging to family or friends assuming that their insurance covered them, when in fact they were not covered because the owners of the vehicles weren’t themselves insured appropriately. These poor people still had to go to court and receive fines & points because although the magistrates/judges may have been sympathetic, the letter of the law had been broken and so their hands were tied. So my supposition regarding the details of JB’s case may be conjecture, but the legal points are not.
|
|
|
Post by gasify on Sept 24, 2022 17:15:09 GMT
That makes complete sense. However, it is conjecture not factual. Okay - I spent a number of years working in the front office of a busy nick, and dealt with a lot of people who had been reported for what are known as minor traffic offences. There were loads of people who had quite innocently driven cars belonging to family or friends assuming that their insurance covered them, when in fact they were not covered because the owners of the vehicles weren’t themselves insured appropriately. These poor people still had to go to court and receive fines & points because although the magistrates/judges may have been sympathetic, the letter of the law had been broken and so their hands were tied. So my supposition regarding the details of JB’s case may be conjecture, but the legal points are not. The legal point is that he was found guilty and had to pay a fine. The fact that it was only £300 suggests that it wasn't really his fault. Interestingly, there doesn't seem to be much reporting of the facts. Like whose car it was and whose insurance he was or wasn't driving on.
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 24, 2022 18:29:49 GMT
He needs more time on the training ground and less time in court.
Maybe then we would win a few games.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Sept 25, 2022 6:43:54 GMT
I don’t think that is what is being suggested but I also don’t see where the incentive is for a multi millionaire to deliberately drive without insurance to save a few pennies when the repercussions (for someone who constantly needs to drive up and down the country for family reasons) could be hugely disruptive to their daily life. But Joey seems to have got into trouble quite a lot over the years despite being wealth. Joey's wealth does not seem to impact on his behaviour but it does enable him to hire top-drawer lawyers when misfortune strikes. His past misdemeanours are totally different. The only motivating factor to deliberately drive without insurance would be financial and that just doesn’t make sense for someone with millions in the bank. Careless perhaps but the judge has seen it as a genuine accident and gave a proportionate punishment.
|
|