Son ‘misled’ about insurance for his takeaway delivery job

are known as strict liability offences. In other words either a valid policy covers the driver or it doesn’t.

If you have been misled into believing there was a valid policy, when in fact none existed, you would still be guilty of the offencebutyoumaybeabletoargue "special reasons” to persuade the magistrates not to endorse your licence in those circumstances.

In this case, however, your son may have a statutory defence to the allegation given his employment status at the time.

S.143(3)oftheRoadTrafficAct 1988providesaspecialdefencefor employees using vehicles in the course of their employment.

The burden of proof, however, will be on him, on the balance of probabilities, to prove the following:1. That the vehicle did not belongtohim;2.Thatthevehiclewas not in his possession under a contract of hiring or loan; 3. That he wasusingthevehicleinthecourse of his employment, and finally 4. That he never knew nor had reason to believe insurance was not in force.

Usingthevehicle“inthecourse of your employment” would not coveranyprivateuseofthevehicle and he would need to show that at the time he was stopped he was driving as part of his job and not doing anything that could be said to be outside his employment.

Whether driving to or from work could be covered would depend on the particular circumstances at that time.

If he can satisfy the court that alloftheseelementswereinplace thenheshouldbefoundnotguilty at trial.

His employer however may still be liable for causing or permitting him to use the vehicle without insurance.

A conviction for an offence of no insurance carries a mandatory endorsement of between six and eight penalty points or a disqualification of between six and 12 months.