Insured without IBT

daveyjoe

My girlfriend is currently driving around on a 50cc Vespa, she has a provisional licence and is taxed and insured but she hasn't done her IBT.

I know it's illegal to be driving around without having done the IBT but I reckon if she claimed ignorance then a guard would leave her off and just tell her to get it sorted (she's a girl on a 50cc) so I'm not too worried about that. I know from my own experience when I had a provisional that I only ever got asked for my licence anyway, never my IBT (even though I had my IBT).

I'm more worried about the insurance situation, apparently liberty insurance never asked her anything about the IBT. If something happened (bike got stolen, she was in an accident etc..) could she expect to be covered?

bitburger

i know a good few with liberty in the same situation(but bigger bies aswell as small scooters) the guards usually only ask for the permit but i dont know bout in the case of an accident.ive a funny feeling liberty might look for it though if they had a claim.

most of my friends are under the impression its not needed atall since you can drive a car without EDT on a permit

daveyjoe

Thanks bitburger. Anybody know a bit more about the insurance situation? That's the bit I would be worried about.

KwackerJack

I am covered without having done the IBT as I complete the Grade 2 test.

My insurance company have asked me to do my IBT but as I have the grade 2 there not in a rush for me to get it.

If anything happens ask for a recording of the phone call at start of cover. Act stupid and say I she was not asked for IBT proof so she thought she was OK due to it being only 50cc.

Quinn are feckers for that anyway, they wont say anything until your claiming.

madchild

They know rightly what they,re at in liberty as far as they are concerned if she has an incident there will be no payout on their side common practice with them it was no different when quinn had control of the place.

P.C.

daveyjoe wrote: »

Thanks bitburger. Anybody know a bit more about the insurance situation? That's the bit I would be worried about.

You need to read the policy document carefully.

Mr Sheen!

Not a hope they will pay out of she is on an accident. Bit stupid to be driving around like that to be honest.
Insurance companies are great at taking your money!

minidazzler

bitburger wrote: »

most of my friends are under the impression its not needed atall since you can drive a car without EDT on a permit

Explain to them that IBT is so that you are allowed to ride unsupervised.... they are supposed to be supervised at all times on a Learner Permit in a car.

Isn't the wording on most policies such that you have a Valid Licence? And without IBT the licence is not Valid unless you have a qualified instructor?

galwaytt

leppla wrote: »

Not a hope they will pay out of she is on an accident. Bit stupid to be driving around like that to be honest.
Insurance companies are great at taking your money!

That's plain wrong misinformation.

Once you hold a Certificate of Insurance as required by the Road Traffic Act 1963, your insurance company HAS to honour any claim made against it. The insurance company had no choice in the matter.

Now, if they had to pay out a claim they would immediately cancel the policy and then can go after you in civil Court to recoup any monies or losses they've incurred. But that would be a separate civil action and you would face no prosecution from the State for riding with no insurance. The fact you hold the Cert under dubious or false pretences means it's an issue of Contract and one of upmost good faith.

madchild

@ galwaytt

I would imagine then ya would be blacklisted or somethin to that effect which in turn would drive your insurance through the roof would i be right in sayin that?

Mr Sheen!

galwaytt wrote: »

That's plain wrong misinformation.

Once you hold a Certificate of Insurance as required by the Road Traffic Act 1963, your insurance company HAS to honour any claim made against it. The insurance company had no choice in the matter.

Now, if they had to pay out a claim they would immediately cancel the policy and then can go after you in civil Court to recoup any monies or losses they've incurred. But that would be a separate civil action and you would face no prosecution from the State for riding with no insurance. The fact you hold the Cert under dubious or false pretences means it's an issue of Contract and one of upmost good faith.

The Contract states that you declare you hold a valid license, without IBT you dont hold a valid license, therefore you provided false information the contract will be deemed null and void.

Same story with restriction certs for bikes. Many a lad have been insured without producing proof the bike is restricted, its only when the insurance need to pay out that they look for the proof of restriction which they want dated before your policy started . . . not the day after your accident.

blondie990

leppla wrote: »

The Contract states that you declare you hold a valid license, without IBT you dont hold a valid license, therefore you provided false information the contract will be deemed null and void.

Same story with restriction certs for bikes. Many a lad have been insured without producing proof the bike is restricted, its only when the insurance need to pay out that they look for the proof of restriction which they want dated before your policy started . . . not the day after your accident.

You're still wrong. It doesn't work like that.

Mr Sheen!

blondie990 wrote: »

You're still wrong. It doesn't work like that.

According to your theory people can give false information when getting an insurance policy and then still be fully covered at the time of an accident!!!

If was true, it would mean people with a learner permit or even no license could claim they have a full license and benefit from a reduced policy, Same with no claims discount and you could have people insuring R1's as Vespas!!!

Please explain the difference in these false declarations on an insurance policy.

daveyjoe

leppla wrote: »

According to your theory people can give false information when getting an insurance policy and then still be fully covered at the time of an accident!!!

Just to be clear, no false information was given. She was never asked about the IBT. She bought the bike without knowing about the IBT and she insured the bike without knowing about the IBT.

If I wasn't a biker myself then she would never have known about the IBT. They don't tell you about the IBT when you get your learner permit or when you do your theory test either. I wouldn't be surprised if there are lots of people riding around with a learner permit and no IBT simply because they have no idea that it exists. It seems that the Gardaí and insurance companies (well at least the largest company Liberty) don't ask for it either.

P.C.

leppla wrote: »

According to your theory people can give false information when getting an insurance policy and then still be fully covered at the time of an accident!!!

If was true, it would mean people with a learner permit or even no license could claim they have a full license and benefit from a reduced policy, Same with no claims discount and you could have people insuring R1's as Vespas!!!

Please explain the difference in these false declarations on an insurance policy.

Not 'fully covered'.

Third party claims will be settled.
The insurance company can take the insured person to court to get the costs back.

Unfortunately people lie to insurance companies fairly often.
Most get caught out, some don't.

galwaytt

madchild wrote: »

@ galwaytt

I would imagine then ya would be blacklisted or somethin to that effect which in turn would drive your insurance through the roof would i be right in sayin that?

I suspect you are entirely correct on the former, don't know about the latter.

Insurance companies share info. It even asks on your proposal if you have ever been declined insurance before. Once you fall foul of them and have to answer 'yes' to being declined, I'm quite sure you are then in an uphill battle to get a reasonable quote, if any.

Mr Sheen!

P.C. wrote: »

Not 'fully covered'.

Third party claims will be settled.
The insurance company can take the insured person to court to get the costs back.

Unfortunately people lie to insurance companies fairly often.
Most get caught out, some don't.

This seems to be more correct however I would go a bit further than to say they are "not fully insured" I would say Not insured.

The third party will of course be paid out, whether or not that is by your insurance company or the MIBI I think varies with each case.
You will be convicted of non insurance and you will also be chased through the courts to pay back what was paid to the third party.
So your not so much insured . . . .more kind of deferring the payment to the third party.

I have hear of cases with people that ended up not being covered for many stupid small print reasons. One of which was a lady driving a car who was wearing flip flops. She was told they were not the correct footwear for driving!!

galwaytt

leppla wrote: »

This seems to be more correct however I would go a bit further than to say they are "not fully insured" I would say Not insured.

The third party will of course be paid out, whether or not that is by your insurance company or the MIBI I think varies with each case.
You will be convicted of non insurance and you will also be chased through the courts to pay back what was paid to the third party.
So your not so much insured . . . .more kind of deferring the payment to the third party.

I have hear of cases with people that ended up not being covered for many stupid small print reasons. One of which was a lady driving a car who was wearing flip flops. She was told they were not the correct footwear for driving!!

Factually incorrect - pure Pulitzer stuff there........ :rolleyes:

You have insurance - just under false pretences. Failure of diligence on the part of the ins co is not allowed to prejudice anyone else's right to claim off the policy they issued.

blondie990

It is very very rare for an insurance company to actually bother following up with someone to recoup their losses. In the same way as it is very very rare for the MIBI to successfully recoup their money from an uninsured driver.

leppla wrote: »

This seems to be more correct however I would go a bit further than to say they are "not fully insured" I would say Not insured.

The third party will of course be paid out, whether or not that is by your insurance company or the MIBI I think varies with each case.
You will be convicted of non insurance and you will also be chased through the courts to pay back what was paid to the third party.
So your not so much insured . . . .more kind of deferring the payment to the third party.

I have hear of cases with people that ended up not being covered for many stupid small print reasons. One of which was a lady driving a car who was wearing flip flops. She was told they were not the correct footwear for driving!!

The MIBI would not be involved in a case where someone holds an insurance certificate. The MIBI are only involved in cases where the driver does not hold a current valid insurance certificate.

Mr Sheen!

galwaytt wrote: »

Factually incorrect - pure Pulitzer stuff there........ :rolleyes:

You have insurance - just under false pretences. Failure of diligence on the part of the ins co is not allowed to prejudice anyone else's right to claim off the policy they issued.

In order for the policy that you sign up for to be legitimate you must disclose all relavent facts!!
If you do not disclose the fact that you have not done IBT then the policy you signed up for aint worth the paper its written on.

daveyjoe

galwaytt wrote: »

You have insurance - just under false pretences.

I'm not really sure if you're referring to my original post or you're replying to somebody else (as this thread has got a bit flame-y). But... I don't think there are any false pretences involved, she answered all questions correctly and honestly as far as I can tell.

daveyjoe

leppla wrote: »

In order for the policy that you sign up for to be legitimate you must disclose all relavent facts!!
If you do not disclose the fact that you have not done IBT then the policy you signed up for aint worth the paper its written on.

The point is that she didn't know that it was a "relevant fact", nor was she asked about it or made aware of it by the insurance company. You could argue that because she is now aware that it is a relevant fact she should let the insurance company know. But I'm posing a hypothetical question where she still isn't aware of the IBT and I'm wondering what her position would be.

Mr Sheen!

daveyjoe wrote: »

The point is that she didn't know that it was a "relevant fact", nor was she asked about it or made aware of it by the insurance company. You could argue that because she is now aware that it is a relevant fact she should let the insurance company know. But I'm posing a hypothetical question where she still isn't aware of the IBT and I'm wondering what her position would be.

She is driving illegally is the bottom line.
She might get away with it until something happens.

She also wont be able to take her driving test without it.

Its the law to have done her IBT. The way they will look at it is she is a big girl and should know that it needs to be done. The insurance company dont make sure you put a lid on each time you take the bike out either.

blondie990

daveyjoe wrote: »

The point is that she didn't know that it was a "relevant fact", nor was she asked about it or made aware of it by the insurance company. You could argue that because she is now aware that it is a relevant fact she should let the insurance company know. But I'm posing a hypothetical question where she still isn't aware of the IBT and I'm wondering what her position would be.

The position has been stated in galwaytt's posts.

Bottom line though is to get the IBT out of the way as soon as she can.

daveyjoe

leppla wrote: »

She is driving illegally is the bottom line.
She might get away with it until something happens.

She also wont be able to take her driving test without it.

Its the law to have done her IBT. The way they will look at it is she is a big girl and should know that it needs to be done. The insurance company dont make sure you put a lid on each time you take the bike out either.

I'm not disputing that what she's doing is illegal. Just because you do something illegal with your vehicle doesn't necessarily make your insurance void (e.g. you are still insured if your tax is out of date).

The situation is that her IBT is booked for 3 weeks time but in the meantime she needs to commute to work. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's worth the risk or not.

Mr Sheen!

daveyjoe wrote: »

I'm not disputing that what she's doing is illegal. Just because you do something illegal with your vehicle doesn't necessarily make your insurance void (e.g. you are still insured if your tax is out of date).

The situation is that her IBT is booked for 3 weeks time but in the meantime she needs to commute to work. I'm just trying to figure out whether it's worth the risk or not.

She needs IBT to have a valid licence, She does not need tax to have a valid licence.

Its really a decision you have to make yourself. I personally would not take the chance. But I know some who would.

daveyjoe

leppla wrote: »

She needs IBT to have a valid licence...

So you say, but I haven't seen anything that backs this up. It is illegal for her to be on the road without the IBT but that doesn't mean that her licence is invalid. It says nowhere on the licence that it is only valid when accompanied with an IBT cert.

Anyway, thanks for the feedback everybody, it has been very helpful.

Roadskill

Taken from their website.

Will AonInsure.ie provide cover if I hold a learner permit and have not completed the IBT?

If you hold a learner permit and are required to complete the Initial Basic Training Course (IBT) we will not provide cover until the IBT is completed.

blondie990

Roadskill wrote: »

Taken from their website.

Will AonInsure.ie provide cover if I hold a learner permit and have not completed the IBT?

If you hold a learner permit and are required to complete the Initial Basic Training Course (IBT) we will not provide cover until the IBT is completed.

Unfortunately for Aon a few lines on a website doesn't negate the law as stated numerous times throughout the thread.

Roadskill

blondie990 wrote: »

Unfortunately for Aon a few lines on a website doesn't negate the law as stated numerous times throughout the thread.

Yes I understand that. I am just pointing out that they won't insure anyone who hasn't done ibt if it's required. Why not is the question and that is because it's a legal requirement and they know if they accept a policy without it they are accepting that contract and must honour it in the event of a claim. Yes they could persue for their money back but in all likelihood they wouldn't get much if you claimed poverty.

Roadskill

Just some clarification from the Irish Insurance Federation


Duty of Disclosure

"Your duty when seeking insurance to inform the insurer of every material fact. The duty arises when getting quotes for new insurance. It also applies if you look for a variation of cover and at renewal of your policy. Non disclosure of a material fact can invalidate a policy: an insurer can cancel a policy or refuse to pay a claim if you fail to reveal all material facts when applying or renewing insurance."

It does say non disclosure so if you did tell them and they still insure you I don't know for sure.