Going from a post elsewhere for this question. I’m neither owner or driver, so I’ll ask the drivers.
What’s the drivers view on an operator with no insurance.
===============================
Post edited…
Please read the forum rules on posting just to attract members to other sites… dd.
Do you want to clarify your post so we can understand better what you’re telling us?
Drivers responsibilty to check visually a vehicle is roadworthy ie lights, tyres ect whether owner or employee.
Re insurance, rhe offence is strict liability but…its not unreasonable for an employee to believe the vehicle being used is insured to drive. Some cases can be thrown out leaving the employer to carry the can…
There’s no defence for being caught with a bald tyres. Should have been picked up on a walk round check. It doesn’t happen over night. Nothing to do with not being able to afford a solicitor.
TiredAndEmotional:
Do you want to clarify your post so we can understand better what you’re telling us?
The owner/operator bought his way out of one situation, blaming the system.The same person then allowed an employee to drive a vehicle he knew not to be insured, for which the employee was held accountable because he couldn’t afford to pay like his employer did.
Is that a fair way to operate?
harrawaffa:
There’s no defence for being caught with a bald tyres. Should have been picked up on a walk round check. It doesn’t happen over night. Nothing to do with not being able to afford a solicitor.
Does that mean the owner/operator wasn’t in any part responsible and the blame should rest soley on the driver?
classic33:
harrawaffa:
There’s no defence for being caught with a bald tyres. Should have been picked up on a walk round check. It doesn’t happen over night. Nothing to do with not being able to afford a solicitor.Does that mean the owner/operator wasn’t in any part responsible and the blame should rest soley on the driver?
If what is posted above is true then yes. If he’s had new tyres fitted and heads out for the week he could cover that 1000 miles in 3 days or so. He’s the only one who drives the truck and he hasn’t been back to base so who else is going to be aware of the now bald tyres? How can the boss be responsible he’s not the one performing (or failing to perform) the daily checks.
classic33:
harrawaffa:
There’s no defence for being caught with a bald tyres. Should have been picked up on a walk round check. It doesn’t happen over night. Nothing to do with not being able to afford a solicitor.Does that mean the owner/operator wasn’t in any part responsible and the blame should rest soley on the driver?
For the bald tyres? Absolutely 100% down to the driver as are things like loose wheel nuts, no working lights, dangerous bits of bodywork hanging off the motor, driving with broken or missing rear view mirrors, the motor throwing out loads of smoke, the load not being secured, driving with non-functioning brakes or obviously knackered steering. Checking tyres is part of a daily check. If they’re bald and you choose to go out on them that is 100% down to you.
In 2006 I had been driving as a company driver for a good company but basically the pay was so low I couldn’t afford to keep my head above water. I mentioned my predicament to another English driver over here who owned a truck and seemed to be doing well, nice home, a couple of cars, even a boat. This guy offered to get me into the owner operator field, he leased a truck and trailer for me from Ryder and for the first month I ran US mail from the Boston MA area to Tampa and Orlando FL from Thanksgiving to Christmas eve, I was away for the entire 4 weeks and did 4 runs, running my ■■■ off and breaking every rule in the book, DOT just waved me through every check because I had US mail on the trailer. I made a small fortune in that fist month and not only got completely out of debt and up to date with every bill, I also had so much in the bank to give my family and good Christmas. … That was the first month, the rest just fell apart and the money I got for loads was crap, I was sometimes working away for 5 weeks and getting a pittance, the load brokers ripped me off big time, the guy who set me up to start the O/O deal told me when I started that companies deliberately try to keep owner drivers on the poverty line, by advancing money for breakdowns, fuel and other fees, they give the driver a rate then when the job it done the rate is different. I lasted 6 months as an O/O and then my present company offered me the job I now do, I was still getting tax bills from the IRS 4 years after quitting and the broker still owes me for my last trip, I will never see that money. I worked out that taking away expenses and other fees I actually earned 19 cents a mile. I made more money during the first week in the new company than 2 weeks as an O/O. We have the choice in my company to become a lease driver if we wish, I am not in the least tempted. I would never suggest anyone become an owner driver. I made the mistake once and never again.
But it’s up to the individual.
The law is very simple, the driver is responsible for the roadworthy-ness of the vehicle, the owner is responsible for tax-insurance-mot.
Driver gets stopped no insurance, vehicle is clamped/impounded, driver is not nicked( employed driver, company vehicle), bald tyre, light defect, insecure load, driver is nicked, operator notified.
Basically tax-insurance-mot is down to the operator/owner/lease company, not driver’s worry.
AndrewG:
Drivers responsibilty to check visually a vehicle is roadworthy ie lights, tyres ect whether owner or employee.
Re insurance, rhe offence is strict liability but…its not unreasonable for an employee to believe the vehicle being used is insured to drive. Some cases can be thrown out leaving the employer to carry the can…
Are you a driver or an owner driver/fantasist Andrew ?
The law as a defence built into it covering employee’s :
143 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
Sent from my PLK-L01 using Tapatalk
Suedehead:
AndrewG:
Drivers responsibilty to check visually a vehicle is roadworthy ie lights, tyres ect whether owner or employee.
Re insurance, rhe offence is strict liability but…its not unreasonable for an employee to believe the vehicle being used is insured to drive. Some cases can be thrown out leaving the employer to carry the can…Are you a driver or an owner driver/fantasist Andrew ?
Not sure why you would want to use the word ‘fantasist’ 
The answer i gave to the OP’s (now edited) question is correct.
If its not obvious to you, im an owner driver but sub for one company only (C.E.T.V.A SL) on a permanent basis…
The checks/walkaround I understand, down to the driver. But if the owner is using a vehicle, for profit, when they know it shouldn’t be on the road. Why is it okay for them to “buy” their way out of trouble and it’s the driver left carrying the blame?
Does the owner/operator have no responsibility in cases like this?
classic33:
The checks/walkaround I understand, down to the driver. But if the owner is using a vehicle, for profit, when they know it shouldn’t be on the road. Why is it okay for them to “buy” their way out of trouble and it’s the driver left carrying the blame?Does the owner/operator have no responsibility in cases like this?
If this driver has been convicted of or charged with driving his employers vehicle without insurance then this is an error in law. The court may not have been aware of the circumstances if the driver has not given a clear explanation which makes me think this might be you. He should return to the court and explain his position as an employee and I’d expect any charge to be dropped or conviction quashed.