Driving a manual with an automatic licence

Avatar Image
dil2124 | 12:08 Mon 05th May 2008 | Road rules
18 Answers
i have recently passed with an automatic licence, but i have been driving a manual. I had an accident where the car skidded and lost control no else was involved. the car was siezed by police and i am really scared, i dont know what to do? will i go to court? face a ban? will i have to re-do my test?


1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by dil2124. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
If you only have an automatic licence and you drive a manual, you are classed as driving without a licence. Your insurance will also be invalid, which means you've been driving without insurance. Both offences mean points and fines.
Do you already have any points and how long is it since you took your test?
if you have passed your test within the last 2 yrs and receive 6 pts or more for any offence you are charged with,then yes,you licence will be revoked and you will have to re sit both tests again,a bit silly really,arent you,still it might teach you a lesson this time.
You will go to court charged with driving offence code LC20 - driving other than in accordance with a licence.

Penalty points are between 3 and 6 points and a fine.

You may also be prosecuted for insurance offences 6-8 points and a fine.,

Careless driving may also be a possibility.

As already said, 6 or more points and you revert to learner status.
Why would you ever take a Automatic test and not a manual and limit what ou can drive ?
I can never see the sense in it myself ...
Either way , i suggest you resit your test using a manual next time.
randyraven . . . . perhaps you cannot see the sense it it.

But one cannot generalise. There are many people with disabilities, for instance, who are unable to drive a manual.
sir,prize - that obviously doesn't apply to the OP who is very capable of driving a manual (albeit illegally and badly)
Beware of the advice given about driving uninsured.

Insurance policies are not automatically invalidated because the driver has committed a driving or licence offence (certainly not the Third Party aspect anyway � which is the only insurance required by law). The only time insurance is usually automatically invalidated is when a driver drives whilst disqualified (which is by no means the same as driving without a licence). The wording usually is something like �...provided the driver holds a valid licence or is not disqualified from holding or obtaining one�.

This makes sense. If a driver commits a speeding offence he is not automatically charged with driving with no insurance (a far more serious offence). Similarly, if a driver is involved in a collision and is charged with Careless Driving, driving without insurance does not automatically follow.

It would clearly be ludicrous if Third Parties were to be denied recompense because the policy holder had committed a minor driving or licence offence. A visit to a traffic session at your local magistrates� court will confirm that the minor offences (such as driving otherwise than in accordance) are often charged alone.

The likely outcome for you is a fine of about one week's income (reduced by a third if you plead guilty) and three penalty points.
Question Author
passed 31/04/08, no point or anyting driving for just over two weeks. Basically im messed big time?
New judge - driving a manual car on an automatic licence means he was not driving with a valid licence ergo his insurance company has the perfect get out,
'Fraid not, Fay.

The lack of a valid licence does not entitle an insurance company to repudiate liability for Third Party insurance risks. Nor does the commission of any other driving offence apart from driving whilst disqualified.

dil2124 will in fact be charged with driving otherwise than in accordance with his/her licence, not with driving without a licence. But it does not matter as the offences are similar in seriousness and potential penalty.

This does not entitle insurers to revoke cover. Neither would they be able to do so for a learner driver who drove unaccompanied or without 'L' Plates (who would be charged with the same offence).

As I said, if it were the case, nobody would ever be charged with the stand-alone offence of driving without a licence or otherwise than in accordance with their licence. They very often are and the CPS would have no hesitation in bringing a prosecution for No Insurance if it were so straightforward as you suggest. No in surance is a far more serious offence.

The insurers may well persue their policyholder for reimbursement of their outlay because of his negligence or criminality. But that is a completely different issue to revoking his cover and laying him open to a charge of driving without insurance.
dil2124, I cannot resist a reply. Passed your test on 31/04/08 and committed this serious offence within days? I bet I can make a good guess on the rest of you personal details. (age? mot? insured?)
New Judge - I had already covered the third party liability that would be honoured - the insurance companies have no choice.

Where fay? In another question which I have not read, perhaps? I must be losing track.

You are quite right, the insurers have no choice but to accept liability for Third Party risks. Since it seems we now both agree on this and since this is the only cover required by law there is no possibility of dil2124 being prosecuted for No Insurance.

Your answer yesterday (16:50) suggests otherwise.

Wow is this a record ?
You were within 5 days ...breaking the law and managed to have an accident.

Sounds like you are not resposible enougth to be driving anything.
However no doubt you will get a small fine , few points and remain on the road. With your judgement and lack of driving skills , maybe you will kill someone next time.
Then it will be upto 5 years in gaol out in 3 if you are good.

Only if convicted of causing death by dangerous driving,rr
passed test 31.04.08?

Hmmm, no such date!
does an insurance policy not state that he/she will only be covered for a certain type of car providing they have a licence to drive that certain type of car?? eg was covered to drive an automatic but had the accident in a manual so therefore they do not have insurance to drive that car?? what the point in anybody paying for insurance if folk who abuse it seem to be covered in any eventuallity!! ie driving a car they are supposedly not insured to drive!!!
I can confirm from an insurance point of view that any third party claim would HAVE to be honoured in accordance with the RTA.

We would be liable for the third party claim in full ,and would seek recovery of the costs from our policyholder.

The only time that we can realistically avoid being held liable for any third party claim is if the vehicle was not on cover at the time of the accident (ie policyholder takes out a policy within hours of having an accident so we show as insurer for that day), or if the vehicle is stolen and the driver/thief remains unidenitified.

Also, David is quite correct - we check all licence types held by our policyhodlers when the policy is taken out, and also on certain types of claim. If our poliycholder holds an auto licence, but was driving an auto, we will repudiate the claim for driving other than in accordance with their licence.

1 to 18 of 18rss feed

Do you know the answer?

Driving a manual with an automatic licence

Answer Question >>