Legal Bods

[Super Elmo]

He states police followed him. They would have seen him driving on a road. Doesn’t matter if he puts in a garage or anywhere private. It’s been used on the road and witnessed by police.

I wasn't referring to the OP situation, perhaps wasn't clear enough.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

You aren't in charge of a vehicle if you have relinquished all control of the vehicle such as if you went to bed for the night or in the instant example parked up and left it.

You are until someone else takes charge of it.

If you park a car on a slope and the handbrake fails an hour later due to the discs contracting (which is quite a common thing) and your car hits another car are you suggesting you are not at fault because you decided to piss off to bed with a cup of horlicks?

 

[Super Elmo]

You are until someone else takes charge of it.

If you park a car on a slope and the handbrake fails an hour later due to the discs contracting (which is quite a common thing) and your car hits another car are you suggesting you are not at fault because you decided to piss off to bed with a cup of horlicks?

I think you're misunderstanding the case you're referring to. It says you would not be in charge if in all the circumstances if you had ceased to be in actual control and there is no realistic possibility of you resuming actual control [whilst being unfit as the case is about being unfit whilst in charge]. The Court of Appeal even gave an example if the owner of the car was in bed or a great distance from the car.

In your example how could the driver be responsible for a mechanical failure of the vehicle in the absence of any negligence regarding the maintenance of the car? The insurers would probably put it down to a no fault accident.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

I think you're misunderstanding the case you're referring to. It says you would not be in charge if in all the circumstances if you had ceased to be in actual control and there is no realistic possibility of you resuming actual control [whilst being unfit as the case is about being unfit whilst in charge]. The Court of Appeal even gave an example if the owner of the car was in bed or a great distance from the car.

In your example how could the driver be responsible for a mechanical failure of the vehicle in the absence of any negligence regarding the maintenance of the car? The insurers would probably put it down to a no fault accident.

The example I gave wouldn’t be down to a maintenance issue though, the brake discs cool then contract which reduces the force the handbrake has on them and the car rolls. No maintenance issue.

You must be referring to different case law as it isn’t to do with being unfit.

 

[mickonline]

So there

Erm if he takes it to court I think he will. Sentence guidelines show mitigating circumstances of not being aware the vehicle was uninsured. Plus the fact he has valid insurance and licence will put him in good stead.

Not aimed at you, but the posts about him being insured and allowed to drive other vehicles doesn’t matter. Any vehicle on the road needs insurance on that specific vehicle. Otherwise when you get your insurance you wouldn’t need to list the registration.

For example person drives a small car with insurance costing 20p and a pack of fags. Technically they could drive a much larger car with higher premium rates and not pay the extra cost. The larger vehicle whilst on the road will need someone listed on the insurance specific to that car.



He states police followed him. They would have seen him driving on a road. Doesn’t matter if he puts in a garage or anywhere private. It’s been used on the road and witnessed by police.

So there is mitigating circumstances for believing the car was insured?

I'm not going to contest the no insurance on the car, it was impounded and cost to get it released. That is a given.

The only thing I'm trying to work out is have I committed a crime?

My charge (the charge is against me) was driving a vehicle without third party cover. I did have insurance which meant I was covered to drive the car third party which complies with the RTA. My insurance company has confirmed that if I'd had an accident I would have been covered. They also confirmed that while I was driving the car it was insured but the second I left it, it was not.

The issue with the car not insured (when I left it) was not my crime and was enforced with the impoundment and fine.

I know the car needs insurance but was that my fault? Its the wifes car and her insurance and have an e-mail from her insurance company stating they insurance would auto renew. Yes, there were further e-mails sandwiched between sales spam which I have missed but I reasonably assumed the car was insured.

For info my cars premium is far higher than the Mrs car. Not that it makes much difference but goes to demonstrate that this is purely an over sight and not a deliberate act, which I feel the harsher penalties were brought in to attempt to stop.

 

[MalmöMakem]

In essence a crime has been committed, or alleged to have been committed.

I’m sure if you plead your argument well the magistrate will let you off. Unless of course you’re a career criminal or have loads of points on your licence?

 

[Deleted member 1169]

I got pulled by ANPR in the mersey tunnel...seems I had entered reg with a K not an X. Was polite, they said sort it out. Went to work and sorted it. A few days later got pulled again, as databased had not updated and again policeman was fine with it when I said it was in hand. It never entered my head that I would get fined and points as it was a general error. Were you polite?

 

[Feed the Monster]

In essence a crime has been committed, or alleged to have been committed.

I’m sure if you plead your argument well the magistrate will let you off. Unless of course you’re a career criminal or have loads of points on your licence?

This. If what you say is accurate, then accept its a strict liability offence (ie there is no defence), plead what you've said in mitigation and get no fine and an absolute discharge.

 

[beezer]

I know the car needs insurance but was that my fault? Its the wifes car and her insurance and have an e-mail from her insurance company stating they insurance would auto renew. Yes, there were further e-mails sandwiched between sales spam which I have missed but I reasonably assumed the car was insured.

Just be careful that in trying to clear your name, your wife doesn’t end up in bother too.

It’s also an offence to allow someone else to drive your car without checking they’re insured. I know you have the argument that you both weren’t aware it had expired but if the police think you’re trying it on they could throw that into the mix too.

 

[mickonline]

Just be careful that in trying to clear your name, your wife doesn’t end up in bother too.

It’s also an offence to allow someone else to drive your car without checking they’re insured. I know you have the argument that you both weren’t aware it had expired but if the police think you’re trying it on they could throw that into the mix too.

I'm aware of that so need to tread carefully. On the plus side she can't be done for driving without insurance, they have no evidence of that but they could throw the she loaned me the car knowing it had no insurance (which she didn't).

In essence a crime has been committed, or alleged to have been committed.

I’m sure if you plead your argument well the magistrate will let you off. Unless of course you’re a career criminal or have loads of points on your licence?

Not a career criminal although I do have a SP30 (stupid mistake) from two years ago.

In essence a crime has been committed, or alleged to have been committed.

I’m sure if you plead your argument well the magistrate will let you off. Unless of course you’re a career criminal or have loads of points on your licence?

Your help Malmo is really appreciated. Has a crime been committed by me? The charge is driving without insurance. I had insurance which covered me to drive that car third party.

The issue of the car not being insured was taken care of (in my opinion) by the impounding. I'm sure it the Gov website that states a car with no insurance will be A) a £100 fine, B) Impounding or destroyed C) up to a £1000 fine. Surely the charging officer picked B).

I'm aware of that so need to tread carefully. On the plus side she can't be done for driving without insurance, they have no evidence of that but they could throw the she loaned me the car knowing it had no insurance (which she didn't).



Not a career criminal although I do have a SP30 (stupid mistake) from two years ago.



Your help Malmo is really appreciated. Has a crime been committed by me? The charge is driving without insurance. I had insurance which covered me to drive that car third party.

The issue of the car not being insured was taken care of (in my opinion) by the impounding. I'm sure it the Gov website that states a car with no insurance will be A) a £100 fine, B) Impounding or destroyed C) up to a £1000 fine. Surely the charging officer picked B).

P.S. I'm back to work today and have been talking to our Senior Assurance and Risk Manager. She is a former (notice i say former so has been off the circuit for a while) barrister and she stated the charge was rubbish, "I'm insured not the car". Is there any strength to that?

I got pulled by ANPR in the mersey tunnel...seems I had entered reg with a K not an X. Was polite, they said sort it out. Went to work and sorted it. A few days later got pulled again, as databased had not updated and again policeman was fine with it when I said it was in hand. It never entered my head that I would get fined and points as it was a general error. Were you polite?

Of course i was polite. I was actually panicking trying to find out why the car had no insurance to try to stop it getting impounded.

I focussed on the wrong thing, I should have focussed on my charge rather than trying to ensure the car was insured.

You had reason to know. They sent you an email and you ignored it. Next.

Didn't ignore mate.

If you read the full thread and this is true, I'd just lost my mother and was busy going through probate, settling her affairs, breaking up the house etc. Mentally I was not in a good place and just could not be bothered with anything (only child and dad died the previous year) so when all the spam started to come through I just marked it as read without reading after seeing things like House Insurance, Breakdown Cover etc. etc.

 

[MalmöMakem]

I'm aware of that so need to tread carefully. On the plus side she can't be done for driving without insurance, they have no evidence of that but they could throw the she loaned me the car knowing it had no insurance (which she didn't).



Not a career criminal although I do have a SP30 (stupid mistake) from two years ago.



Your help Malmo is really appreciated. Has a crime been committed by me? The charge is driving without insurance. I had insurance which covered me to drive that car third party.

The issue of the car not being insured was taken care of (in my opinion) by the impounding. I'm sure it the Gov website that states a car with no insurance will be A) a £100 fine, B) Impounding or destroyed C) up to a £1000 fine. Surely the charging officer picked B).



P.S. I'm back to work today and have been talking to our Senior Assurance and Risk Manager. She is a former (notice i say former so has been off the circuit for a while) barrister and she stated the charge was rubbish, "I'm insured not the car". Is there any strength to that?

SP30 you should be fine provided it wasn't a daft speed.

Two elements. As you were the driver of the vehicle it essentially is you who has committed the offence of driving without insurance (the car that didn't have insurance). Also there is something in the road traffic act that states it is an offence to let someone drive a car without insurance, so in essence your missis could be stuck on (they won't). They are two separate offences at the end of the day. Yes you have committed the offence of driving with no insurance, albeit you have you're own insurance and the car you drove had none. It goes back to what I said before with people being insured on something cheap then trying to get around things to drive a car that has much higher premiums.

And the final point, yes the insurance covers you and your use of other vehicles, but any car on the road must have someone insured specific to that vehicle. I've double checked it at work today with numerous people including traffic polis and they've said the same. It's just hit or miss with the magistrates, who you get and what mood they are in. If you decide to go to court it's well worth pleading your case and coming across in the best way possible. Majority of magistrates have little background in law, so will nine times out of ten use sentencing guidelines. I think if you also show you had the vehicle reinsured right away etc it'll help. Also, if you wanted to pay a bit of extra cash you can speak to specific solicitors (criminal law) that deal with traffic stuff as an expertise to give you a hand.

If you google "magistrate sentencing guidelines" and look up the no insurance stuff it explains it a bit more, and bits about honestly not being aware the policy had run out.

In my experience dealing with road traffic stuff, if people seem genuine I'm happy to help them on the roadside. I've stopped people for no insurance and rather than seize the car etc. I've done their insurance with them there and then over the phone and let them drive off once it's in place. People make mistakes. Problem with no insurance is because the amount of people that risk it or don't care, makes the penalties quite high including massive insurance hikes.

Have you spoken to the PC yet? They might still be worth a shout if you state it was honest mistake and you've sorted out all the insurance on the other car, you weren't aware the policy had ended and wasn't on auto-renewal. Explain about you're insurance covering you to drive other vehicles and had you been aware the other car had no insurance you'd never of driven it.

Finally, if you do go to court, you're entitled to free legal advice which is worth using even if to just get your point across to the mags a bit better as they will know a bit more about the process and legal jargon.

 

[mickonline]

SP30 you should be fine provided it wasn't a daft speed.

Two elements. As you were the driver of the vehicle it essentially is you who has committed the offence of driving without insurance (the car that didn't have insurance). Also there is something in the road traffic act that states it is an offence to let someone drive a car without insurance, so in essence your missis could be stuck on (they won't). They are two separate offences at the end of the day. Yes you have committed the offence of driving with no insurance, albeit you have you're own insurance and the car you drove had none. It goes back to what I said before with people being insured on something cheap then trying to get around things to drive a car that has much higher premiums.

And the final point, yes the insurance covers you and your use of other vehicles, but any car on the road must have someone insured specific to that vehicle. I've double checked it at work today with numerous people including traffic polis and they've said the same. It's just hit or miss with the magistrates, who you get and what mood they are in. If you decide to go to court it's well worth pleading your case and coming across in the best way possible. Majority of magistrates have little background in law, so will nine times out of ten use sentencing guidelines. I think if you also show you had the vehicle reinsured right away etc it'll help. Also, if you wanted to pay a bit of extra cash you can speak to specific solicitors (criminal law) that deal with traffic stuff as an expertise to give you a hand.

If you google "magistrate sentencing guidelines" and look up the no insurance stuff it explains it a bit more, and bits about honestly not being aware the policy had run out.

In my experience dealing with road traffic stuff, if people seem genuine I'm happy to help them on the roadside. I've stopped people for no insurance and rather than seize the car etc. I've done their insurance with them there and then over the phone and let them drive off once it's in place. People make mistakes. Problem with no insurance is because the amount of people that risk it or don't care, makes the penalties quite high including massive insurance hikes.

Have you spoken to the PC yet? They might still be worth a shout if you state it was honest mistake and you've sorted out all the insurance on the other car, you weren't aware the policy had ended and wasn't on auto-renewal. Explain about you're insurance covering you to drive other vehicles and had you been aware the other car had no insurance you'd never of driven it.

Finally, if you do go to court, you're entitled to free legal advice which is worth using even if to just get your point across to the mags a bit better as they will know a bit more about the process and legal jargon.

Cheers. I honestly don't know why he came across so hard. I was polite, admitted I'd driven the car, went and checked the insurance, was honest explained that it was out, did not try to defend anything and was just looking for solutions, the car was insured by the time the tow truck came. He just would not move, "my supervisor would not let me" was all he said.

You'll have to forgive me, this was my Mrs. She thought he was very arrogant and condescending , commenting on the house and "people like you don't normally do this". Yes I'm successful now (hard work) but grew up on the council estates and still class myself like that.

The PC is not back off his rest days until Thursday.

Ive just read section 143 of the RTA and its still not clear.

A person must not use a motor vehicle on the road unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of the act.

Surely I had at least a security of third party risk (my insurance)?

 

[Goat Eyes]

Cheers. I honestly don't know why he came across so hard. I was polite, admitted I'd driven the car, went and checked the insurance, was honest explained that it was out, did not try to defend anything and was just looking for solutions, the car was insured by the time the tow truck came. He just would not move, "my supervisor would not let me" was all he said.

You'll have to forgive me, this was my Mrs. She thought he was very arrogant and condescending , commenting on the house and "people like you don't normally do this". Yes I'm successful now (hard work) but grew up on the council estates and still class myself like that.

The PC is not back off his rest days until Thursday.

Ive just read section 143 of the RTA and its still not clear.

A person must not use a motor vehicle on the road unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of the act.

Surely I had at least a security of third party risk (my insurance)?

The copper sounded like a tit and was unable to apply any common sense to the situation.

Another motivating factor is (it’s been a while since I read the early part of the thread) that surely you’d have driven your own insured car to the shops if you’d know surely.

 

[mickonline]

The copper sounded like a tit and was unable to apply any common sense to the situation.

Another motivating factor is (it’s been a while since I read the early part of the thread) that surely you’d have driven your own insured car to the shops if you’d know surely.

I would have. Simple answer.

Cheers. I honestly don't know why he came across so hard. I was polite, admitted I'd driven the car, went and checked the insurance, was honest explained that it was out, did not try to defend anything and was just looking for solutions, the car was insured by the time the tow truck came. He just would not move, "my supervisor would not let me" was all he said.

You'll have to forgive me, this was my Mrs. She thought he was very arrogant and condescending , commenting on the house and "people like you don't normally do this". Yes I'm successful now (hard work) but grew up on the council estates and still class myself like that.

The PC is not back off his rest days until Thursday.

Ive just read section 143 of the RTA and its still not clear.

A person must not use a motor vehicle on the road unless there is in force in relation to the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of the act.

Surely I had at least a security of third party risk (my insurance)?

For reference third party security is described as:

"A third party security is security given by an individual or entity which secures the liability of a third party"

So therefore security given by an individual or entity (my insurance company) which secures the liability of a third party (would insure any losses by a third party). Surely I'm covered unless there is another element of the RTA I've missed.

 

[Vagrant]

SP30 you should be fine provided it wasn't a daft speed.

Two elements. As you were the driver of the vehicle it essentially is you who has committed the offence of driving without insurance (the car that didn't have insurance). Also there is something in the road traffic act that states it is an offence to let someone drive a car without insurance, so in essence your missis could be stuck on (they won't). They are two separate offences at the end of the day. Yes you have committed the offence of driving with no insurance, albeit you have you're own insurance and the car you drove had none. It goes back to what I said before with people being insured on something cheap then trying to get around things to drive a car that has much higher premiums.

And the final point, yes the insurance covers you and your use of other vehicles, but any car on the road must have someone insured specific to that vehicle. I've double checked it at work today with numerous people including traffic polis and they've said the same. It's just hit or miss with the magistrates, who you get and what mood they are in. If you decide to go to court it's well worth pleading your case and coming across in the best way possible. Majority of magistrates have little background in law, so will nine times out of ten use sentencing guidelines. I think if you also show you had the vehicle reinsured right away etc it'll help. Also, if you wanted to pay a bit of extra cash you can speak to specific solicitors (criminal law) that deal with traffic stuff as an expertise to give you a hand.

If you google "magistrate sentencing guidelines" and look up the no insurance stuff it explains it a bit more, and bits about honestly not being aware the policy had run out.

In my experience dealing with road traffic stuff, if people seem genuine I'm happy to help them on the roadside. I've stopped people for no insurance and rather than seize the car etc. I've done their insurance with them there and then over the phone and let them drive off once it's in place. People make mistakes. Problem with no insurance is because the amount of people that risk it or don't care, makes the penalties quite high including massive insurance hikes.

Have you spoken to the PC yet? They might still be worth a shout if you state it was honest mistake and you've sorted out all the insurance on the other car, you weren't aware the policy had ended and wasn't on auto-renewal. Explain about you're insurance covering you to drive other vehicles and had you been aware the other car had no insurance you'd never of driven it.

Finally, if you do go to court, you're entitled to free legal advice which is worth using even if to just get your point across to the mags a bit better as they will know a bit more about the process and legal jargon.

I'm aware of that so need to tread carefully. On the plus side she can't be done for driving without insurance, they have no evidence of that but they could throw the she loaned me the car knowing it had no insurance (which she didn't).



Not a career criminal although I do have a SP30 (stupid mistake) from two years ago.



Your help Malmo is really appreciated. Has a crime been committed by me? The charge is driving without insurance. I had insurance which covered me to drive that car third party.

The issue of the car not being insured was taken care of (in my opinion) by the impounding. I'm sure it the Gov website that states a car with no insurance will be A) a £100 fine, B) Impounding or destroyed C) up to a £1000 fine. Surely the charging officer picked B).



P.S. I'm back to work today and have been talking to our Senior Assurance and Risk Manager. She is a former (notice i say former so has been off the circuit for a while) barrister and she stated the charge was rubbish, "I'm insured not the car". Is there any strength to that?



Of course i was polite. I was actually panicking trying to find out why the car had no insurance to try to stop it getting impounded.

I focussed on the wrong thing, I should have focussed on my charge rather than trying to ensure the car was insured.



Didn't ignore mate.

If you read the full thread and this is true, I'd just lost my mother and was busy going through probate, settling her affairs, breaking up the house etc. Mentally I was not in a good place and just could not be bothered with anything (only child and dad died the previous year) so when all the spam started to come through I just marked it as read without reading after seeing things like House Insurance, Breakdown Cover etc. etc.

She would have been right several years ago but her advice is well out of date.

Edit - Not sure why I quoted you as well Malmo.

Question for Duff Man
I was stopped a few years ago just by Weatherby Services for no insurance
My insurance was "auto renew" which had been for the previous 3 years, but as I had been issued a new bank card about a month before the insurance was due they (insurance company) were unable to get any money from my account.
I told the copper "I knew it was due but it just roll's over" his reply was "well it hasn't this time it expired 2 days ago" I gave him the company phone number and policy number who he called and confirmed everything I'd told him.
I said surely you can see its a genuine mistake can I put it in Weatherby Services and sort it out his reply "No mate it's more than my jobs worth" and it was siezed
Sorry for the long post
But the question is if there was no insurance policy on my car did the copper not then break the law by getting in and driving it?

They have exemptions and are covered for this reason and moving other vehicles ie stolen, abandoned etc. I believe they can also move vehicles not on their licence, but am not %100

 

[mickonline]

Well an update.

I've just gone to go to work today and some little scumbag has ripped the front bumper off my car. Car was parked on the drive and they have stole the full front end of my car.

This is what really pisses me off about the insurance issue. Mine was a genuine mistake, no crime intended and just a stupid mix up which in my opinion could and should have been dealt with on the Friday night when the PC was here. It was obvious this was a stupid mistake but he chose to spend two hrs plus throwing the full weight of the law against law abiding citizens.

Some little pikey scrote probably with no insurance has decided to cause criminal damage to my car causing thousands of pounds worth of repairs. There is CCTV all over our estate but lets see how much time local plod will spend on real criminals. I would hazard a guess it will be significantly less time than spent on my insurance cock up. These are the people who will be driving with no insurance as they also has a go at both sill trims as well and its obviously been stolen to order. If they manage to catch (don't think they will even try) the scum that have done that to my car I would put money on their punishment will be less than mine.

This really does feel like the local police taking the easy options and chasing the easy option.

And there you go!!!!

Friday night following a stupid mistake, PC at property for 2 hrs, car impounded, £150 to get it back, facing 6 points, £400 fine and an IN10 on my licence for 5 years.

Today, £1,000's pounds worth of damage to my vehicle, a telephone call with a crime number!!!!!!!!!!

Our whole legal system is absolutely screwed, where is the justice?????

Just had it confirmed off another traffic cop with 20 years experience.

The charge is: RT88191 “Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”

As I've been informed it has very specific wording. That I used a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance, which is not true. I had insurance so committed no crime.

The issue is with "keeping" a motor vehicle on the road without valid insurance (vehicle has no insurance). I'm not guilty of that and it would then be up to the CPS to prove the Mrs had kept it on the road without insurance. They can not as it was kept on a private drive and they have no evidence to support this.

Theres the issue that she should not have loaned me the car knowing it had no insurance which if they go down that route we will have the fight about over sights etc.

 

[Dogbark]

The issue is with "keeping" a motor vehicle on the road without valid insurance (vehicle has no insurance). I'm not guilty of that and it would then be up to the CPS to prove the Mrs had kept it on the road without insurance. They can not as it was kept on a private drive and they have no evidence to support this.

Theres the issue that she should not have loaned me the car knowing it had no insurance which if they go down that route we will have the fight about over sights etc.

Even if it's on private land then it still needs to be declared as SORN.

 

[mickonline]

Even if it's on private land then it still needs to be declared as SORN.

Yes I know, but that was not my crime and the car was impounded.

It is also stated under the new Continuous Insurance Enforcement regs (the regs that people keep quoting of why both the car and driver need insurance) that the DVLA will send a IAL (Insurance Advisory Letter) stating the car appears to be uninsured. That did not happen, which again backs my argument that it was just an oversight and the car was not uninsured long enough for this to become an issue.

Regardless of all this SORN, car must be insured I was charged with “Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”. I had insurance.

 

[The Resource]

Yes I know, but that was not my crime and the car was impounded.

It is also stated under the new Continuous Insurance Enforcement regs (the regs that people keep quoting of why both the car and driver need insurance) that the DVLA will send a IAL (Insurance Advisory Letter) stating the car appears to be uninsured. That did not happen, which again backs my argument that it was just an oversight and the car was not uninsured long enough for this to become an issue.

Regardless of all this SORN, car must be insured I was charged with “Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”. I had insurance.

Did you say you moved recently? Was the registered keepers address up-to-date?
How long had the insurance been lapsed?

 

[splorty]

Check the wording of policies and you will find you can only drive under the third party rules if the car is covered by an in force insurance policy. youve shit it I’m afraid