Legal Bods

mickonline said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just take it to court then if you’re convinced you’ve done nothing wrong. It’s as simple as that really.
 


Baloo said:
Just take it to court then if you’re convinced you’ve done nothing wrong. It’s as simple as that really.
Click to expand...
He seems hell bent on arguing with himself.

@duff_man is also a cop along with a few others on the thread.

It’s a shite situation, I’d contemplate going to court I think, so long as I knew the punishment isn’t worse for it.
 
Last edited:
splorty said:
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
Click to expand...

Checked the policy and had it confirmed by the insurance company. I was insured Third Party.

The Resource said:
Did you say you moved recently? Was the registered keepers address up-to-date?
How long had the insurance been lapsed?
Click to expand...

Yes, No.

Lapsed in March. But lets not confuse the issue again. I'm defending my charge. Using a vehicle without third party insurance. The rest is confusing fluff which does not affect the real question.

Goat Eyes said:
He seems hell bent on arguing with himself.

@duff_man is also a cop along with a few others on the thread.

It’s a shite situation, I’d contemplate going to court I think, so long as I knew the punishment isn’t worse for it.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing, I taking everything in.

To date I've got a traffic cop with 21 years experience, a former Barrister and one of the magistrates i may be up in court in front of all telling me I've done nothing wrong.

I really appreciate the alternative views because overtime something new is brought up on this forum i'll go away, check and seek guidance.

duff_man said:
Yeah but the loophole lawyer is giving advice from his years of legal training and experience
Click to expand...

Worked out your a PC and I guess Malmo as well?
 
Last edited:
mickonline said:
Checked the policy and had it confirmed by the insurance company. I was insured Third Party.



Yes, No.

Lapsed in March. But lets not confuse the issue again. I'm defending my charge. Using a vehicle without third party insurance. The rest is confusing fluff which does not affect the real question.



I'm not arguing, I taking everything in.

To date I've got a traffic cop with 21 years experience, a former Barrister and one of the magistrates i may be up in court in front of all telling me I've done nothing wrong.

I really appreciate the alternative views because overtime something new is brought up on this forum i'll go away, check and seek guidance.



Worked out your a PC and I guess Malmo as well?
Click to expand...


You should’ve said that sooner, not guilty arl ower

mickonline said:
Checked the policy and had it confirmed by the insurance company. I was insured Third Party.



Yes, No.

Lapsed in March. But lets not confuse the issue again. I'm defending my charge. Using a vehicle without third party insurance. The rest is confusing fluff which does not affect the real question.



I'm not arguing, I taking everything in.

To date I've got a traffic cop with 21 years experience, a former Barrister and one of the magistrates i may be up in court in front of all telling me I've done nothing wrong.

I really appreciate the alternative views because overtime something new is brought up on this forum i'll go away, check and seek guidance.



Worked out your a PC and I guess Malmo as well?
Click to expand...

I’m not a PC
 
Last edited:
mickonline said:
Yes, No.
Lapsed in March. But lets not confuse the issue again. I'm defending my charge. Using a vehicle without third party insurance. The rest is confusing fluff which does not affect the real question.
Click to expand...

You can't really use the fact you didn't receive a letter to say the insurance had lapsed in any defence then. They would send that to the registered keeper.

I"d argue it is relevant when the insurance expired, if it is going to be part of your mitigation that it was a one off. It seems less plausible then had it been a day or two compared with two months.

Good luck with it though.
 
Central defender after after a gold thread here like. Cops, pikeys. What’s next your lass is gonna open the car door on a cyclist who is ignoring the cycle path which is witnessed by len lowther, trumpUnless you just are the unluckiest bloke in the world.
duff_man said:
You should’ve said that sooner, not guilty arl ower



I’m not a PC
Click to expand...
duff_man said:
Yeah but the loophole lawyer is giving advice from his years of legal training and experience
Click to expand...
Was I right?
 
sidneyeric said:
Using a vehicle but only covered for driving might do for you
Click to expand...

But its not my vehicle. This is the point. As my insurance company stated, when i was in the vehicle driving I was insured, as soon as I left it become uninsured again.

I'm fighting the charge they have given me (personally), "using a vehicle without third party insurance". The other potential charges have far less impact.

Basically i'm fighting the IN10. I'd pay the fine, take the points to keep my Mrs out of this but an IN10 has very serious consequences for the next 5 year.
 
The way I read this from a cod law perspective is that it is totally irrelevant if you had 3rd party to drive a car. The car you drove was not insured in the 1st place. 3rd party is to cover you to drive an insured car. Btw why didnt you just walk to the shop to get the milk, this is about all our children!
 
the boot said:
Central defender after after a gold thread here like. Cops, pikeys. What’s next your lass is gonna open the car door on a cyclist who is ignoring the cycle path which is witnessed by len lowther, trumpUnless you just are the unluckiest bloke in the world.


Was I right?
Click to expand...

Seriously, couldn't make the last few days up. I'll see if i can get a photograph of my car from this morning posted.
 
mickonline said:
But its not my vehicle. This is the point. As my insurance company stated, when i was in the vehicle driving I was insured, as soon as I left it become uninsured again.
Click to expand...

You mentioned that your insurer has said that they consider you were covered, but have you got this in writing?

As an example this is the exact wording from my policy:

The policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car as long as the other car is not a car either owned by you or your partner or hired or leased to you or your partner under a hire purchase or leasing agreement or hired or rented to you or your partner under a car hire or rental agreement, within the UK, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car. Please note this cover is Third Party Only.

I would imagine that’s pretty standard wording and two things jump out. Firstly no cover on cars owned by a partner and secondly the other car must have a valid policy for this clause to be active. Not trying to be negative mate but from what you’ve described either of those two things might mess up your defence.
 
Strawbs were class said:
The way I read this from a cod law perspective is that it is totally irrelevant if you had 3rd party to drive a car. The car you drove was not insured in the 1st place. 3rd party is to cover you to drive an insured car. Btw why didnt you just walk to the shop to get the milk, this is about all our children!
Click to expand...

Because I'm bone idle lazy and it was 19:30. If the car was insured I would not be having this conversation as I was a named driver on the policy. The fact it had no insurance was unknown. I'll still bring it back to my charge. Driving without third party cover, when my insurance company have stated I was covered with no caveat that the car must be insured for my third party insurance to cover me.

Anyway. The PC is back on duty tomorrow so hopefully i can get in touch with him to try to get the charge squashed before it even has chance to go to court.

The reason I keep going with this is there is still that little itch at the back of my head, am i missing something. I think the issue is when people keep talking about the car needs to be insured as well and the couple who have mentioned that the "new" laws that have been brought in to stop people buying and insuring a banger but driving a Ferrari. I can't find that referenced anywhere. I'm assuming its the Continual Insurance Enforcement which as far as I can see does not impact my charge of driving without third party insurance.

beezer said:
You mentioned that your insurer has said that they consider you were covered, but have you got this in writing?

As an example this is the exact wording from my policy:

The policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car as long as the other car is not a car either owned by you or your partner or hired or leased to you or your partner under a hire purchase or leasing agreement or hired or rented to you or your partner under a car hire or rental agreement, within the UK, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car. Please note this cover is Third Party Only.

I would imagine that’s pretty standard wording and two things jump out. Firstly no cover on cars owned by a partner and secondly the other car must have a valid policy for this clause to be active. Not trying to be negative mate but from what you’ve described either of those two things might mess up your defence.
Click to expand...

Yep.

As sent to Vinny the Mackem:

We will insure the vehicle policyholder while driving any other car within the territorial limits providing: (i'll summarise the rest)
The car does not belong to them
Is being driven with express consent
My car has not been damaged beyond cost effective repair
I'm over 25
That my policy covers me to drive such a car.
And that named drivers on my policy do not have the same rights.

No other caveats.
 
Last edited:
mickonline said:
But its not my vehicle. This is the point. As my insurance company stated, when i was in the vehicle driving I was insured, as soon as I left it become uninsured again.

I'm fighting the charge they have given me (personally), "using a vehicle without third party insurance". The other potential charges have far less impact.

Basically i'm fighting the IN10. I'd pay the fine, take the points to keep my Mrs out of this but an IN10 has very serious consequences for the next 5 year.
Click to expand...
The point is you were using a vehicle, if it was driving without insurance yes you've got a point, as has already been said, if you were in the shop and the cars handbrake failed and it hit another vehicle would your insurance pay out ? they've told you they wouldn't...
 
mickonline said:
Because I'm bone idle lazy and it was 19:30. If the car was insured I would not be having this conversation as I was a named driver on the policy. The fact it had no insurance was unknown. I'll still bring it back to my charge. Driving without third party cover, when my insurance company have stated I was covered with no caveat that the car must be insured for my third party insurance to cover me.

Anyway. The PC is back on duty tomorrow so hopefully i can get in touch with him to try to get the charge squashed before it even has chance to go to court.

The reason I keep going with this is there is still that little itch at the back of my head, am i missing something. I think the issue is when people keep talking about the car needs to be insured as well and the couple who have mentioned that the "new" laws that have been brought in to stop people buying and insuring a banger but driving a Ferrari. I can't find that referenced anywhere. I'm assuming its the Continual Insurance Enforcement which as far as I can see does not impact my charge of driving without third party insurance.
Click to expand...
Fair enough if you feel the itch, its your 6 pts not mine. If you keep pushing they may well just sack it off cos you're a tenatious bugger
 
There are no grey areas...you're guilty, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Qualifications: Barristers script writer 17 years.
 

Back
Top