Legal Bods



mickonline said:
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.
Click to expand...

In that case I’d say you have a pretty good argument. I’m in no way a legal expert mind!
 
sidneyeric said:
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...
Click to expand...

Yes because its using not driving. I used the car to go to the shop. They specifically use the phrase as its reasonable to expect if I popped into a shop the car would be covered. They don't use driving. As my charge states "using a car without third party insurance".

Gelan said:
There are no grey areas...you're guilty, ignorance of the law is no defence.

Qualifications: Barristers script writer 17 years.
Click to expand...

This is my question, what am i guilty of?
 
Last edited:
mickonline said:
Yes because its using not driving. I used the car to go to the shop. They specifically use the phrase as its reasonable to expect if I popped into a shop the car would be covered. They don't use driving. As my charge states "using a car without third party insurance".



This is my question, what am i guilty of?
Click to expand...
Leaving a car on a public road with no insurance.
 
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...

I'm not sure if this has been covered already but exactly what did the PC witness that triggered his actions?

For example did he witness the car parked whilst you were in the shop or did he just witness you driving?
 
sidneyeric said:
Leaving a car on a public road with no insurance.
Click to expand...

But thats not my charge. My charge is “Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”

Notice I say my charge. That is the charge against me.

Pancho said:
I'm not sure if this has been covered already but exactly what did the PC witness that triggered his actions?

For example did he witness the car parked whilst you were in the shop or did he just witness you driving?
Click to expand...

He caught me with his ANPR. I went to the shop, he was sat in the KFC opposite. So i assume he saw me driving.
 
Last edited:
mickonline said:
But thats not my charge. My charge is “Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”

Notice I say my charge. That is the charge against me.



He caught me with his ANPR. I went to the shop, he was sat in the KFC opposite.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear he witnessed you parking and leaving the car?
 
mickonline said:
But thats not my charge. My charge is “Use a motor vehicle on a road / public place without third party insurance”

Notice I say my charge. That is the charge against me.



He caught me with his ANPR. I went to the shop, he was sat in the KFC opposite. So i assume he saw me driving.
Click to expand...
Using isn't just driving....
 
Pancho said:
Just to be clear he witnessed you parking and leaving the car?
Click to expand...

I really don't know the answer to that. I would assume that he caught me as I was leaving for home as he should have stopped and impounded the car then rather than allowing me to get home. But surely if its the parked bit that would be an offence against the Mrs. Her car, her insurance.

sidneyeric said:
Using isn't just driving....
Click to expand...

Yep. I used the car to go to the shop. Is the way i've had it explained to me. Technically the car would be covered while I was in the shop as that was its intended use.

As the PC i spoke to today said. "Road Traffic offences are very black or white, you either did it or didn't. But the wording of the charge is very specific".
 
Last edited:
1. OP was charged with a contravention of s143.
2. He has confirmation from his insurers that he was covered.
3. Number 2 creates an argument that there is a reasonable doubt of guilt.
4. If the court thinks the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are very good grounds for a special reasons disposal which would allow the court not to impose points.

Can we just move on and await the outcome from the OP now?
 
Vinny the Mackem said:
1. OP was charged with a contravention of s143.
2. He has confirmation from his insurers that he was covered.
3. Number 2 creates an argument that there is a reasonable doubt of guilt.
4. If the court thinks the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are very good grounds for a special reasons disposal which would allow the court not to impose points.

Can we just move on and await the outcome from the OP now?
Click to expand...

I just hope I can be as convincing tomorrow Mr Vinny!!!

Just wish I could post a picture of my car as it stands now after the little scrotes last night for those who did not believe.
 
Last edited:
mickonline said:
Yes because its using not driving. I used the car to go to the shop. They specifically use the phrase as its reasonable to expect if I popped into a shop the car would be covered. They don't use driving. As my charge states "using a car without third party insurance".

This is your initial statement on OP. "I've just been followed home by Plod" If this literally translates to "A police officer observed me driving an uninsured vehicle" then there cannot be grey areas, and that's a solicitors domain, meaning they will take your money and lie for you.

You can seldom fuck with statutory law...take the hit and move on.

Edit: I haven't read all the posts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Vinny the Mackem said:
1. OP was charged with a contravention of s143.
2. He has confirmation from his insurers that he was covered.
3. Number 2 creates an argument that there is a reasonable doubt of guilt.
4. If the court thinks the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt, there are very good grounds for a special reasons disposal which would allow the court not to impose points.

Can we just move on and await the outcome from the OP now?
Click to expand...

Well that's us telt.
 
duff_man said:
No. You do however appear to be rather pissed.



No
Click to expand...
Pissed? I wrote that reply out this morning but my lift came to go bass fishing all day. Was gonna to put only joking on the end but I must of pressed send without finishing the reply. So @mickonline i apologise i was just jesting.
Hope it goes well tomorrow.

@duff_man i apologise to you for getting you rattled.

@sidneyeric i can’t take you serious anymore. 1 minute your saying nuggsy and smarty have been fitted up then your talking about handbrakes failing outside of shops and that. Tut tut.
 
the boot said:
Pissed? I wrote that reply out this morning but my lift came to go bass fishing all day. Was gonna to put only joking on the end but I must of pressed send without finishing the reply. So @mickonline i apologise i was just jesting.
Hope it goes well tomorrow.

@duff_man i apologise to you for getting you rattled.

@sidneyeric i can’t take you serious anymore. 1 minute your saying nuggsy and smarty have been fitted up then your talking about handbrakes failing outside of shops and that. Tut tut.
Click to expand...

Yeah, rattled.
 
the boot said:
Pissed? I wrote that reply out this morning but my lift came to go bass fishing all day. Was gonna to put only joking on the end but I must of pressed send without finishing the reply. So @mickonline i apologise i was just jesting.
Hope it goes well tomorrow.

@duff_man i apologise to you for getting you rattled.

@sidneyeric i can’t take you serious anymore. 1 minute your saying nuggsy and smarty have been fitted up then your talking about handbrakes failing outside of shops and that. Tut tut.
Click to expand...
I have never once said that, so on to ignore you go.
 
duff_man said:
How old are you man? f***ing ignore.
Click to expand...
:lol: I thought he was made of sterner stuff.

mickonline said:
I just hope I can be as convincing tomorrow Mr Vinny!!!

Just wish I could post a picture of my car as it stands now after the little scrotes last night for those who did not believe.
Click to expand...
Just remember mate that you don’t have to disclose anything to your insurance company that they don’t ask a direct question for.
So if they did not ask you if the other car had valid insurance you don’t have to inform them it didn’t.
As the pc might say to you did you inform them this that and the other, you just tell him you answered all their questions.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top