Legal Bods

You weren’t right at all, even your son has looked at you through shame bearing tears and told you that you were wrong.



Probably gone home.
He was wrong too. Been on the phone and told him he owes me a pint. I should have know taking notice of him. I don’t think he’s mine, also told him that.

I was right about not having to disclose mate away.
 


Still not had a response on whether my insurance was valid or not. I know it is but he insists he needs to check before dropping the charges.

Hes had the information to contact them since lunchtime yesterday and I've sent an e-mail reminder this morning. Also had the fixed penalty notice today which I am returning, with a letter, as advised by the FPU, that i can not accept nor deny the charge until the charging officer has completed his investigation.

I feel a major complaint coming if i do get off............
 
Still not had a response on whether my insurance was valid or not. I know it is but he insists he needs to check before dropping the charges.

Hes had the information to contact them since lunchtime yesterday and I've sent an e-mail reminder this morning. Also had the fixed penalty notice today which I am returning, with a letter, as advised by the FPU, that i can not accept nor deny the charge until the charging officer has completed his investigation.

I feel a major complaint coming if i do get off............
A complaint?

On what basis
 
Last edited:
Oh, yes.

It was pointed out last week that I had fully comprehensive insurance which covered me. My pleas were ignored and I've had a week now of stress and anxiety waiting for confirmation that the charge against me is dropped. The car should not have been impounded. It was on private land and the impounding is not meant to be a punishment and is there to stop another crime being committed. The car was insured by the time the pick up truck came to collect.

I'm now hearing nothing and its been over 30 hrs since I passed my insurance details over following a telephone call and two e-mails. I've got the fixed penalty notice now and have had to ring up to find out how to proceed as I can't plead one way or the other until I've heard from the charging officer.
 
Could you prove last week when the car was stopped/seized that you were covered by your own insurance (albeit TP)?

The car should have been uplifted as no matter what happened with you; the vehicle was uninsured. It doesnt matter if it is on private land or public land its uninsured and was seen being driven (continuous indurance legislation etc) regardless whether the car was insured when it was uplifted the offence was committed a long time before it.

Dont conflate the two seperate offences.

Maybe your insurance company have not yet confirmed or denied your position and is waiting for clarification?

With regards to FPN you have already posted exactly what you need to do, i.e. "a letter, as advised by the FPU, that i can not accept nor deny the charge until the charging officer has completed his investigation."
 
Could you prove last week when the car was stopped/seized that you were covered by your own insurance (albeit TP)?

The car should have been uplifted as no matter what happened with you; the vehicle was uninsured. It doesnt matter if it is on private land or public land its uninsured and was seen being driven (continuous indurance legislation etc) regardless whether the car was insured when it was uplifted the offence was committed a long time before it.

Dont conflate the two seperate offences.

Maybe your insurance company have not yet confirmed or denied your position and is waiting for clarification?

With regards to FPN you have already posted exactly what you need to do, i.e. "a letter, as advised by the FPU, that i can not accept nor deny the charge until the charging officer has completed his investigation."
Send that letter by recorded delivery. Keep a copy of that letter. Get the RD reference number on the letter too. This, to my mind, has a real risk of going tits up and leaving you in the shit through no fault of your own. You may want to consider cc'ing the letter to the appropriate police office.
 
And your point is?

They were right to do so given the information he has posted.

I thought his insurance company have confirmed he was covered and the rozzer was going to ring them to confirm?

My point was if they do let him off then they have severely inconvenienced him and caused a lot of unnecessary stress which is grounds for a complaint.
 
Last edited:
My concern is that you have already been charged, otherwise you would not have recieved the FP. What seems to be happening is that the reporting officer is reviewing new evidence to see whether the charge can be withdrawn.

Sending the FP back with a not guilty plea would obviously start a chain of procedure, effectively bringing the prosecution upon yourself, but the charge can be withdrawn or dropped at any stage - including at the end of any trial.

Keep a very, very tight reign on what's happening, make sure you keep a verifiable paper trail.
 
I thought his insurance company have confirmed he was covered and the rozzer was going to ring them to confirm?

My point was if they do let him off then they have severely inconvenienced him and caused a lot of unnecessary stress which is grounds for a complaint.
whether he is let off or not his wife's car did not have any insurance in place to comply with legislation hence it being uplifted. If it's not an inconbeinconv what deterrent is there for not having insurance
 
Last edited:
Still not had a response on whether my insurance was valid or not. I know it is but he insists he needs to check before dropping the charges.

Hes had the information to contact them since lunchtime yesterday and I've sent an e-mail reminder this morning. Also had the fixed penalty notice today which I am returning, with a letter, as advised by the FPU, that i can not accept nor deny the charge until the charging officer has completed his investigation.

I feel a major complaint coming if i do get off............

I feel I know what the answer to that will be regardless of how this pans out. Either outcome the officer has acted in good faith with the information available to him.

You do know how to plead, you are adamant you were insured so you should plead not guilty.
 
Last edited:
I feel I know what the answer to that will be regardless of how this pans out. Either outcome the officer has acted in good faith with the information available to him.

You do know how to plead, you are adamant you were insured so you should plead not guilty.

This. But I think we both know how this will end.

Wifes car has no insurance.

His car fully insured.

Drives wifes car thinking his insurance gives him third party cover on wifes car. It doesnt by virtue of the fact that the wifes car doesnt have valid insurance, which is a legal requirement for his insurance to cover third parties.

Plead 'not guilty'? he would be better off pleading guilty and 'mitigating'. Ask for Conditional Discharge, and no points.
 
This. But I think we both know how this will end.

Wifes car has no insurance.

His car fully insured.

Drives wifes car thinking his insurance gives him third party cover on wifes car. It doesnt by virtue of the fact that the wifes car doesnt have valid insurance, which is a legal requirement for his insurance to cover third parties.

Plead 'not guilty'? he would be better off pleading guilty and 'mitigating'. Ask for Conditional Discharge, and no points.

He has been given that advice but he is adamant he is insured, if he truly thinks that then he should have the power of his convictions and go not guilty.

He also seems to think that the copper dealing with it has nothing else to deal with either.
 
your insurance company might have said you were insured for the scenario but they're wrong if your wife's car wasn't insured in it's own right. the third party extension is null and void with her policy having lapsed

best bet is you get away with mitigating circumstances
 
Just to put this in context.
It is illegal to drive or keep a car with no mot on a uk road (unless your taking it for a test).

Does it void your insurance? No
They just won’t pay you as much for your car as they would if it were mot’d. But the insurance will still cover 3rd party payout. That’s why you only get done for no mot.

Once again you're wrong.

Insurance cover can indeed be compromised by an expired MOT. Read the small print on most if not all policies.

You've repeatedly given duff and arguably dangerous advice on this thread and then argued with members clearly more qualified than yourself.

Please at least do a little research before posting.
 
Once again you're wrong.

Insurance cover can indeed be compromised by an expired MOT. Read the small print on most if not all policies.

You've repeatedly given duff and arguably dangerous advice on this thread and then argued with members clearly more qualified than yourself.

Please at least do a little research before posting.
I did. Like vinny (defence lawyer) said the law changed with regard to the notifying insurance companies. It changed from you had as a agreement to inform them to they have to ask directly as a direct question.
The insurance company have also informed the op he was insured (like I said he was)if he crashed.

The mot thing is open ended. You are still insured to drive a car with no mot. But the insurance company will pay less for your car as it is worth less. You get a trade price which is normally 20% less than market value. But you might also get nothing for your car.

It’s like drink driving, your still insured, it’s illegal to drink drive but your still insured and rightly so!, if I got hit by a drunk person I wouldn’t want his insurance company not paying me out. Same as an mot why should I not be paid out if you have not got an mot.

Like I said at the start of the post the law is only interested in 3rd party insurance. If your thick enough to let your mot run out that’s your problem if they don’t pay for your car that’s your problem. The law is good and covers us (3rd parties) for idiots who do forget.
 
He has been given that advice but he is adamant he is insured, if he truly thinks that then he should have the power of his convictions and go not guilty.

He also seems to think that the copper dealing with it has nothing else to deal with either.

I'm bitter about the whole situation. Why was our car impounded? It was insured by the time the tow truck came. Impounding a vehicle is not meant as a punishment, just to prevent the crime happening again. For example if an uninsured driver is stopped on the main road, it makes sense to impound the vehicle to stop the driver, once the pc has left jumping in the car and driving it home.

This was not the case here, the car was on our drive and insured before the tow tuck got there. Where was the risk of a repeat offence?

I'll speak more on my conviction if it gets cancelled. Remember I told this PC i had fully comprehensive insurance at the time which he chose to dismiss. If my insurance company confirms to him, as they did to me, that i was covered this opens up part two of my complaint.
 
I'm bitter about the whole situation. Why was our car impounded? It was insured by the time the tow truck came. Impounding a vehicle is not meant as a punishment, just to prevent the crime happening again. For example if an uninsured driver is stopped on the main road, it makes sense to impound the vehicle to stop the driver, once the pc has left jumping in the car and driving it home.

This was not the case here, the car was on our drive and insured before the tow tuck got there. Where was the risk of a repeat offence?

I'll speak more on my conviction if it gets cancelled. Remember I told this PC i had fully comprehensive insurance at the time which he chose to dismiss. If my insurance company confirms to him, as they did to me, that i was covered this opens up part two of my complaint.

I am fully aware of how and why a car can be seized, S165A of the road traffic act. The PC would probably argue that your ignorance of the law could lead you to commit further offences.

I have known countless cars be seized for no insurance under the exact same circumstances that you have described, it happens dozens of times everyday up and down the country.
 
I did. Like vinny (defence lawyer) said the law changed with regard to the notifying insurance companies. It changed from you had as a agreement to inform them to they have to ask directly as a direct question.
The insurance company have also informed the op he was insured (like I said he was)if he crashed.

The mot thing is open ended. You are still insured to drive a car with no mot. But the insurance company will pay less for your car as it is worth less. You get a trade price which is normally 20% less than market value. But you might also get nothing for your car.

It’s like drink driving, your still insured, it’s illegal to drink drive but your still insured and rightly so!, if I got hit by a drunk person I wouldn’t want his insurance company not paying me out. Same as an mot why should I not be paid out if you have not got an mot.

Like I said at the start of the post the law is only interested in 3rd party insurance. If your thick enough to let your mot run out that’s your problem if they don’t pay for your car that’s your problem. The law is good and covers us (3rd parties) for idiots who do forget.
Wasn't quite my view. My view was that the law had changed to make it less onerous on the policy purchaser, but that if information came to light to the insurer, then they had had the power to amend the insurance policy terms to increase premiums, or such other conditions as they would have imposed at the inception of the policy. This, theoretically, includes not insuring at all.

If they deemed the lack of information deliberate or reckless, they still have the power to void the policy.
 

Back
Top