Legal Bods

[mickonline]

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.

Its a good example of how I'm increasingly starting to feel, especially after what happened to my car and lack of response from our Police.

There was no need to impound, the car was insured with 15 mins, there was no need to charge, it was a clear mistake. There was no reasoning when i mentioned i was insured.

If I do complain it will be about standards. Why was the book thrown at me for a simple and very clear mistake?

 

[Pancho]

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.

Sorry but you're still posting misleading and/or incomplete advice, which if acted upon could have serious ramifications.

I have had motor trade insurance for decades and for as long as I can recall, each year I have signed a declaration that I have not failed to declare any information that may have an impact upon the insurance premium.

But more importantly, because he's a proper lawyer and not just some punter of a football message board, see Vinny's post above.

MOT and insurance information from Direct Line

Is my car or van insurance valid without an MOT?
In most cases, as soon as your MOT expires, your insurance will no longer be valid. So if you have an accident, your van won’t be covered by your insurance provider and you’ll have to pay for repairs yourself – or potentially have your van written off. If the accident was your fault, you’ll also have to pay for the damage caused to any other vehicles involved, which could be very expensive. And, because it’s also illegal to drive without valid insurance, if you’re caught, you can face an unlimited fine or even disqualification from driving, plus 6 to 8 penalty points.

Drink driving and insurance information from GoCompare

Some insurers will not pay out if you are under the influence of drink or drugs - read more in our article on drug driving. ... So the fact that you were drink driving will not invalidate claims made by anyone injured as a result. But the insurers are entitled to claim these costs back from you.

 

[the boot]

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.

Yeah definitely mate I agree. But tbf my point was about the op. He said it was a genuine mistake. Just like forgetting about your mot. I got pulled a couple of year back leaving a pub by a traffic cop explained I had not been drinking he Had a sniff (not that type) and believed me. Then told me I had no mot. 2 weeks out of date. Gave me a 7 day thing and told me to sort it. And sent me on my way. Which I’m sure as happened to a few on here. Common sense prevailed he knew from his experience that if I crashed any third party would have been covered as if he thought I wouldn’t be he wasn’t a good cop.
My point being in 2 parts. 1, I’m not advising people to not get an mot as they will still be covered by insurance but if it’s a genuine mistake like the op explained common sense should prevail. And people should understand this and not just take a cops word for it as mistakes happen (as you have already pointed out in a previous case).
And 2. It is illegal to drive a car on a uk road without a valid mot certificate and as many cases prove it will not automatically void your insurance. It will almost certainly hit you in your pocket though. Similar to changing standard alloy wheels for fancy ones (modification) as this could also result in a lower payout.

If you crash and hurt someone I’m sure the courts would throw the book at you and maximum penalties given out.

There’s a case in tonights echo. A bloke,
Admitted driving while banned (genuine mistake he claimed)
Admitted driving without insurance.

12 week imprisonment suspended for 12 month and a fine plus costs.

No points no extended ban.

Mind he will probably never be able to afford insurance again as he only worked in a call centre.

Also I’m not having a go at the police I think they do a great job and admire their efforts, especially at the minute with the cut backs. But people should still have faith in the legal system that common sense will prevail.
In the op’s case.
His insurance company have said he was insured.
He works
It’s a newish car
His missus got insurance ASAP
He didn’t try and cover anything up
He’s of good character.
No other offence was committed.

Ya nar the stuff that a good policeman should understand.

 

[mickonline]

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.

Never thought to send recorded but have a copy. Sent the fixed penalty notice back (as advised by the FPU), with the letter and a copy of my e-mail from Aviva showing i was insured.

Got an e-mail trail from the charging officer, think the last one mentioned he would "put the traffic offence on hold" his words.

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.

But that is part of the issue Duff. I'm not ignorant of the law, I fully know the car should have been insured. At no point am I denying that. It was a stupid mistake. I jumped in the car in all good faith that it was insured. I was devastated when i found out it wasn't. Not so much for me, imagine if my Mrs had been pulled.

 

[the boot]

Sorry but you're still posting misleading and/or incomplete advice, which if acted upon could have serious ramifications.

I have had motor trade insurance for decades and for as long as I can recall, each year I have signed a declaration that I have not failed to declare any information that may have an impact upon the insurance premium.

But more importantly, because he's a proper lawyer and not just some punter of a football message board, see Vinny's post above.

MOT and insurance information from Direct Line

Is my car or van insurance valid without an MOT?
In most cases, as soon as your MOT expires, your insurance will no longer be valid. So if you have an accident, your van won’t be covered by your insurance provider and you’ll have to pay for repairs yourself – or potentially have your van written off. If the accident was your fault, you’ll also have to pay for the damage caused to any other vehicles involved, which could be very expensive. And, because it’s also illegal to drive without valid insurance, if you’re caught, you can face an unlimited fine or even disqualification from driving, plus 6 to 8 penalty points.

Drink driving and insurance information from GoCompare

Some insurers will not pay out if you are under the influence of drink or drugs - read more in our article on drug driving. ... So the fact that you were drink driving will not invalidate claims made by anyone injured as a result. But the insurers are entitled to claim these costs back from you.

Just to clarify I’m not talking about holding stuff back or telling lies as this is deliberate and reckless. I’m saying if they don’t ask you directly let’s say for instance “do you have any driving convictions?” (which they all do I know) but if they don’t ask direct it’s not your responsibility to say “I have a speeding offence” that’s the bit of the law that’s changed.

And the drink driving is what I said. 3rd party would be covered. And it also states ‘some’ will not pay out. Which means some will.

And tbf not once have I made it sound like or actually given it out as ‘advice’. I maybe wrong as I’m not reading it as another poster.
All my posts have been in reply to grief.
My first post of ‘your covered mate’ is correct. His insurance company have told him this. If he gets done it’s a shame as he was covered.
When @duff_man LIED and told me that the lads insurance company had told him he WAS NOT insured I told him I was out and that I was wrong.
Anyway I will take on board about being just a punter on a football forum and replying to these type of threads good sir. And Goodnight.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

Just to clarify I’m not talking about holding stuff back or telling lies as this is deliberate and reckless. I’m saying if they don’t ask you directly let’s say for instance “do you have any driving convictions?” (which they all do I know) but if they don’t ask direct it’s not your responsibility to say “I have a speeding offence” that’s the bit of the law that’s changed.

And the drink driving is what I said. 3rd party would be covered. And it also states ‘some’ will not pay out. Which means some will.

And tbf not once have I made it sound like or actually given it out as ‘advice’. I maybe wrong as I’m not reading it as another poster.
All my posts have been in reply to grief.
My first post of ‘your covered mate’ is correct. His insurance company have told him this. If he gets done it’s a shame as he was covered.
When @duff_man LIED and told me that the lads insurance company had told him he WAS NOT insured I told him I was out and that I was wrong.
Anyway I will take on board about being just a punter on a football forum and replying to these type of threads good sir. And Goodnight.

Sorry, I lied? Or did I just repeat what the OP had posted?

Yeah definitely mate I agree. But tbf my point was about the op. He said it was a genuine mistake. Just like forgetting about your mot. I got pulled a couple of year back leaving a pub by a traffic cop explained I had not been drinking he Had a sniff (not that type) and believed me. Then told me I had no mot. 2 weeks out of date. Gave me a 7 day thing and told me to sort it. And sent me on my way. Which I’m sure as happened to a few on here. Common sense prevailed he knew from his experience that if I crashed any third party would have been covered as if he thought I wouldn’t be he wasn’t a good cop.
My point being in 2 parts. 1, I’m not advising people to not get an mot as they will still be covered by insurance but if it’s a genuine mistake like the op explained common sense should prevail. And people should understand this and not just take a cops word for it as mistakes happen (as you have already pointed out in a previous case).
And 2. It is illegal to drive a car on a uk road without a valid mot certificate and as many cases prove it will not automatically void your insurance. It will almost certainly hit you in your pocket though. Similar to changing standard alloy wheels for fancy ones (modification) as this could also result in a lower payout.

If you crash and hurt someone I’m sure the courts would throw the book at you and maximum penalties given out.

There’s a case in tonights echo. A bloke,
Admitted driving while banned (genuine mistake he claimed)
Admitted driving without insurance.

12 week imprisonment suspended for 12 month and a fine plus costs.

No points no extended ban.

Mind he will probably never be able to afford insurance again as he only worked in a call centre.

Also I’m not having a go at the police I think they do a great job and admire their efforts, especially at the minute with the cut backs. But people should still have faith in the legal system that common sense will prevail.
In the op’s case.
His insurance company have said he was insured.
He works
It’s a newish car
His missus got insurance ASAP
He didn’t try and cover anything up
He’s of good character.
No other offence was committed.

Ya nar the stuff that a good policeman should understand.

So if you have a new car and you work you should be allowed to break the law?

 

[pavarotti1980]

Just out of interest. I know Aviva have told him that he would pay for any third party damage in the event of an accident. Does that mean that that would try and wriggle out of any other scenario, given that this episode did not involve an accident or damage to a third party.

I know it's semantics but that's how insurance companies wriggle out of paying.

Them saying they would pay for damage to third party in the event of an accident and you being covered properly to third level could be construed as 2 seperate things.

It's strange that Aviva seem to be the outlying insurance company in this when almost all others make a specific point regarding DOC exclusions.

I'm a cynic which is why I am sceptical of Aviva stance

 

[Deleted User 2893]

Just out of interest. I know Aviva have told him that he would pay for any third party damage in the event of an accident. Does that mean that that would try and wriggle out of any other scenario, given that this episode did not involve an accident or damage to a third party.

I know it's semantics but that's how insurance companies wriggle out of paying.

Them saying they would pay for damage to third party in the event of an accident and you being covered properly to third level could be construed as 2 seperate things.

It's strange that Aviva seem to be the outlying insurance company in this when almost all others make a specific point regarding DOC exclusions.

I'm a cynic which is why I am sceptical of Aviva stance

I mentioned it earlier. Insurance agreeing to pay out is not the same as them saying you are fully covered.

 

[mickonline]

I mentioned it earlier. Insurance agreeing to pay out is not the same as them saying you are fully covered.

We need to separate the two issues. I fully understand a car should have insurance and it is illegal not to have third party insurance. This is without a doubt a 100% accurate statement.

The RTA section 143 states it is illegal to drive a car on the road with third party insurance, again 100% accurate.

My insurance company has stated that (with no other caveats that affect this) in the event of an accident the would have paid out the third party liability. So therefore i was covered to drive that car (albeit by mistake and not intentional) on my insurance. The car its self was not insured, my insurance covered me to drive it.

Just out of interest. I know Aviva have told him that he would pay for any third party damage in the event of an accident. Does that mean that that would try and wriggle out of any other scenario, given that this episode did not involve an accident or damage to a third party.

I know it's semantics but that's how insurance companies wriggle out of paying.

Them saying they would pay for damage to third party in the event of an accident and you being covered properly to third level could be construed as 2 seperate things.

It's strange that Aviva seem to be the outlying insurance company in this when almost all others make a specific point regarding DOC exclusions.

I'm a cynic which is why I am sceptical of Aviva stance

If you check back over the previous posts I've posted all the requirements for me to drive a car on my insurance. There are no others according to my insurance company.

I'm just waiting for it to go tits up and make me look like a fool on here when they change their minds to the charging officer.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

We need to separate the two issues. I fully understand a car should have insurance and it is illegal not to have third party insurance. This is without a doubt a 100% accurate statement.

The RTA section 143 states it is illegal to drive a car on the road with third party insurance, again 100% accurate.

My insurance company has stated that (with no other caveats that affect this) in the event of an accident the would have paid out the third party liability. So therefore i was covered to drive that car (albeit by mistake and not intentional) on my insurance. The car its self was not insured, my insurance covered me to drive it.

Give me a minute while I bang my head off the nearest wall.

The insurance company saying they would pay out does not mean you are automatically insured, they are two seperate things.

It really is not difficult.

 

[pavarotti1980]

We need to separate the two issues. I fully understand a car should have insurance and it is illegal not to have third party insurance. This is without a doubt a 100% accurate statement.

The RTA section 143 states it is illegal to drive a car on the road with third party insurance, again 100% accurate.

My insurance company has stated that (with no other caveats that affect this) in the event of an accident the would have paid out the third party liability. So therefore i was covered to drive that car (albeit by mistake and not intentional) on my insurance. The car its self was not insured, my insurance covered me to drive it.



If you check back over the previous posts I've posted all the requirements for me to drive a car on my insurance. There are no others according to my insurance company.

I'm just waiting for it to go tits up and make me look like a fool on here when they change their minds to the charging officer.

Have you got it in writing that you were covered using your own insurance specifically you are covered to drive an uninsured vehicle on the roads using DOC or is it just specifically in the event of an accident. Two very different things

Post up the email and remove personal details

 

[Slatz63]

@mickonline
If you want some motoring law specialists/hobbyists to give you an opinion go over to Pepipoo, Speeding and other Criminal Offences.

They can normally be relied on for sound advice and have a lot of experience of not just motoring law but the lottery of policemen and magistrates foibles.

 

[Pancho]

We need to separate the two issues. I fully understand a car should have insurance and it is illegal not to have third party insurance. This is without a doubt a 100% accurate statement.

The RTA section 143 states it is illegal to drive a car on the road with third party insurance, again 100% accurate.

My insurance company has stated that (with no other caveats that affect this) in the event of an accident the would have paid out the third party liability. So therefore i was covered to drive that car (albeit by mistake and not intentional) on my insurance. The car its self was not insured, my insurance covered me to drive it.

If you check back over the previous posts I've posted all the requirements for me to drive a car on my insurance. There are no others according to my insurance company.

I'm just waiting for it to go tits up and make me look like a fool on here when they change their minds to the charging officer.

Give me a minute while I bang my head off the nearest wall.

The insurance company saying they would pay out does not mean you are automatically insured, they are two seperate things.

It really is not difficult.

Have you got it in writing that you were covered using your own insurance specifically you are covered to drive an uninsured vehicle on the roads using DOC or is it just specifically in the event of an accident. Two very different things

Post up the email and remove personal details

I've just had a look on the Aviva website and the info on there supports the op's impression. I realise that this may not be a definitive view but there appear to be no caveats regarding existing insurance although it does ask the insured to check the specifics of his/her policy.


You asked: Am I entitled to driving other cars (DOC) cover?

Driving other cars (DOC) cover applies to vehicle policyholders only. They need to be 25 or over (at inception or renewal of the policy) and have comprehensive cover.

We will then provide cover for the vehicle policyholders who meet the above criteria to drive any other cars, third party only, that are not owned by or registered to them and with the permission of the owner - short term cover is excluded.

For cover limits, exclusions and further information please refer to the documents section of MyAviva on the policy you wish to view

 

[Goat Eyes]

I hope he gets off the no insurance charge, it’s the common sense approach in this case providing everything happened as described.

 

[mickonline]

So an insurance company stating that in the event of an accident they would pay out the third party liability is not an admittance that I was insured?

I've just had a look on the Aviva website and the info on there supports the op's impression. I realise that this may not be a definitive view but there appear to be no caveats regarding existing insurance although it does ask the insured to check the specifics of his/her policy.


You asked: Am I entitled to driving other cars (DOC) cover?

Driving other cars (DOC) cover applies to vehicle policyholders only. They need to be 25 or over (at inception or renewal of the policy) and have comprehensive cover.

We will then provide cover for the vehicle policyholders who meet the above criteria to drive any other cars, third party only, that are not owned by or registered to them and with the permission of the owner - short term cover is excluded.

For cover limits, exclusions and further information please refer to the documents section of MyAviva on the policy you wish to view

Thats what I've been saying. I've actually posted the relevant section from my policy and the response from my insurance company. At no point does it state the car needs to have its own insurance for me to drive as when i stepped into the vehicle it was covered by my insurance.

It keeps getting confused with people stating the CAR needed to have insurance. Which it does, i don't question that, I question was the car covered when I drove it. I think that in this case (lucky i'm with Avivia) that I was. All RTA states is the user of the vehicle (USER) must have third party cover.

I hope he gets off the no insurance charge, it’s the common sense approach in this case providing everything happened as described.

Cheers

 

[Pancho]

So an insurance company stating that in the event of an accident they would pay out the third party liability is not an admittance that I was insured?



Thats what I've been saying. I've actually posted the relevant section from my policy and the response from my insurance company. At no point does it state the car needs to have its own insurance for me to drive as when i stepped into the vehicle it was covered by my insurance.

It keeps getting confused with people stating the CAR needed to have insurance. Which it does, i don't question that, I question was the car covered when I drove it. I think that in this case (lucky i'm with Avivia) that I was. All RTA states is the user of the vehicle (USER) must have third party cover.

On the face of it, as there appear to be no requirements by your insurers for the driven car to be insured, it seems that Aviva's statement that they would pay out in the event of a third party claim is indeed confirmation that you were insured under the requirements of the RTA.

Persuading the PC that was in fact the case is another matter, so as Vinny has already suggested, it is imperative that you keep a proper chronological paper trail to support your case.

 

[mickonline]

On the face of it, as there appear to be no requirements by your insurers for the driven car to be insured, it seems that Aviva's statement that they would pay out in the event of a third party claim is indeed confirmation that you were insured under the requirements of the RTA.

Persuading the PC that was in fact the case is another matter, so as Vinny has already suggested, it is imperative that you keep a proper chronological paper trail to support your case.

Thank you. This is one of the reasons I keep this thread going. There are people on here passing comment and not understanding my point and if i cant convince them, how can I convince the PC or a court, so I keep trying.

Vinny has been brilliant by the way.........

One of things that is becoming very clear the further I dig is it is the driver who is insured, not the car.

 

[Deleted User 2893]

So an insurance company stating that in the event of an accident they would pay out the third party liability is not an admittance that I was insured?



Thats what I've been saying. I've actually posted the relevant section from my policy and the response from my insurance company. At no point does it state the car needs to have its own insurance for me to drive as when i stepped into the vehicle it was covered by my insurance.

It keeps getting confused with people stating the CAR needed to have insurance. Which it does, i don't question that, I question was the car covered when I drove it. I think that in this case (lucky i'm with Avivia) that I was. All RTA states is the user of the vehicle (USER) must have third party cover.



Cheers

f***ing hell, finally it has went in.

I am bored of this now. I have first hand experience of people being convicted in court of this offence in the exact same circumstances, it happens countless times everyday up and down the country.

You are adamant you were insured so plead not guilty.

Good luck with your frivolous complaint too.

 

[mickonline]

f***ing hell, finally it has went in.

I am bored of this now. I have first hand experience of people being convicted in court of this offence in the exact same circumstances, it happens countless times everyday up and down the country.

You are adamant you were insured so plead not guilty.

Good luck with your frivolous complaint too.

Who's rattled you? Frivolous? If i was insured, as it looks like, and the PC dismissed that out of hand how is that frivolous?

And as it looks like my insurance cover is the exception not the rule and if they finally do admit i was covered then i have been very lucky.

 

[luvulongtime]

I hope he gets off the no insurance charge, it’s the common sense approach in this case providing everything happened as described.

this is how it starts imo, driving with no insurance next he'll be in a gang high on crack toting a machine gun