Legal Bods

[Baloo]

He wasn’t. To use driving other cars cover (which not all policies have now anyway) the car needs to have a policy taken out on it in its own right. It was brought in about 10 years ago to stop people insuring the cheapest car possible then using DOV cover to drive higher group car.

Most policies will also state that you can’t drive a car this way that you are the owner or R/K of for the same reasonand some policies exclude vehicles owner or registered to your partner or spouse.

The only issue I can see with the whole thing is I am not sure the car should have been seized as the siezure is not intended to be a punishment in its own right but used to prevent the offence reoccurring. For example a taxi driver without for carriage of passenger insurance and just ordinary insurance, once the passengers are out of the vehicle then he would be correctly insured so no need to seize.

*At least mine was a typo



You didn’t. There needs to be a policy in place on the vehicle for your insurance to be valid

IN12 for the wife as well if they want to be dicks?

 

[Goat Eyes]

I said I ended up with points but no fine. It should have been both.

Ah ok, result. Normally the punishment is more severe.

 

[Kent_Mackem]

He wasn’t. To use driving other cars cover (which not all policies have now anyway) the car needs to have a policy taken out on it in its own right. It was brought in about 10 years ago to stop people insuring the cheapest car possible then using DOV cover to drive higher group car.

Most policies will also state that you can’t drive a car this way that you are the owner or R/K of for the same reasonand some policies exclude vehicles owner or registered to your partner or spouse.

The only issue I can see with the whole thing is I am not sure the car should have been seized as the siezure is not intended to be a punishment in its own right but used to prevent the offence reoccurring. For example a taxi driver without for carriage of passenger insurance and just ordinary insurance, once the passengers are out of the vehicle then he would be correctly insured so no need to seize.

*At least mine was a typo



You didn’t. There needs to be a policy in place on the vehicle for your insurance to be valid

This is the correct answer. I’ve seen three or four cases at magistrates’ court of just this occurrence.

 

[mickonline]

Just admit you fucked up and pay up, don't burden the tax payer with court appearances.

Stuff that, why should I be branded the same as somebody who knowingly drives with no insurance, which was why they brought the harsher penalties in. All my cars have always been insured and for one 1/2 mile discretion I'm going to pay for 5 year..........

Speak to your insurance company and explain to them how the policy lapsed, if it was the same company as last year then they might agree to cover you retrospectively. If they do then go to court and produce your wifes certificate and it will be withdrawn.

As it stands though you have committed the offence.

The buggers won't.

 

[pavarotti1980]

Any legal bods on here tonight.

I've just been followed home by Plod. Popped to the local shop to get some milk in the wifes car and just found out because of an expired payment card, that her insurance had expired and not auto renewed.

Now my insurance clearly states I can drive any other car with the owners permission and has no stipulations that the car must be insured as well.

I'm not contesting having to pay to get the car out of the pound as technically while i was in the shop it was an uninsured car on the road, but should i contest my fine and points as when i was driving it was covered third party by my insurance?

The wifes car would have to be insured to allow you to invoke the "drive any other vehicle" clause on your own insurance.

So unfortunately through no fault of your own it would be points (6) and fine (£300) and then a massive increase in premium when you renew your insurance with an IN10 endorsement on your license

 

[mickonline]

The wifes car would have to be insured to allow you to invoke the "drive any other vehicle" clause on your own insurance.

So unfortunately through no fault of your own it would be points (6) and fine (£300) and then a massive increase in premium when you renew your insurance with an IN10 endorsement on your license

I'm accepting that now but will still go to court and show them the e-mail from the previous insurer stating the car would auto renew. It has been escalated due to moving house and the previous insurer having the wrong telephone number and address. I know it not an excuse but i'd just lost my mother and my head was not in the right place so when all the e-mails started to come down from Admiral, which included the none payment notification I just assumed it was all their marketing rubbish.

I did jump into her car with no reason to suspect the insurance had been cancelled, I had no idea and will hopefully plead for lenience as like i said earlier all my cars have always been insured, its not like i was deliberately driving a car without insurance, which would have the same penalty as I'm about to face.

This is the correct answer. I’ve seen three or four cases at magistrates’ court of just this occurrence.

What was the outcome of them?

 

[Goat Eyes]

I'm accepting that now but will still go to court and show them the e-mail from the previous insurer stating the car would auto renew. It has been escalated due to moving house and the previous insurer having the wrong telephone number and address. I know it not an excuse but i'd just lost my mother and my head was not in the right place so when all the e-mails started to come down from Admiral, which included the none payment notification I just assumed it was all their marketing rubbish.

I did jump into her car with no reason to suspect the insurance had been cancelled, I had no idea and will hopefully plead for lenience as like i said earlier all my cars have always been insured, its not like i was deliberately driving a car without insurance, which would have the same penalty as I'm about to face.



What was the outcome of them?

You’ll find it’ll be more lenient taking the punishment now rather than at court I’d imagine.

I’d seek proper advice.

 

[sidneyeric]

"Absolute offence" It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the driver to ensure they are legal to drive, you will lose, just because you thought you were covered is not a valid excuse your wasting your time.

 

[the boot]

Stuff that, why should I be branded the same as somebody who knowingly drives with no insurance, which was why they brought the harsher penalties in. All my cars have always been insured and for one 1/2 mile discretion I'm going to pay for 5 year..........



The buggers won't.

Ask yourself why would they want to see your wife’s certificate? Unless your named on it. If you crashed you wouldn’t ring your wife’s insurance (even) if she was covered, your not named on it. So you would ring yours. Correct?

 

[mickonline]

Ask yourself why would they want to see your wife’s certificate? Unless your named on it. If you crashed you wouldn’t ring your wife’s insurance (even) if she was covered, your not named on it. So you would ring yours. Correct?

Keep going??!!

The issue to me (and I wouldn't throw her to them) is if it had been her who was stopped then there would be no leg to stand on. Her car, her insurance.

I have my own insurance, and always have. My crime is nowhere near that of the guy who knowingly does not insure his car and drives about in it anyway. But ongoing insurance companies will look at us both the same way.

 

[Deleted member 26533]

"Absolute offence" It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the driver to ensure they are legal to drive, you will lose, just because you thought you were covered is not a valid excuse your wasting your time.

Haven't read the whole thread, but my mate was let off due to his circumstances, so it can't be 'ALWAYS' surely?

 

[the boot]

Keep going??!!

The issue to me (and I wouldn't throw her to them) is if it had been her who was stopped then there would be no leg to stand on. Her car, her insurance.

I have my own insurance, and always have. My crime is nowhere near that of the guy who knowingly does not insure his car and drives about in it anyway. But ongoing insurance companies will look at us both the same way.

Listen mate take it to court. You have a legally binding document allowing you to drive other vehicles, all restrictions are listed. It doesn’t say anything about other vehicle having insurance. Check YOUR policy in full. If it doesn’t mention other vehicle being insured your ok.

 

[mickonline]

Haven't read the whole thread, but my mate was let off due to his circumstances.

What do we think defence team?

Special Reasons

• a cancellation of an insurance policy by the insurer without telling the policy holder
• faults attributable to an insurance company that has resulted in no policy being in force
• a person being informed by the owner of a vehicle or policy holder that she can drive the vehicle legally
• a person having a genuine reason to believe he or she is insured, even if the person is not

So, to summarise, a special reason must:

• Relate to the reason the offence took place, and not be about the personal situation of the individual;
• Not amount to a legal defence, but should be a good reason why someone should not receive the mandatory sentence

So her policy was cancelled, due to my situation at the time I missed the e-mail notification. We've moved address so telephone and letter did not reach us. With a genuine reason to believe I could drive it (e-mail confirmation)?

Listen mate take it to court. You have a legally binding document allowing you to drive other vehicles, all restrictions are listed. It doesn’t say anything about other vehicle having insurance. Check YOUR policy in full. If it doesn’t mention other vehicle being insured your ok.

Apparently the other vehicle has to have insurance in law, although i can't find it yet.

 

[pavarotti1980]

Listen mate take it to court. You have a legally binding document allowing you to drive other vehicles, all restrictions are listed. It doesn’t say anything about other vehicle having insurance. Check YOUR policy in full. If it doesn’t mention other vehicle being insured your ok.

I don't think you are really in a position to say he will ok........unless you have extensive experience in the subject matter which I suspect you don't

 

[the boot]

I don't think you are really in a position to say he will ok........unless you have extensive experience in the subject matter which I suspect you don't

Or been to court twice before. Stuck to doing land searches mate.

What do we think defence team?

Special Reasons

• a cancellation of an insurance policy by the insurer without telling the policy holder
• faults attributable to an insurance company that has resulted in no policy being in force
• a person being informed by the owner of a vehicle or policy holder that she can drive the vehicle legally
• a person having a genuine reason to believe he or she is insured, even if the person is not

So, to summarise, a special reason must:

• Relate to the reason the offence took place, and not be about the personal situation of the individual;
• Not amount to a legal defence, but should be a good reason why someone should not receive the mandatory sentence

So her policy was cancelled, due to my situation at the time I missed the e-mail notification. We've moved address so telephone and letter did not reach us. With a genuine reason to believe I could drive it (e-mail confirmation)?



Apparently the other vehicle has to have insurance in law, although i can't find it yet.

You won’t find. Duffy and pav will have been searching all morning.

 

[Boz33]

Definitely not insured because if it was possible to do that people would just put multiple cars in other people's names as the registered keeper, have one insurance and drive them all when they wanted at little to no cost
If a car is on the roads it needs to have it's 'own' insurance
Also being ignorant of whether your wife had insurance or not wouldn't stack up as a defence as she should have checked /made sure it was before she gave permission for you to drive it.
It's a shite situation but I guess if you go to court you could always hope for an understanding magistrate

 

[the boot]

Get the main lad in here. @Vinny the Mackem.

Tbf he’s always proved me wrong.

 

[mickonline]

Road Traffic Act 1988

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

 

[Sleepy]

Any legal bods on here tonight.

I've just been followed home by Plod. Popped to the local shop to get some milk in the wifes car and just found out because of an expired payment card, that her insurance had expired and not auto renewed.

Now my insurance clearly states I can drive any other car with the owners permission and has no stipulations that the car must be insured as well.

I'm not contesting having to pay to get the car out of the pound as technically while i was in the shop it was an uninsured car on the road, but should i contest my fine and points as when i was driving it was covered third party by my insurance?

@duff_man is right here so be wary of the other bad advice from others!

If the card was expired they would have contacted your mrs about it before just cancelling as well. Did she get something and forget about it or something?

 

[the boot]

@duff_man is right here so be wary of the other bad advice from others!

If the card was expired they would have contacted your mrs about it before just cancelling as well. Did she get something and forget about it or something?

His mrs wasn’t driving it has nothing to do with her. He’s the one charged. Can’t understand why people don’t get this. He needs to careful getting her involved.