Legal Bods

@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?

I don't like using it as an excuse but at the time of renewal i saw the auto renewal come in. I was busy getting grant of probate, breaking up my mothers house, going through all the legal stuff for that and was not in a good place mentally. I just missed (because it would have been me that picks these things up) the cancellation e-mails. They were sandwiched between house insurance, breakdown cover, etc etc. the normal spam you get. They didn't contact by phone or letter as we had moved house and they still had the original telephone number and address.

I've just assumed the car was insured. I am so pleased it was me they caught and not the Mrs as she would have been in deep shit, her car, her insurance.
 


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?
Thought it was Aviva. They are both arses.
 
I don't like using it as an excuse but at the time of renewal i saw the auto renewal come in. I was busy getting grant of probate, breaking up my mothers house, going through all the legal stuff for that and was not in a good place mentally. I just missed (because it would have been me that picks these things up) the cancellation e-mails. They were sandwiched between house insurance, breakdown cover, etc etc. the normal spam you get. They didn't contact by phone or letter as we had moved house and they still had the original telephone number and address.

I've just assumed the car was insured. I am so pleased it was me they caught and not the Mrs as she would have been in deep shit, her car, her insurance.

I've already held my hands up and admitted guilt but I've been digging and you can try for Special Circumstances, not as a legal defence but as an appeal to the court.

Thought it was Aviva. They are both arses.

I'm Aviva, she was Admiral.
 
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.
I've been in that situation mate and got off but it was a firms vehicle, part of a fleet so there was no way I could know. Secretary's fuck up, took a lot of explanation for the firm and they got a strong letter from the chief constable. the main point was as in your case thank fuck you didn't knock anyone over or cause serious injury. Think you might just have to swallow it.
 
It’s her car and that car had no insurance. That’s the sticking point, no?
Well I’ve just phoned the son and he confirmed that I’m wrong :lol:
Changed about 2008, it was a loop hole. Prior a vehicle parked on a public road had to be insured now it as to be sorn even on private land not to be insured therefore it takes away the reasons not to have a vehicle insured. So I should back away from the argument.
But.... I won’t as I have looked on the rac forum and there is mixed views. :lol:
 
Get the main lad in here. @Vinny the Mackem.

Tbf he’s always proved me wrong.
:lol:

As has been said, I'd urgently get in touch with your insurer where the live policy lies. If they say they would have covered you in the event of an accident etc, get that from them in writing. If they say they won't cover, you're stuffed.

You might be able to avoid points if you can prove to the court that you did not know and had no reason to know that the other insurance had lapsed. If the money should have been taken by an account solely in your wife's name, this will assist a great deal. If the account is in joint names, it's much more difficult to prove that you had no reason to know. If you have had a previous good history of paying - i.e. this is a one off - again this might help.

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.

This quote is misleading - sorry @mickonline . The full subsection is this:

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

(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

(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."

(b) is vital. It doesn't apply to you (you weren't in the course of employment) and this subsection requires to be read in its entirety.

There isn't a clear answer to whether you accept the charge - plead guilty and ask for a special reasons hearing to avoid endorsement, or plead not guilty and state it as a defence. I've had this discussions countless times with other lawyers and there's never been agreement. The most prevalent view is you need to plead guilty and seek a special reasons hearing. The reason is (other than the exceptions in subsection 3 above) the crime of not having insurance is "strict liability" and there is no defence. Having said that I've defended at least one trial I can think of where we took a risk, ran it as a not guilty trial and the lad was found not guilty. Having said that, it was in front of a Justice of the Peace, who have no legal qualifications. I don't think I'd have had the same result in front of a Sheriff. You can run it as a trial and if found guilty, ask for the facts and circumstances to be taken into account for a special reason not to endorse (rather than having a second hearing going through the exact same evidence).

If you already have 6 points or more, you can also consider asking for an exceptional hardship hearing against disqualification. This is a very high test to get over, though, and rarely works. Losing a job through loss of licence is generally not considered an exceptional hardship.

I think you'll be on much better grounds for the special reasons. This comes from section 44(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:

"
44 [F1Orders for endorsement]

(1)Where a person is convicted of an offence involving obligatory endorsement, the court must order there to be endorsed on [F2the counterpart of] any licence held by him particulars of the conviction and also—

(a)if the court orders him to be disqualified, particulars of the disqualification, or

(b)if the court does not order him to be disqualified—

(i)particulars of the offence, including the date when it was committed, and

(ii)the penalty points to be attributed to the offence.

(2)Where the court does not order the person convicted to be disqualified, it need not make an order under subsection (1) above if for special reasons it thinks fit not to do so. "

In summary:

1. Don't accept the fixed penalty. You'll automatically get 6 points.
2. If you can get a letter from the insurers covering you, get a copy of that that to the police asap. Keep the original letter.
3. Get a letter from your insurer (the non-lapsed one) to confirm that at the specific time of the offence (date and time is very important) your own vehicle/you were insured properly. Also get this to the police. Also keep the original
4. If the first letter isn't supportive, you'll almost certainly need to plead guilty (unless you want to risk it), and ask for a Special Reasons hearing. You'll need to get your bank accounts copies etc so you can show the court - all the better if the lapsed insurance comes from an account you have no access to. You'll need to give evidence to explain the circumstances. You'll need to explain why you didn't use your own car and that you did not know and had no reason to know that the insurance had lapsed. Take your own insurance policy and letter which confirms that you/your own vehicle had cover from an insurance policy - particularly if it allows you to drive any other vehicle. Your wife might be an important witness too if she is able to confirm that she took to deal with her insurance and that you didn't have any involvement in that (again, getting to the "no reason to know" point.
5. Good luck! Drop me a PM if you think I can help any further.
 
What was the outcome of them?

Even though the defendants had pleaded not guilty and subsequently found guilty the magistrates were, each time, not unsympathetic towards them. From memory they got a fine and 6 points. I’m not 100% sure about the points, the cases sometimes blur together, I know for example the drink driving bans given out are mandatory and the magistrates have no choice.

From what you have said I’d be amazed if you get a ban. You don’t pose a threat to the public, and if you (or your solicitor your behalf) show genuine remorse and explain the circumstances I’d expect you maybe get a slap on the wrist fine and 3 points. Pleading guilty at the first possible opportunity further reduces the fine.

You have been unlucky and it was not deliberate or malicious but this might serve to remind the red and white brothers and sister who read it to check up on their own insurance. Easily done!
 
:lol:

As has been said, I'd urgently get in touch with your insurer where the live policy lies. If they say they would have covered you in the event of an accident etc, get that from them in writing. If they say they won't cover, you're stuffed.

You might be able to avoid points if you can prove to the court that you did not know and had no reason to know that the other insurance had lapsed. If the money should have been taken by an account solely in your wife's name, this will assist a great deal. If the account is in joint names, it's much more difficult to prove that you had no reason to know. If you have had a previous good history of paying - i.e. this is a one off - again this might help.



This quote is misleading - sorry @mickonline . The full subsection is this:

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

(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

(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."

(b) is vital. It doesn't apply to you (you weren't in the course of employment) and this subsection requires to be read in its entirety.

There isn't a clear answer to whether you accept the charge - plead guilty and ask for a special reasons hearing to avoid endorsement, or plead not guilty and state it as a defence. I've had this discussions countless times with other lawyers and there's never been agreement. The most prevalent view is you need to plead guilty and seek a special reasons hearing. The reason is (other than the exceptions in subsection 3 above) the crime of not having insurance is "strict liability" and there is no defence. Having said that I've defended at least one trial I can think of where we took a risk, ran it as a not guilty trial and the lad was found not guilty. Having said that, it was in front of a Justice of the Peace, who have no legal qualifications. I don't think I'd have had the same result in front of a Sheriff. You can run it as a trial and if found guilty, ask for the facts and circumstances to be taken into account for a special reason not to endorse (rather than having a second hearing going through the exact same evidence).

If you already have 6 points or more, you can also consider asking for an exceptional hardship hearing against disqualification. This is a very high test to get over, though, and rarely works. Losing a job through loss of licence is generally not considered an exceptional hardship.

I think you'll be on much better grounds for the special reasons. This comes from section 44(2) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988:

"
44 [F1Orders for endorsement]

(1)Where a person is convicted of an offence involving obligatory endorsement, the court must order there to be endorsed on [F2the counterpart of] any licence held by him particulars of the conviction and also—

(a)if the court orders him to be disqualified, particulars of the disqualification, or

(b)if the court does not order him to be disqualified—

(i)particulars of the offence, including the date when it was committed, and

(ii)the penalty points to be attributed to the offence.

(2)Where the court does not order the person convicted to be disqualified, it need not make an order under subsection (1) above if for special reasons it thinks fit not to do so. "

In summary:

1. Don't accept the fixed penalty. You'll automatically get 6 points.
2. If you can get a letter from the insurers covering you, get a copy of that that to the police asap. Keep the original letter.
3. Get a letter from your insurer (the non-lapsed one) to confirm that at the specific time of the offence (date and time is very important) your own vehicle/you were insured properly. Also get this to the police. Also keep the original
4. If the first letter isn't supportive, you'll almost certainly need to plead guilty (unless you want to risk it), and ask for a Special Reasons hearing. You'll need to get your bank accounts copies etc so you can show the court - all the better if the lapsed insurance comes from an account you have no access to. You'll need to give evidence to explain the circumstances. You'll need to explain why you didn't use your own car and that you did not know and had no reason to know that the insurance had lapsed. Take your own insurance policy and letter which confirms that you/your own vehicle had cover from an insurance policy - particularly if it allows you to drive any other vehicle. Your wife might be an important witness too if she is able to confirm that she took to deal with her insurance and that you didn't have any involvement in that (again, getting to the "no reason to know" point.
5. Good luck! Drop me a PM if you think I can help any further.
Get the fuck in there. Some bloke you like.
 
IN12 for the wife as well if they want to be dicks?

They could do but you would have to be a right twat to even think of going down that route to be honest

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.

That subsection relates to using a vehicle provided by your employer I think
 
Last edited:
Outstanding, thank you very much. It looks like I’ll be going down the special reasons hearing as the original insurers won’t back date but have admitted it was due to a lapsed card they cancelled the insurance, which comes directly out of the Mrs account. Because of the circumstances at the time I’d did not view any correspondence from Admiral and just assumed that as I had confirmation of auto renewal the car was insured, hence I took her car, not mine and they were both side by side on the drive.
 
Well I’ve just phoned the son and he confirmed that I’m wrong :lol:
Changed about 2008, it was a loop hole. Prior a vehicle parked on a public road had to be insured now it as to be sorn even on private land not to be insured therefore it takes away the reasons not to have a vehicle insured. So I should back away from the argument.
But.... I won’t as I have looked on the rac forum and there is mixed views. :lol:

Continuous insurance act or similar

Who would have thought that I knew about this shit.

This is what is dangerous about forums on the internet, legal eagle gobshites think they know the law when they don’t but still try and give legal advice. The law is very in depth and can be very complex, what you think is or isn’t law might not be right but to pass it off as fact is very negligent to say the least.

I await your personal apology.
 
Outstanding, thank you very much. It looks like I’ll be going down the special reasons hearing as the original insurers won’t back date but have admitted it was due to a lapsed card they cancelled the insurance, which comes directly out of the Mrs account. Because of the circumstances at the time I’d did not view any correspondence from Admiral and just assumed that as I had confirmation of auto renewal the car was insured, hence I took her car, not mine and they were both side by side on the drive.
If you do go down that line, you should also ask the Court to consider a short term disqualification - section 37 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It is a disqualification of up to 56 days, which is obviously less pleasant than non-endorsement, but could be less painful than sitting on 6 points for the next 3 years. Court might not go for it, but they're not likely to consider this option if you don't ask. Again, you should explain the financial and personal impact etc and that Short Term Disqualification isn't an easy option for you but it is an option the Court has. So long as you aren't truly going to lose your job, of course, this can be a useful option.
 
Outstanding, thank you very much. It looks like I’ll be going down the special reasons hearing as the original insurers won’t back date but have admitted it was due to a lapsed card they cancelled the insurance, which comes directly out of the Mrs account. Because of the circumstances at the time I’d did not view any correspondence from Admiral and just assumed that as I had confirmation of auto renewal the car was insured, hence I took her car, not mine and they were both side by side on the drive.

As vinnie has said get paper records of everything, printed emails etc. You might have a chance.

It’s not often a lawyer and a copper agree so it must be good advice!!

This should be a warning to all though, take legal advice from the SMB at with a pinch of salt from people who know the square root of fuck all, it could make the situation a whole lot worse.
 
Continuous insurance act or similar

Who would have thought that I knew about this shit.

This is what is dangerous about forums on the internet, legal eagle gobshites think they know the law when they don’t but still try and give legal advice. The law is very in depth and can be very complex, what you think is or isn’t law might not be right but to pass it off as fact is very negligent to say the least.

I await your personal apology.
No mate. After vinnies post am back in the game. That’s what I did. Pleaded not guilty and my insurance said they would still have honoured my claim as my insurance would have paid third party, cost me £25 to get it in writing.
WDVTM.

As vinnie has said get paper records of everything, printed emails etc. You might have a chance.

It’s not often a lawyer and a copper agree so it must be good advice!!

This should be a warning to all though, take legal advice from the SMB at with a pinch of salt from people who know the square root of fuck all, it could make the situation a whole lot worse.
You told him he was bang to rights. :lol:

To drive any other vehicle on your policy there needs to be a policy already in place on the vehicle you intend to drive, that isn’t insurance terms and conditions it is the law. The vehicle will have been seized under section 165A of the road traffic act, it matters not that your car was on the drive as it had been seen being driven on a public road.
Most motoring offences are what are called absolute offences, if you are caught doing it you are bang to rights, as a driver it is your responsibility for things like insurance, roadworthiness etc.
If I were you I would take it up with the insurance company and explain the situation, if you are a renewing customer they might agree to honour the renewal retrospectively given the circumstances.
Unless he is covered by his insurance which he will be. Which is what I said.
 
Last edited:
No mate. After vinnies post am back in the game. That’s what I did. Pleaded not guilty and my insurance said they would still have honoured my claim as my insurance would have paid third party, cost me £25 to get it in writing.
WDVTM.


You told him he was bang to rights. :lol:

Stick to gardening, you have some idea about what you are talking about on there.
 
No mate. After vinnies post am back in the game. That’s what I did. Pleaded not guilty and my insurance said they would still have honoured my claim as my insurance would have paid third party, cost me £25 to get it in writing.
WDVTM.


You told him he was bang to rights. :lol:


Unless he is covered by his insurance which he will be. Which is what I said.

He has contacted his insurance company and they have said he isn’t
 

Back
Top