Fixed Penalty Notice - Disproportionate

thescouselander

Takoda wrote: »

It def won't go to court - the OP is not going to risk his money taking it there. He's been put off court by the folk on Pepipoo not by anyone here on MSE.

If you feel so strongly why don't you offer to fund his campaign?

Or are you just anti-plod? A lot of folk are for one reason or another.

HTH

I'm not anti-plod but I do think there are people on here with negative atitudes and who would prefer to see the OP get in trouble rather than helping him - perhaps I am mistaken but I thought this site was about helping others.


Raskazz / dacouch - my comments weren't aimed at yourselves and I think you have provided valuable insight into the world of insurance.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Somehow I doubt we've been told the entire story.

Hintza

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Somehow I doubt we've been told the entire story.

That is why I'm staying out of this one. I just don't understand it all.

zzzLazyDaisy

This thread makes no sense!

AFAIK Driving a car in connection with a business, but without extra business cover on your insurance, does not invalidate the road traffic act part of your insurance. It would mean that if you had an accident your insurance would not cover you for damage to your vehicle, but that is a different issue. [note I am not an insurance expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. But for that reason alone, I think this post would get a better response on the insurance board].

In any event, having been let off with a warning for not wearing a seatbelt, why on earth would you tell the policeman that you were engaged in work which you had no intention of declaring, or paying tax on the earnings. Come on, you are self employed, you more than anyone would be alert to the need to be circumspect and to keep your mouth shut about 'cash-in-hand' work.

Sorry, but I think this is a wind-up.

vaio

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Somehow I doubt we've been told the entire story.

Hintza wrote: »

That is why I'm staying out of this one. I just don't understand it all.

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

This thread makes no sense!

AFAIK Driving a car in connection with a business, but without extra business cover on your insurance, does not invalidate the road traffic act part of your insurance. It would mean that if you had an accident your insurance would not cover you for damage to your vehicle, but that is a different issue. [note I am not an insurance expert, so someone correct me if I'm wrong. But for that reason alone, I think this post would get a better response on the insurance board].

In any event, having been let off with a warning for not wearing a seatbelt, why on earth would you tell the policeman that you were engaged in work which you had no intention of declaring, or paying tax on the earnings. Come on, you are self employed, you more than anyone would be alert to the need to be circumspect and to keep your mouth shut about 'cash-in-hand' work.

Sorry, but I think this is a wind-up.

I agreed about the wind-up, what swung me that way was post #54/55, since then it's been a hypothetical discussion in my mind.

Daisy, you're right , the RTA bit is hard for insurance companies to get out of but way back in post 65, Raskazz, who does this sort of stuff for a living, pointed out that whilst there is a big list of policy breaches in spite of which companies still have to provide RTA cover for some reason class of use isn’t one of them.

zzzLazyDaisy

vaio wrote: »

Daisy, you're right , the RTA bit is hard for insurance companies to get out of but way back in post 65, Raskazz, who does this sort of stuff for a living, pointed out that whilst there is a big list of policy breaches in spite of which companies still have to provide RTA cover for some reason class of use isn’t one of them.

Thanks for the heads up!

So we have a policeman who lets someone off with a warning for not wearing a seatbelt and then issues a FP for no insurance - even though he is aware that there is insurance in place, but he takes it upon himself to decide that insurance is invalid.

This is without any legal input, and based on the fact that the driver admits to doing a 'one off' favour for a neighbour in return for some petrol/beer money.

It wouldn't be worth the paperwork and hassle if OP decided to challenge it.

Call me a cynic, but this sounds like a typical newbie hypothetical post.

Takoda

thescouselander wrote: »

I'm not anti-plod but I do think there are people on here with negative atitudes and who would prefer to see the OP get in trouble rather than helping him - perhaps I am mistaken but I thought this site was about helping others.


Raskazz / dacouch - my comments weren't aimed at yourselves and I think you have provided valuable insight into the world of insurance.

Would you care to name and shame the "people on here with negative attitudes and who would prefer to see the OP get in trouble rather than helping him" Mr Scouselander?

I haven't seen anyone like that on this thread.

thescouselander

Takoda wrote: »

Would you care to name and shame the "people on here with negative attitudes and who would prefer to see the OP get in trouble rather than helping him" Mr Scouselander?

I haven't seen anyone like that on this thread.

No, I wouldn't actually - they know who they are. I wasn't just refereing to this thread either. The same crowd always comes out to gloat whenever someone has recieved some sort of fine etc.

vaio

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Thanks for the heads up!

So we have a policeman who lets someone off with a warning for not wearing a seatbelt and then issues a FP for no insurance - even though he is aware that there is insurance in place, but he takes it upon himself to decide that insurance is invalid.

This is without any legal input, and based on the fact that the driver admits to doing a 'one off' favour for a neighbour in return for some petrol/beer money.

It wouldn't be worth the paperwork and hassle if OP decided to challenge it.

Call me a cynic, but this sounds like a typical newbie hypothetical post.

you are a cynic (but that doesn't mean you are wrong)

dacouch

I must admit the circumstances of this thread are unusual, in my experience if your stopped by the police it pays to be ultra polite and accept what they say. Sometimes they will let you off with a warning and sometimes they will give you a FPN etc.

I suspect there are other factors involved in this case or the OP was unfortunate to encounter an officer who was either well versed in insurance (Or the opposite) or the particular force are having a clamp down and have zero tollerence.

It never ceases to amaze me when you deal with Insurance the unusual circumstances that can come together and either cause an unusual claim or something along the lines of the OPs experience. People always say to me they don't know why they pay for insurance or ignore my advice when I advise them to extend their cover etc but unusual things happen all day every day to someone. I assume any of the police posters on here also find amazing coincidences that happen to cause unusual incidents

Takoda a link to the pepipoo thread would be interesting