Fixed Penalty Notice - Disproportionate

hottomato

When I was thinking of appealing it was on compassionate grounds.
I always believe that honesty is the best policy and I was totally honest with the police officer. I showed my willingness to remedy the situation there and then. I said I'd promise to not do the job. to turn around and go straight home and sort out my insurance. It's due for remewal very soon anyeway
It must have been obvious to him that I was unaware that I was comitting an offence.
It couldn't be clearer that I was unaware. I hear of people being let off with a warning for much more serious offences all the time

goldspanners wrote: »

what were the points for?
what was the actual offence?

I just read the FPN more thoroughly and it reads "No Insurance"

dacouch wrote: »

It's pointless trying to conceal that its a business if it is as they will look at it as a business if their is an element of profit in it and most underwritters will now days google his phone number and gardeners in his area to see if he advertises.
.

I have no advertizing. The job was through word of mouth

Chippy_Minton wrote: »

NO, your three points for speeding was your first offence.

The speeding offence was years ago and spent. I meant it was a first insurance related offence

roddydogs

There must be thousands of drivers who do small jobs on the side, who are not strictly insured.

cyclonebri1

pompeyrich wrote: »

You are covered with Direct Line according to their FAQs They always used to provide cover in "connection with the policy holders business", I used to ask for a reduction as I didn't need it but they always said no, it is standard
Q: Am I covered for commuting?

A: You can use your vehicle to drive to and from a permanent place of work. To use your vehicle to travel to and from different places of work will not cost you anything. This is provided as standard if you buy your policy online. If you called for a quote or are uncertain please contact us for confirmation.

I was going to post something similar. I was insured on a standard policy with directline. I frequently had to attend meetings at other plants across the country, attend courses and seminars etc, all away from my normal place of work.

I asked the question of coverage and was told that so long as it was in the same vehicle and the total mileage did not exceed that stated on the declaration form, no addition fee/policy was needed.;)

As said check out with your insurer.

molerat

I thought that the insurer could not shirk their responsibility under RTA cover therefore as the OP held a policy for the vehicle he would not be driving with no insurance under the RTA. I think that the plod were wrong. The OP was probably breaching his contract with the insurers, and he may well have to pay an increased premium for business cover, but probably not driving without insurance. As an example how often does a drunk driver get charged for no insurance ? My suggestion is that the OP gets over to Pepipoo sharpish. :money:

hottomato

molerat wrote: »

I thought that the insurer could not shirk their responsibility under RTA cover therefore as the OP held a policy for the vehicle he would not be driving with no insurance under the RTA. I think that the plod were wrong. The OP was probably breaching his contract with the insurers, and he may well have to pay an increased premium for business cover, but probably not driving without insurance. As an example how often does a drunk driver get charged for no insurance ? My suggestion is that the OP gets over to Pepipoo sharpish. :money:

Well I alreadsy went on to Pepipoo and the only helpful link I could find there was justanswer.com
I had to pay £11 and was put tin contact with a barrister who looked at this forum and came back with the following:

No, but you weren't insured for the purpose for which the vehicle was used which is having no insurance. I suppose the fact that you did have insurance is why they gave you a lenient penalty. To be honest, that was a warning. They could have justified disqualification and fines of £500.

If you appeal you would have to pay court costs which in the Crown Court is generally around £600-£800. In addition to the enhanced fine they would probably give you


I guess that settles it then. It's hard to take but I'll have to lump it

I've always been very supportive to the police. They have a hard job keeping us all safe from crime but things like this cause me to lose some faith in the justice system.

dacouch

molerat wrote: »

I thought that the insurer could not shirk their responsibility under RTA cover therefore as the OP held a policy for the vehicle he would not be driving with no insurance under the RTA. I think that the plod were wrong. The OP was probably breaching his contract with the insurers, and he may well have to pay an increased premium for business cover, but probably not driving without insurance. As an example how often does a drunk driver get charged for no insurance ? My suggestion is that the OP gets over to Pepipoo sharpish. :money:

The reason drink drivers do not get prosecuted for no insurance is that if they have a valid policy with them as a driver they are covered. Under the RTA you are either Insured by a policy for third party risks or you are not. The Insurer cannot say you are covered but if you have an accident whilst drunk we are not paying the third party claim, the RTA does not allow this. There are however a few Insurers that have an endorsement in their policy which basically excludes cover for the damage to your own car if you are in an accident and prosecuted for drink driving.

If there is no Insurance in place and you are stopped for drink driving sometimes the police just prosecute you for the Drink Driving and ignore the No Insurance.

Takoda

Yes it is harsh but there is one thing to remember in all of this.

You were originally stopped because you didn't have your seatbelt on. If you had been belted up the plod would've had NO REASON to pull you.

Hard lesson but a warning to everyone. Use your seatbelts, get that blown brakelight /headlight fixed.

blue_haddock

I can never understand why people don't put their seatbelt on even if its "just around the corner" How many times do you watch Traffic Cops or Police, Camera, Action on TV and see something like stopping someone for no seatbelt or a defective light lead to other more serious issues.

My betting is on the fact that the OP failed the attitude test with the police officer.

vaio

dacouch wrote: »

He has not stated it was a one off.

As the police / a court are involved the Insurers will normally want to do everything by the book as they have to ensure any information / documents they supply are correct. The matter will normally go through to an underwritter who will look into the matter and make an assesement based on how that Insurer deal with business use. As Pompey said there are some Insurers who do not mind it if its occassional for your normal job, however as its an additional job this will have an influence on their decision.

It's pointless trying to conceal that its a business if it is as they will look at it as a business if their is an element of profit in it and most underwritters will now days google his phone number and gardeners in his area to see if he advertises.

His best bet is to contact his Insurers, tell them the entire truth and see what their response is. They may be happy to confirm he was covered, or ask him to pay an extra he should have paid and then confirm he is covered or they may say he was not covered.

I assumed that as an IT consultant the gardening is not a significant part of his income. We are engineers but occasionally go and trim the trees for an retired member of staff, not for money but because we don’t fancy an stubborn 80 year old up a ladder.

His wife rings us when he starts talking about them needing a trim and when we are next quiet a couple of people go round and do it. When we go his wife stuffs my guys with bacon sandwiches and always gives them £10 to cover petrol. This is not part of our business and I’d say is covered under the SDP part of our policy as it’s voluntary, almost charity stuff.

We don’t know how much of the OPs income comes from gardening but if it’s like us (or could reasonably be presented as such) then he should be home and dry. On the other hand if he spends all day gardening and fixes the occasional computer in the evening that’s an entirely different matter.

I’m also slightly confused that the police let him drive away in an allegedly uninsured car, either he has RTA cover or he doesn’t…………if he does then no offence, if he doesn’t then the car should have been impounded.

hottomato

vaio wrote: »

I assumed that as an IT consultant the gardening is not a significant part of his income. We are engineers but occasionally go and trim the trees for an retired member of staff, not for money but because we don’t fancy an stubborn 80 year old up a ladder.

His wife rings us when he starts talking about them needing a trim and when we are next quiet a couple of people go round and do it. When we go his wife stuffs my guys with bacon sandwiches and always gives them £10 to cover petrol. This is not part of our business and I’d say is covered under the SDP part of our policy as it’s voluntary, almost charity stuff.

We don’t know how much of the OPs income comes from gardening but if it’s like us (or could reasonably be presented as such) then he should be home and dry. On the other hand if he spends all day gardening and fixes the occasional computer in the evening that’s an entirely different matter.

I’m also slightly confused that the police let him drive away in an allegedly uninsured car, either he has RTA cover or he doesn’t…………if he does then no offence, if he doesn’t then the car should have been impounded.

As I said, my main work is IT consultant
Things get very quiet during summer holiday time and I started doing the occasional bit of gardening, just once in a while. It's never been my main job