Fixed Penalty Notice - Disproportionate

Markyt

hottomato wrote: »

If the police wanted to have a field day catching people with inadequate insurance like in my case they just have to wait outside a car boot or collectors fair.

Petrol stations. Permanent ANPR camera scans reg on entry. No insurance, no petrol. If they were really serious, raise the anti-drive off gates as well.

If that's too difficult, park an unmarked car outside the garage. Gauranteed easy takes.

dacouch

hottomato wrote: »

Well I have just over a week to pay my renewal or look elsewhere
I've also got a week to hand in my license. As I understand it the penalty points will start from the date thet they are put on my license
The policeman told me it takes around 3 weeks
Is that not right?
I will look further into things with my insurance company. As it is I have told them about everything honestly so if they dont deal with it right it would be on their heads.
Its one of the better known ones and quite reputable

No this is not right, you have a fixed penalty notice so you have a conviction, even if you go by your arguement that the conviction does not take place until the points are on the licence you still have a "Pending" conviction. Insurers ask if you have any convictions or pending convictions (Have a look at the quotes you are filling out). If you do not declare them you run the risk of invalidating your Insurance

dacouch

thescouselander wrote: »

While everyone has been getting bogged down in the complex world of insurance policy wording I think one vital point has been missed. That is the police do not have any admissible evidence that an offence has been committed.


I am assuming the OP was not arrested and the police did not take a statement. In which case if the op has told us everything the police have no solid evidence the op is in business as a gardener. They cannot prove he was on a way to a gardening job nor can they prove he was paid (unless the op admits it in a statement at some point). All they have is the testimony of the police officer involved.

Even if the police could prove the above the OP has an insurance certificate covering him to drive a car in some capacity. Weather or not this covers his activities on the day in question is entirely dependant on the policy wording - not something the police officer would have had available at the time to make a judgement. Indeed, as demonstrated in the posts on here the answer is not straight forward.

The police office can check the details of his Insurance on the MIB computer that most traffic cars have access to or could ring through to their station to check the details.

The wording in a policy does not make any difference to what the Certificate of Insurance covers him for. The Certificate is a legal document that confirms the information as required by the RTA. All it relates to is Third Party Cover.

If the OP goes to court then in the abscence of other evidence the magistrates are very very likely to take the evidence of the police officer as they are a professional witness.

raskazz

As dacouch pointed out earlier, the use required by the policyholder for this occasion was Class 1 use (sometimes called Class A use). I'm not sure why people have raised the question of expenses or hire and reward - these issues are not relevant - the use of the vehicle was not hire and reward at the time and the fee was for work done, not carriage of goods/passengers. It is not relevant whether the insured made a profit on the work done.

Futhermore, the policyholder would really also have had to notify the insurer of the part-time occupation, as the policy wording will often restrict business use to use for the business stated in the schedule of insurance.

The problem in such circumstances as this is that an insurer can, in law, reject a claim on the grounds that the use was outside the scope of the policy cover. They can even escape Road Traffic Act liability - the issue of use was oddly not added to the list of policy exceptions which have no effect for the purposes of the Act (s. 148). In light of this there was no Road Traffic Act cover at the time the OP was stopped.

The only real option for the OP is to throw himself at the mercy of his insurers and request a letter of indemnity. Mind you, I'm a motor underwriter, and I wouldn't issue one in these circumstances. I would congratulate the officer for being one of the few who actually seem to understand the law relating to motor insurance!

Treadway1

Ok, so I havent read all four pages of this thread but how I see it is like this....

OP doesnt have insurance covering him for business use. Fair enough, but if he has been given the ticket for the specific offence of 'No insurance' contrary to Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 then I think he has a case. Sec. 143 RTA 1988 states:

Sections 143(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 provide that users of motor vehicles on roads or in public places must be insured against third party risks. It is an offence to use (see meaning below), or cause or permit to be used, a motor vehicle on a road without such insurance. They state:


143(1) Subject to the provisions of this part of this Act -

• (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of this Act, and
  (b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of this Act.

143(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

Therefore, although the OP wasnt insured for business use, he was infact insured against third party risks and therefore cannot be prosecuted for 'No insurance' contrary to this act and section.

As a final note, I cant ever see the CPS running with this case at court. Ive seen lots of jobs at court where someone has been driving a car on a provisional licence, and therefore 'techinically' invalidating their insurance, so theyve been reported for Driving not in accordance with a LIcence AND No Insurance, but the No Insurance always gets dropped, because they did have insurance covering them for third party risks should they have had an accident. This would purely be a matter for the insurance company, (whether or not they should pay out or not) should the OP have had a car accident whilst driving to the old lady's place.

raskazz

Treadway1 wrote: »

Therefore, although the OP wasnt insured for business use, he was infact insured against third party risks and therefore cannot be prosecuted for 'No insurance' contrary to this act and section.

The OP was not insured against third party risks for the reasons in my post above. This circumstance is different to the 'no licence' scenario as an insurer cannot avoid an RTA liability due to licence issues; they can, however, avoid an RTA liability on grounds of use.

thescouselander

dacouch wrote: »

The police office can check the details of his Insurance on the MIB computer that most traffic cars have access to or could ring through to their station to check the details.

The wording in a policy does not make any difference to what the Certificate of Insurance covers him for. The Certificate is a legal document that confirms the information as required by the RTA. All it relates to is Third Party Cover.

If the OP goes to court then in the abscence of other evidence the magistrates are very very likely to take the evidence of the police officer as they are a professional witness.

Yes but thats only half the equation. How can the police prove the OP was operating as a paid gardener. Do they have any proof whatsoever that the OP took payment for the gardening? Do they have something like footage of him doing the job and a receipt he gave to the old lady or accounts from his gardening business? If not its going to be very hard to prove in court that he was in breach of his insurance terms.


My sister used to investigate people working while they were claiming benefits. Gathering proof that someone is working is a major operation and might involve surveillance, pay records and witnesses. Without this level of proof no court action would stick. It seems the police have a lot less evidence than this.

I agree the OP was technically in the wrong but it seems that any solicitor worth his salt should be able to mount a strong defence against the charges.

raskazz

thescouselander wrote: »

Yes but thats only half the equation. How can the police prove the OP was operating as a paid gardener. Do they have any proof whatsoever that the OP took payment for the gardening? Do they have something like footage of him doing the job and a receipt he gave to the old lady or accounts from his gardening business? If not its going to be very hard to prove in court that he was in breach of his insurance terms.


My sister used to investigate people working while they were claiming benefits. Gathering proof that someone is working is a major operation and might involve surveillance, pay records and witnesses. Without this level of proof no court action would stick. It seems the police have a lot less evidence than this.

I agree the OP was technically in the wrong but it seems that any solicitor worth his salt should be able to mount a strong defence against the charges.

I'm no expert on the legal process but reading between the lines it sounds like the OP admitted the purpose of the journey to the officer(s) involved ("On the way there I was stopped by a policeman and was completely honest with him"). I would assume that if it did end up in court the OP would find it hard to prove that the officer(s) involved were lying in their evidence to that effect.

goldspanners

dacouch wrote: »

No this is not right, you have a fixed penalty notice so you have a conviction, even if you go by your arguement that the conviction does not take place until the points are on the licence you still have a "Pending" conviction. Insurers ask if you have any convictions or pending convictions (Have a look at the quotes you are filling out). If you do not declare them you run the risk of invalidating your Insurance

you seem to know a bit more about insurance than me but i have a similar tale where i had points pending.

last year i had 3 points, i got stopped for speeding again and received another £60 fine and another 3 points, which would total 6 when they got put on.
i called my insurer to let them know about this and to see if they would amend my renewal quote, the sales person said that if the points were not on my liscence then they didnt matter, i then asked if i will have to call them again to notify them when they go on my liscence she said yes i would and then i asked how much this would affect my premium and she told me it would not make any difference, then i asked if this call was being recorded and she confirmed it was, as i kew this woudnt be the end of it.

so sure as hell i called up to add my new points and i received a letter from the insurance company asking for a further £80 or so, as i kind of expected. so i called the insurance company and they said that i shouldnt have been told this as it wasnt true and i would have to pay the extra, i asked for them to listen to the recorded sales call and then decide, they didnt call me back so i rang the next day to get someone else,same story asked to listen to the original sales call and let me know, they never called me back either.
so i waited a day or so called them again asking to find some resoloution here and i would not be hanging up until they did, so off they went listened to the call then said it sounded as if i was right but they would confirm with a manager, 5 minutes later a manager comes on and tells me the sales person did say what i told them and i didnt have to pay the extra charge for the additional 3 points that year but it would be factored into next years. (ended up they tried to increase my premium by £100 this year,when i declined thier services for a cheaper insurance they managed to keep my policy at the same price as last year, a result i would say)

dacouch

He admitted it to a police officer, thats pretty good proof as far as a court of law is concerned. He could argue in court that he did not say it or it was miss understood but unless he has some kind of proof he was not a proffessional gardener or the policeman was wrong in his understanding of what he said the court will take the policemans side.

If he had not admitted to the police officer he was being paid for the work then a) the police officer would not have issued the ticket (Whether correct or not) b) the police would like you say he have no evidence.

He did admit to the police officer he was on his way to carry out paid work, if it goes to court the policeman will confirm this or his notes will be sent in. It is very very unusual for a court of law not to believe the evidence of a police officer.