Fixed Penalty Notice - Disproportionate

vaio

I'd have thought either it had RTA cover or not. If it did, no offence, if it didn't then impound it to prevent further risk of uninsured accident.

If he’s not insured because he’s on his way to a paid job with a mower in the back then surely he’s not insured to drive back home. The carriage of equipment for the gardening business would surely render the policy void.

In fact what’s to stop him carrying on to the lawn cutting job?

Ian_W

thescouselander wrote: »

I suggest you get yourself a dictionary - in the context I was talking about I would define "spin" as a distinctive interpretation, certainly not a lie - obviously there could be a degree of creativity in making that interpretation.

Is that right? But this was in your earlier post that I omitted to quote:

Of course he could always deny he received any money at all then it would be his word against the policeman's.

I think your spinning, creativity, dissembling and prevarication is beginning to catch up with you! When in a hole ... and all that!

The OP said from the very beginning that he was being paid and that he was truthful with the officer at all times. There is no reason at all why he shouldn't test the evidence - other than the fact the court can impose a more severe penalty - however, you are suggesting he goes further than that. If he commits perjury he could get away with it or could face a far harsher penalty than the one he's currently complaining about.

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

I'd have thought either it had RTA cover or not. If it did, no offence, if it didn't then impound it to prevent further risk of uninsured accident.

No, it's not that simple, as in my previous posts.

The vehicle did have RTA cover for social, domestic and pleasure use. The vehicle did not have RTA cover for class 1 business use at the time that the policyholder was stopped. Hence the offence was committed. 'Use' is somewhat different to other policy conditions as the insurer can avoid an RTA liability if the use falls outside that permitted by the policy. It is generally felt that this was an oversight when s.148 of the RTA was drafted.

vaio wrote: »

If he’s not insured because he’s on his way to a paid job with a mower in the back then surely he’s not insured to drive back home. The carriage of equipment for the gardening business would surely render the policy void.

The use didn't render the policy void, it fell outside the scope of cover. I would say that once the officer told him to return home then the use then became domestic use - returning home - rather than business use. The officer could not have seized the vehicle because then they would have to release it immediately on the grounds that the vehicle was insured for SDP use - the officer cannot compel the OP to then insure the vehicle for business use in the future.

vaio wrote: »

In fact what’s to stop him carrying on to the lawn cutting job?

Presumably, the economic grounds that adding the business use will cost a minimal extra premium, but another £200 fine and a ban will be somewhat more onerous, is sufficient...

goldspanners

what about the poor old woman who still needs her grass cut?

vaio

That’s what I meant, if he didn’t have RTA cover on his way to the job because he doesn’t have class 1 then surely he also needs class 1 to transport the business mower back home?

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

That’s what I meant, if he didn’t have RTA cover on his way to the job because he doesn’t have class 1 then surely he also needs class 1 to transport the business mower back home?

You don't need business use merely to drive around with business goods in the vehicle. Otherwise you'd need business use if you drove anywhere with a company laptop in your car...

The original trip was not merely transporting goods - the express purpose was to arrive at a certain destination to carry out business.

vaio

Doesn't sound right to me, I can see the laptop argument or even a firms pen in your pocket but a mower? what about a trailer with a excavator on it? You must need business insurance for that

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

Doesn't sound right to me, I can see the laptop argument or even a firms pen in your pocket but a mower? what about a trailer with a excavator on it? You must need business insurance for that

The nature of the goods carried is not of particular relevance. What is relevant is the purpose of the journey.

For the trailer/excavator example:

A journey to a client to carry out your landscape gardening business requires business use/carriage of own goods.

A journey to take your hired excavator back to your country estate to sort out your gigantic garden which is purely a domestic concern only requires SDP use.

vaio

so a journey returning from an aborted business visit needs business insurance?

raskazz

vaio wrote: »

so a journey returning from an aborted business visit needs business insurance?

I'd say it depends on the circumstances of the case. Where the reason is that the police have instructed you to return home because your intended use is not covered I'd say no. In fact, I'd say that whenever you are merely obeying police orders there can be no 'use' issue as you have no choice but to comply.

In this case the police couldn't realistically seize the vehicle, so they have little option but to instruct the OP to turn around.