We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
When do "warning letters" become harrassment?
Comments
-
Tristona they are chosing their quotes very carefully.
If you lend your vehicle say to a friend and the friend confirms to you they have some type of cover for the vehicle eg they are covered to drive other vehicles. There is case law that states that this is sufficient for you not to be prosecuted for aiding and abetting driving without insurance. In effect the law expects you to ask / check they are covered. It does not expect you to request site of their Insurance Certificate and / or ring their Insurers to check it is still in place (Unless there were obvious reasons to warrant you to check).
They have conveniently ommited to include the following lines that imedeiately follow their quoted lines.
(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.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880052_en_12
0 -
Tristona,
I trust by now that your problem with this company is over, I am going through the same at the moment but I am just ignoring the letters. One thing that has been overlooked is the wording of the Road Traffic Act. The optimum word in the whole of the relevant piece of legislation is ROAD. ( This means a highway belonging to the local authority not a private car park)
In all cases, relating to these parking fines, they relate to cars parked in PRIVATE car parks. The fact that you had to drive there is of no consequence. You are under no legal obligation to disclose who was the user of the vehicle at the time it was in that car park. As the car park is PRIVATE there is no legal obligation to actually have insurance.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards