Pulled on way home with new car.

Wig

omen666 wrote: »

Am sur you would be doing the same if a member of your family were killed by someone not insured like this situation.

And the lack of insurance is relevant if a member of your family was killed in what way exactly?

DirectDebacle

Wkdwill wrote: »

The policeman said he had pulled him over as the car he was driving was registered in Manchester, so he asked for license, which he showed him, then the policeman asked for insurance, he explained to the police about the insurance and said that he didnt have his insurance documents with him as he has lost them during a recent housemove, the policeman rung the insurance company and confirmed that he was insured to drive other cars 3rd party and the policeman said that it was fine but he will still have to produce.

If your friend is prosecuted for no insurance then this is probably your 'get out of gaol' card. At the time the police stopped the vehicle your friend mistakenly thought that he was insured to drive it. The police officer made enquiries and as a result of those enquiries confirmed (mistakenly) to your friend that he was insured and allowed him to continue his journey. In effect the police had given him permission to drive.

If your friend is prosecuted then the police officer that stopped him should also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

Doesn't alter the fact he was driving without insurance but the CPS are unlikely to continue such a prosecution under the circumstances. Any half decent solicitor should be able to get this dropped.

Anihilator

DirectDebacle wrote: »

If your friend is prosecuted for no insurance then this is probably your 'get out of gaol' card. At the time the police stopped the vehicle your friend mistakenly thought that he was insured to drive it. The police officer made enquiries and as a result of those enquiries confirmed (mistakenly) to your friend that he was insured and allowed him to continue his journey. In effect the police had given him permission to drive.

If your friend is prosecuted then the police officer that stopped him should also be prosecuted for aiding and abetting.

Doesn't alter the fact he was driving without insurance but the CPS are unlikely to continue such a prosecution under the circumstances. Any half decent solicitor should be able to get this dropped.

Utter !!!!!.

The OP's friend said he could drive other cars TP. This was what was confirmed. The DOE doesnt apply to cars he owns though.

He wasnt driving "other" cars. He was driving his own car.

He is guilty and legally has no defence. Any defence will just increase the fine and possibly points.

If he is charged plead guilty at the earliest opportunity with the mitigation (but not defence) of ignorance of the law.

Pete*G_4

long shot this.. but...


how did your DH's friend pay for the car? cash/card/cheque/bankers draft?

to those that don't see the relevance, bear with me - all will become clear if the answer given is the one I'm looking for...

DirectDebacle

Anihilator wrote: »

Utter !!!!!.

The OP's friend said he could drive other cars TP. This was what was confirmed. The DOE doesnt apply to cars he owns though.

He wasnt driving "other" cars. He was driving his own car.

He is guilty and legally has no defence. Any defence will just increase the fine and possibly points.

If he is charged plead guilty at the earliest opportunity with the mitigation (but not defence) of ignorance of the law.

The facts are it is alleged he was driving without insurance provided he was the owner of the car.

He is not guilty of anything until convicted.

If the police officer had done his job correctly then he would have not been allowed to continue driving the car.


The police allowed him to continue driving.

It is unlikely that the CPS would prosecute given that,

1. There was no intent to commit any offence.

2. He thought his insurance was valid

3. The police confirmed to him that his insurance was valid.

4. The vehicle was not involved in any accident nor were there any other offences committed.

5. The CPS would have to consider prosecuting the chief constable for aiding and abetting.

6. The police officer would have to be investigated for neglect of duty.

It is not a question of whether he has a defence or not but the likelihood of a prosecution being continued should one be made.

In the unlikely event of this coming to court then of course there is a defence that the police told him he was insured to drive. Had he known he was not insured then he would not have driven.

It is up to a court whether or not they accept this as a defence. If not, then given the circumstances, any punishment would be as lenient as could be.

If I were to receive a summons for this then I would at least seek some proper advice and not just 'roll over' as you suggest.

blued

My advice is to take the certificate to the police station when it comes through and dont worry about anything on this thread until then. Chances are they will see the document and accept it.

Paradigm

blued wrote: »

My advice is to take the certificate to the police station when it comes through and dont worry about anything on this thread until then. Chances are they will see the document and accept it.

Agreed.
Chances are that when they see a valid insurance document that will be the end of it.

If not there are a couple of options left

missile

I would suggest that the previous owner did not have the vehicle insured and the police got that info through MID.

He was not insured, but hopefully the police will choose to let him off with a caution.

Pete*G_4

Pete*G wrote: »

long shot this.. but...


how did your DH's friend pay for the car? cash/card/cheque/bankers draft?

to those that don't see the relevance, bear with me - all will become clear if the answer given is the one I'm looking for...

OP? care to reply please?

Wig

OP hasn't been online since yesterday 5:50pm