Penalty Points

pendulum

Did you check with the insurance company and all paperwork to make absolutely sure he wasn't uninsured at the time.

On one of my old policies I had a 7 day grace period. Say my policy started on the 4th October 2009 and expired at 29.59 on 4th October 2010 (just an example date), well the small print in the policy documents actually stated that I had a grace period of 7 days after the expiry date whereby the minimum amount of insurance by law will be granted (Thirt Party Only). I presume some insurance companys do this to save customers from committing an offence of no insurance where a renewal payment has been delayed in the post or where a customer is a few days late sorting out the renewal. It also gives the insurance company extra time to ring up and say hey, do you know your insurance has now run out by x days, do you want to renew it?

Check because you never know.

System

vaio wrote: »

Yep, it is an absolute offence but there are varying degrees of culpability which should affect sentence

why ? if someone is capable of maintaining a vehicle then they have to accept responsability for any + all aspects of it.

rev_henry

Your nephew will have had the opportunity to have his day in court but apparently declined it. If you can somehow reverse this and get a date with the magistrate, fines are generally in proportion to income; they don't usually make it totally unaffordable and I would have thought 6 points would have been more likely.

Mankysteve

ignorance is no defence.

maninthestreet

mark5 wrote: »

The fixed penalty punishment for no insurance is 6 points and a £200 fine so if you add on court costs then £300 is about right.

What court costs? It seems there was no court case.

verybigchris

trigger1812 wrote: »

Going back a few months ago, my nephew was caught on his moped and it was found his insurance had run out at 12am, he was caught at 4am coming home from work.

Just out of curiousity, how was he caught? A lot of people without insurance are caught by Automatic Number Plate Recognition devices in police cars that are connected to a central database - I'd be impressed with the system if it's so up-to-date it can catch someone 4 hours after their policy expires.

rev_henry

verybigchris wrote: »

Just out of curiousity, how was he caught? A lot of people without insurance are caught by Automatic Number Plate Recognition devices in police cars that are connected to a central database - I'd be impressed with the system if it's so up-to-date it can catch someone 4 hours after their policy expires.

That's a good point. ANPR databases are stored in a hard drive in the police car, and updated before each shift.
And insurance data comes from the MIB, which probably isn't updated in realtime either.

vaio

CHRISSYG wrote: »

why ? if someone is capable of maintaining a vehicle then they have to accept responsability for any + all aspects of it.

Maybe worth reading the sentencing guidelines.

They give a sentencing starting point and then the sentence can go up if there are aspects of the case that indicate greater culpability, for example long term driving without insurance, having an accident, repeat offender, other offences etc etc.

Similarly if the circumstances indicate a lower than average level of culpability then the sentence can be reduced. The guidelines list 4 examples of reduced culpability and the OP ticks the boxes on three of them plus has learning difficulties. On that basis the sentence should have been at the lower end of the scale and probably would get the sentence reduced on appeal.

I suppose the logic behind it is that if I forget to renew my insurance and get stopped the next day then I deserve a lesser sentence for the lack of insurance than teenage Jim down the road who’s never had insurance and drives dangerously in a car with no MOT, bald tyres and without a driving licence.

Same offence, different levels of culpability

xocbc

No excuse, he had a renewal notice and should have read it.

It doesn't matter if it is 10 minutes or 10 months out of date, no insurance is an offence plain and simple.

Think about what would have happened if he had had an accident at 4am, no insurance, that pretty much sums it up really.

Treat it as a costly mistake which i'm sure will not be repeated.

vaio

xocbc wrote: »

No excuse, he had a renewal notice and should have read it.

It doesn't matter if it is 10 minutes or 10 months out of date, no insurance is an offence plain and simple.

Think about what would have happened if he had had an accident at 4am, no insurance, that pretty much sums it up really.

Treat it as a costly mistake which i'm sure will not be repeated.

At the risk of getting circular you’re not getting the idea of greater or lesser culpability……..

The child has learning difficulties and maybe can’t read, he relies on his father to look after the paperwork.

10 months is more culpable than 10 mins

Being involved in an accident adds to the culpability

It’s why we have a range of punishments for the same offence, he’s guilty of no insurance but the sentence varies depending on the culpability