IN10 Conviction

vax2002

The Certificate is a bond.
what is written upon it is valid for purposes of the road traffic act.
It can not be retrospectively cancelled by an insurance company by pressure from the police.
fascione vs West Yorkshire Police established this at the appeal court.

Bangton

Really really don't want to burst anyone's bubble and congrats if you were properly insured (as you had thought) BUT just because Aviva have paid out doesn't mean they are admitting your insured (unless they are now saying you are). As there is a third party involved your insurer has an obligation under the road traffic act to pay out on the claim whether your insured or not. Though there is a tendancy for them to come back to you to recover costs.

I might be completely wrong - ignore me if I am, but have Aviva absolutely hands down said you were insured to drive that vehicle?

(I work in insurance - not just making things up!)

kingbuxton

Bangton wrote: »

Really really don't want to burst anyone's bubble and congrats if you were properly insured (as you had thought) BUT just because Aviva have paid out doesn't mean they are admitting your insured (unless they are now saying you are). As there is a third party involved your insurer has an obligation under the road traffic act to pay out on the claim whether your insured or not. Though there is a tendancy for them to come back to you to recover costs.

I might be completely wrong - ignore me if I am, but have Aviva absolutely hands down said you were insured to drive that vehicle?

(I work in insurance - not just making things up!)

I too work in Insurance.

Im not overly convinced that I was, judging with how it went.

What it basically come to to, was a simple email from a lovely foreign gentleman, stating that as aviva had paid the claim, I was insured on said vehicle. The vehicle details were included in the subject matter on the email.

sevenhills

Hammyman wrote: »

Indeed. Any IN code on your licence is an instant "we don't want to touch you with a bargepole unless you have deep pockets" quote and coupled with a DWDCA makes you almost uninsurable for less than the cost of a nearly new car.

Why is IN10 treated so harshly, when it can be an honest mistake. Its not like speeding, whereby you increase the risk of harming someone.

I got a IN10 almost 3 years ago.

rodenal

Nice bit of thread resurrection btw.....
an in10 tells your insider that, deliberately or not you have previously lied to an insurer or worse decided to drive without insurance. This makes you a more risky prospect, by quite a factor.

There really is no excuse for not being insured, it can be a genuine mistake but unfortunately you will pay the consequences for it

Lum

[devils advocate]
Or they punish this one disproportionately high to keep you scared and to keep you in line, since the entire system would collapse if everyone stopped paying for insurance at once.

"That's a nice insurance rate you have there, Mr. Buxton.. it would be a shame if something were to... happen to it"
[/devils advocate]

captainawsome

sevenhills wrote: »

Why is IN10 treated so harshly, when it can be an honest mistake. Its not like speeding, whereby you increase the risk of harming someone.

I got a IN10 almost 3 years ago.

If I hit someone doing 35mph, my insurance will pay and cover the costs of whatever happens to that person, if they are injured so badly th!y can never work again or they die etc etc. who will pay the costs if you hit them at 30??? Totally different and I'm glad the police are clamping down on no insurance.

Joe_Horner

captainawsome wrote: »

... I'm glad the police are clamping down on no insurance.

Totally agree BUT it would be nice if the Police had proper knowledge of how things work. I've lost count of the times on those TV progs where they pull someone who's got DOC cover and explain to them that "it only covers of the car's insured elsewhere", then issue a ticket without giving the driver a chance to show whether or not his policy has that restriction.

By no means do all policies make that condition, and phoning to check with some phone operator in a brokers (if they even bother to do that) is NOT going to get a reliable answer!

Sure, if you HAVE got cover you can always go to court and be found not guilty, but only after you've been stranded on your way somewhere, had the car impounded, forced someone to take out a policy they may not want (or need) in order to recover the vehicle, and paid the recovery / storage charges.

vaio

captainawsome wrote: »

If I hit someone doing 35mph, my insurance will pay and cover the costs of whatever happens to that person, if they are injured so badly th!y can never work again or they die etc etc. who will pay the costs if you hit them at 30??? Totally different and I'm glad the police are clamping down on no insurance.

I'd guess either the RTA insurer or the MIB will pay if the 30 mph driver has no insurance cover so no practical difference as far as the innocent but injured party is concerned.

On the other hand, the fully insured 35 mph driver is likely to cause more injury/damage so on balance if I had to get hit by a car I'd go for the slower but uninsured driver every time

kingstreet

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Totally agree BUT it would be nice if the Police had proper knowledge of how things work. I've lost count of the times on those TV progs where they pull someone who's got DOC cover and explain to them that "it only covers of the car's insured elsewhere", then issue a ticket without giving the driver a chance to show whether or not his policy has that restriction.

The law has caught up with them in that respect. Where previously you could have driven under a DoV extension without the vehicle being covered (if permitted by the DoV insurer) that option has now been removed by the need for continuous insurance.

Now, the vehicle is SORN - off the road not taxed and not insured, or it's on the road taxed and insured.