No Insurance

tany_2

Hi,

My friends dad and son have being summoned to court for not naming his son on his insurance and n o insurance respectively. His son already has had his license revoked once before and is within 2 years of his new probationary period. I think he has 6+ points on his license.

The dad only currently has 3 points on his license which are due to come off his license in May this year.

Please could you let me know what fines and endorsements are likely for both the father & son

nickmack

Not sure what the dad has been summoned for?

Driving without insurance: 6-8 points so the son is looking at another ban, plus a very hefty hike in premiums when he does decide to get some insurance.

What did he have his licence 'revoked' for previously?

geo555

The penalty for no insurance is 6 to 8 points and a fine of upto £5000
When you get to 12 points, you get a ban. the points will be wiped off after the ban.

Astaroth

IN10 Using A Veh. Uninsured Against Third Party Risks
IN12 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring IN10
IN14 Causing Or Permitting IN10
IN16 Inciting IN10

The above are the possible offences.... the son will get a IN10 and his father a IN12-16 depending on what he had done. I cant see the penalties for these - have a vague recollection they are the same as the main offence

tany_2

His licence was revoked previously for driving without insurance, road tax and I think maybe MOT.

nickmack

Astaroth wrote:

IN10 Using A Veh. Uninsured Against Third Party Risks
IN12 Aiding, Abetting, Counselling Or Procuring IN10
IN14 Causing Or Permitting IN10
IN16 Inciting IN10

The above are the possible offences.... the son will get a IN10 and his father a IN12-16 depending on what he had done. I cant see the penalties for these - have a vague recollection they are the same as the main offence

Yes, IN10 is 6-8 points.

nickmack

tany wrote:

His licence was revoked previously for driving without insurance, road tax and I think maybe MOT.

In this case, he may end up with a heavy fine as well as the points.

His problem now is he has even less incentive to insure himself, because some insurers won't touch him and others will quote sky high premiums.

Maybe it's best he doesn't drive at all?

tany_2

Apparently this was his first time driving the car to the shops (only 2 minutes away) in nearly 16 months after passing his test the second time. He took the car as a spur of the moment thing to take his mum to the shops.The plan was once he finished his studies he would of got insured on his dad's insurance.

He is a 3rd year university student and was onto the right path and rebuilding his life and had put his past mistakes behind him.

Is there any way this could be taken into account and for him to get a lesser charge? or is there anything else he could say ?

Bossyboots

There is no lesser charge than driving without insurance as it is an absolute offence. He doesn't even have the mitigation that it was mistake as from what you have put, it seems he knew he wasn't insured.

As for the father, I think it is a bit harsh to summons him too, unless he was present when the car was taken and did nothing to stop his son doing so. If he was not around when the son drove the car, then he has a good defence/mitigation. This will depend entirely on the circumstances surrounding the son's use of the vehicle.

reheat

I'm only too well aware that youngsters do silly things with cars - a long time ago I was one and did! But as a married person now with grown up 'kids' of my own, I do think it important the son (and maybe dad? - if he doesn't already realise) should be enlightened why insurance is so important, and that there's nothing clever about not having it. If the worst happens and he has an accident, not only his life, but other other people's lives can end up truly devastated simply through his lack of insurance. If he really got to grips with this a judge just might then be slightly more lenient.

It doesn't need to knock him back from rebuilding his life - the very act of taking responsibility for this and moving on to better things can be part of the rebuilding. Life-things invariably are a case of three steps up, two down ... it's taking the next three up that counts.

nickmack

tany wrote:

Is there any way this could be taken into account and for him to get a lesser charge? or is there anything else he could say ?

If this was his first offence there *may* have been some room for leniancy. However as he's been banned for having no insurance before, they should throw the book at him.

Saying that, with justice in this country, he'll probably get given a free holiday for hurt feelings if the magistrate so much as scowls at him.