No tax & insurance

forgotmyname

Personally i would goto court just in case. Unless it will cost you more by not going.

Risk is they fine you hundreds.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

That makes it a bit clearer. It looks like you have fallen foul of the continuous insurance requirement (but I stand to be corrected)

I'll correct you.

It has ALWAYS (at least since 1988) been an offence to keep a car on the road without insurance. That has not changed and the police can still prosecute for that, but they need to 1) find out that a parked car is uninsured and 2) find and speak to the owner; so it's not often used.

The new law make it an offence just to be the keeper of a car which hadn't been SORN'd without insurance. There is no need for the car to be on a road or public place. This is a desktop prosecution and is generally enforced by DVLA.

Notmyrealname

thenudeone wrote: »

The new law make it an offence just to be the keeper of a car which hadn't been SORN'd without insurance. There is no need for the car to be on a road or public place. This is a desktop prosecution and is generally enforced by DVLA.

I expect that not only will he be fined for keeping an untaxed vehicle on the road but will get a couple of "fines" in the post from DVLA too - failure to declare SORN, one for the unpaid tax.

However, the real kick in the pants will be any future car insurance policy with a IN offence code on his licence.

Rover_Driver

thenudeone wrote: »

I'll correct you.

It has ALWAYS (at least since 1988) been an offence to keep a car on the road without insurance. That has not changed and the police can still prosecute for that, but they need to 1) find out that a parked car is uninsured and 2) find and speak to the owner; so it's not often used.

The new law make it an offence just to be the keeper of a car which hadn't been SORN'd without insurance. There is no need for the car to be on a road or public place. This is a desktop prosecution and is generally enforced by DVLA.

Although there is the offence of no insurance, contrary to s.143 RTA 1988, according to the OP the summons is for s.144A - being the keeper of an uninsured vehicle - a different matter.
The penalty is a level three fine on the standard scale - no points.

Joe_Horner

For a S.143 offence you must be using the car. That's a bit of a grey area because it doesn't just mean driving, but meant that it was virtually impossible to prosecute for just having it parked there (you're probably not using it). So, until S.144A, there was no problem having a taxed car parked on the road.

For the continuous insurance rules there are no points awarded, so no IN code on your licence but it will be a conviction which you'll be expected to notify to your insurer on renewal. They may or may not vary the premium because of it.

vax2002

What it is an offence "to do" and what the OP has been "reported for" need to be clarified.
Can the OP post up the offences or charges in exact wording used by the summons please.

Rover_Driver

According to post no.6
'144A. Offence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements'

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

I'll correct you.

It has ALWAYS (at least since 1988) been an offence to keep a car on the road without insurance. That has not changed and the police can still prosecute for that, but they need to 1) find out that a parked car is uninsured and 2) find and speak to the owner; so it's not often used.

The new law make it an offence just to be the keeper of a car which hadn't been SORN'd without insurance. There is no need for the car to be on a road or public place. This is a desktop prosecution and is generally enforced by DVLA.

It looks like I didn't need your correction in relation to the OP's situation. Rover Driver appears to have summed up the situation correctly.

cyclonebri1

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Expect 6 points for the no insurance and a fine for both.

No, don't expect that at all.

Do more research where the re poster knows what he's talking about,

vax2002

Under section 144A you should have been offered the acceptance of a £100 fixed penalty>
I would explore this with a solicitor, the charge may be struck out on that it is a "fixed penalty offence"
You have not been served a fixed penalty and IMO section 144A is the wrong charge.

"Section 144A creates the new offence which arises when a vehicle does not meet the insurance requirements. Under the insurance requirements the registration mark of a vehicle, or the vehicle's owner, must be specified in an insurance policy or security. There are a number of exceptions to the offence set out in the new section 144B. Some of these are similar to the exceptions in section 144 of the Road Traffic Act which apply to the section 143 offence of using a vehicle without insurance. They include vehicles owned by local authorities, the police and the National Health Service. Other exceptions may apply where the vehicle is no longer kept by the registered keeper; it is not kept for use on a road or other public place or has been stolen. The exceptions apply only if a prior statement, such as a statutory off-road declaration, has been made to the appropriate authorities as required by regulations.
Under the new section 144C the Secretary of State can serve a fixed penalty notice on a person whom he believes has committed an offence under section 144A. The amount of fixed penalty is £100 which is variable by statutory instrument. "