No insurance! Help!

societys_child

LordSVS wrote: »

Finally. Someone with common sense!

Lord SVS

Erm . . . was my post not sensible?:(
More sensible than the FUD you're spreading.

mikey72

skintandscared wrote: »

So, hypothetically, a person could own two cars, be insured "DOC" for one of them and not bother insuring the second car at all? That makes no sense to me!

Any other car you own is always excluded.

societys_child

My cert states - can drive other vehicles not owned or hired by me.

No mention that the other vehicle must be insured.

Certificate cannot be used to secure the release of a seized vehicle.

thenudeone

He should take the certificate and the fixed penalty to a police station and ask them to record the details as if a "producer" (HO/RT1) had been issued - all the details required will be on the fixed penalty.

I suggest he also writes to the fixed penalty office giving full details of the car that he was covered under and a copy of the certificate. They will probably cancel the fixed penalty. If they won't, he'll have to request a court hearing and plead not guilty. If he was insured under another then he won't be convicted. He should take all of his driving documents to court on the day.

The seizure is a completely different matter.
I presume he didn't produce the relevant certificate or mention that he had DOC cover at the time he ws stopped?
Unless he did, the conditions for seizure, i.e.
1) police request certificate of insurance
2) driver is unable to do so at the time
3) police have "has reasonable grounds for believing" that the driver is uninsured
... have clearly been satisfied and it's probably tough luck.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A
Information which comes to light later does not change the legality of the seizure which was based on the information available at the time.
The police will usually fight any case for refund of seizure costs where the seizure was legal, even when they later find out that the driver was genuinely insured at the time - see this case http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

If he mentioned DOC cover and gave the reg. no. of his vehicle, but the officer didn't check thè database, there is a stronger case for you, because it's more difficult for the officer to have "reasonable grounds" if he/she hasn't bothered to check whether another policy existed under the details given.

girlynut

Thanks for the replies. I'm a trainee solicitor so understand "legalese"; I just wasn't sure what the relevant legislation was and didn't have the policy docs to hand at the time of posting.

Having reviewed ss 143 7 144 RTA 1998 (thanks for the pointer Raskazz!) it's evident that I've committed an offence but my partner hasn't.

s 143 states - a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks. As he had his own policy in force to cover him for driving the car, he's not contravened this law.

s 144A states- If a motor vehicle does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence. For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if it is covered by a such a policy of insurance in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and the policy identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy. So I should have a valid policy for the vehicle as its registered owner. But I'm not the one with the FPN.

We took partner's policy docs to police station. FPN revoked, vehicle returned and all monies refunded. Smiles all round!

Thanks again! :j

mikey72

Good result

rs65

girlynut wrote: »

We took partner's policy docs to police station. FPN revoked, vehicle returned and all monies refunded. Smiles all round!

Excellent result.

I know some people don't like auto renewals but this is a very good example of when it would have been useful.