Driving without car insurance

Quentin

You are avoiding the point of this exchange:

Crazy_Jamie wrote:

Driving without insurance is an absolute offence. That means that if you were driving a vehicle without a valid policy of insurance in place, irrespective of the circumstances, you are guilty of the offence.

This in contradiction to my post # 12.

I have given you chapter and verse over this, but you ignore it.

(As far as the distinction between mitigation and special reasons is concerned you will see I tried to ascertain the situation with the OP in post #2 on laymans terms - was he innocent or were there circumstances.)

Crazy_Jamie

Quentin wrote: »

You are avoiding the point of this exchange:


This in contradiction to my post # 12.

I have given you chapter and verse over this, but you ignore it.

(As far as the distinction between mitigation and special reasons is concerned you will see I tried to ascertain the situation with the OP in post #2 on laymans terms - was he innocent or were there circumstances.)

And you are avoiding the point of the thread. Yes, I failed to mention an extremely limited defence which has no application in this case. I hold my hands up to it, but it makes no difference to the OP at all.

Your suggestion that you addressed the issue relating to special circumstances and mitigation in post 2 in 'layman's terms' is a nonsense because the OP had actually mentioned 'special circumstances' in the first post, so he was clearly aware of it. Special circumstances are clearly a relevant and live issue in this thread, yet you failed to mention the term at all, and indeed your other posts around the thread heavily suggest that you either don't know the distinction. But at the very least you failed to explain the difference, and such an explanation was necessary in the context of this thread. Hence why I felt the need to provide it.

Just to clarify, but I don't attach any blame to you for not providing the required information. It seems that you were intent on taking my post personally from the off, but my intention was only ever to assist the OP. I don't intend to waste any more time going back and forth with you on this because it does nothing to assist the person in this thread who actually asked for advice, so hopefully my admission that I missed something out will be sufficient for you to put your ego to one side and cease this pointless internet argument.

Quentin

The OP didn't come for legal advice on his defence! He wanted to know if anyone had defended themselves in court.

I gave him advice over this in post #2!

Though others have chipped in with advice (one of which was that there was never a defence for this offence, at that time the OP hadn't clarified the special reason, and I did point out that there is an occasion where there is a defence).

Yet you come along with your "sorely needed" lecture, which wrongly highlighted in italics that "irrespective of the circumstances" driving without insurance meant you are guilty.

I see you at last agree this was incorrect, but that the defence is irrelevant in this case. You have the benefit of hindsight.

When the issue first arose, no-one knew the defence.

This has nothing to do with ego, more to do with accuracy!

Crazy_Jamie

Quentin wrote: »

The OP didn't come for legal advice on his defence! He wanted to know if anyone had defended themselves in court.

Yes, but the subsequent discussion (which included the OP) then stretched to legal issues. Hence the need for clarification.

Quentin wrote:

I see you at last agree this was incorrect, but that the defence is irrelevant in this case. You have the benefit of hindsight.

When the issue first arose, no-one knew the defence.

This has nothing to do with ego, more to do with accuracy!

It has everything to do with ego, as demonstrated the fact that you seem intent on arguing about something that I never actually challenged in the first place. Yet you feel the need to hark on about my irrelevant error, whilst constantly seeking to gloss over the quite clear gaps in your own knowledge in a desperate effort to avoid acknowledging those gaps. Not that there would be any shame in acknowledging those gaps, because it is quite clear from your other posts that your primary knowledge is in insurance generally and not motoring law. Yet you continue to attempt to avoid the idea that you might not know something about a topic that you clearly do not specialise in. It is classic pointless internet fare, which for some reason members see fit to engage in time and time again.

I did have the benefit of hindsight when I posted. You now also have the benefit of that hindsight, and should now be able to see how utterly pointless this discussion is. So by all means continue to prolong this debate if you wish, but personally I have no inclination to waste more of my time with it.

System

It's thread drift. it's a perfectly normal occurence on internet forums, and in this case interesting rather than irrelevant.
The OP has had his question answered, and been given links to further information. That's fine.
But a separate discussion has emerged about whether there are in fact any circumstances where motor insurance is not a black/white issue, in the absolute sense, not merely mitigation. One example has been given, that applying to an employee.

There might be another black/white circumstance where the validity of the insurance was in dispute, rather than the simple matter of its existence or not.
If an insurance company at first was inclined to accept that cover existed, but then denied it on a technicality, say on the grounds of an undisclosed modification, then the owner might dispute that claiming that the modification was not relevant to the circumstances. Or some similar circumstances leading to a complaint and investigation by the insurance ombudsman or whatever.
So the question of whether the person was or was not driving without insurance could be in the balance, until the highest point of appeal had been reached?

dacouch

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

It's thread drift. it's a perfectly normal occurence on internet forums, and in this case interesting rather than irrelevant.
The OP has had his question answered, and been given links to further information. That's fine.
But a separate discussion has emerged about whether there are in fact any circumstances where motor insurance is not a black/white issue, in the absolute sense, not merely mitigation. One example has been given, that applying to an employee.

There might be another black/white circumstance where the validity of the insurance was in dispute, rather than the simple matter of its existence or not.
If an insurance company at first was inclined to accept that cover existed, but then denied it on a technicality, say on the grounds of an undisclosed modification, then the owner might dispute that claiming that the modification was not relevant to the circumstances. Or some similar circumstances leading to a complaint and investigation by the insurance ombudsman or whatever.
So the question of whether the person was or was not driving without insurance could be in the balance, until the highest point of appeal had been reached?

I like thread drift, it gives us all some input.

The case you give is unlikely to result in a conviction as there's case law which in effect if there's a valid RTA Certificate in effect at the time of the stop then even if the policy is later voided the driver cannot get an IN10.

The Insurer is however free to pursue the driver for their outlay

Crazy_Jamie

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

If an insurance company at first was inclined to accept that cover existed, but then denied it on a technicality, say on the grounds of an undisclosed modification, then the owner might dispute that claiming that the modification was not relevant to the circumstances. Or some similar circumstances leading to a complaint and investigation by the insurance ombudsman or whatever.

It's an interesting set of facts, but as dacouch has said it is something that we know the answer to. The law is rarely retroactive, and in this case providing a policy of insurance was in place at the time there will have been no offence committed. Which is logical if you think about it, because otherwise everyone who has their insurance voided could instantly be guilty of driving without insurance if it could be shown that they had driven prior to the insurance becoming void.

prettyXcool_2

Thank you to everyone for your input and your thoughts.

Here is a very interesting explanation written by a motor lawyer, and is very similar to my situation: driving without car insurance under "special reasons".
motordefencelawyers.co.uk / motoring-news /driving-without-insurance-making-a-mistake /

If you look at the fixed fees, it is very steep, and hence my original question, whether anyone had experience of representing themselves in court.

It is a shame there is no alternative way to prove your innocence without going through a costly court hearing.

Crazy_Jamie

prettyXcool wrote: »

It is a shame there is no alternative way to prove your innocence without going through a costly court hearing.

Well, it's not costly if you win. In all likelihood if you succeed in establishing special reasons the maximum amount you will pay in costs is £85, though again in practice Magistrates will often choose not to impose any costs if they find special reasons.

If you genuinely believe that you have special reasons and have some way to substantiate that belief, there is no reason why you cannot represent yourself in court. You will simply give evidence and explain to the Magistrates what the circumstances were, and why you believe those circumstances to amount to special reasons. Whilst it is obviously ideal to have a solicitor in your corner who knows the law, in reality there is a legal adviser in court who should ensure that you are not handicapped through a lack of legal knowledge, and will ensure that you give evidence as to the relevant details. If you cannot afford a solicitor, you can certainly still represent yourself.