URGENT: Contravention for driving without insurance.

kingstreet

Have you got a fixed penalty for £200 and six points, or did the officer give your husband a verbal NIP that he will be "considered for prosecution for the offence of..." or similar words?

If the former, he should reject the FPN, requesting the court hearing, but making sure he meets any requirement to produce any other documents which may have been requested.

If the latter, he needs to wait until summonsed for the offence.

Both routes will lead to a court appearance. There is no "appeal" until after being tried and convicted. Once he is summonsed, he can appear and plead not guilty, stating why he was insured at the time.

This is the best place for advice on motoring offences;-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

adouglasmhor

Something similar happened to me once - I cnacelled an insurance policy with A after getting a better deal with B, A then informed the database I was no longer insured and somehow it knocked B of the system as well. I had my car siezed the next day and had to pay to get it back, then appeal to get my money back. The database is not fully real time.
Surely you husband must know when he was stopped?

InsideInsurance

The other obvious question, given you'd just had your vehicle seized, did you declare your pending conviction for this when buying your new insurance?

If you didnt then you may well find your new policy void anyway

adouglasmhor

InsideInsurance wrote: »

The other obvious question, given you'd just had your vehicle seized, did you declare your pending conviction for this when buying your new insurance?

If you didnt then you may well find your new policy void anyway

I think the wife was buying the insurance as the husband was already driving away.

RuthnJasper

fmdddv wrote: »

I have laid the facts in my first post. I don't have to prove anything, especially not to someone who isn't helping and is simply here to criticise. Must be splendid up there on your high horse.

Thank God your husband didn't hit anyone on a high horse - or a bike, car, truck or walking. _pale_

How long have you been the registered owner of the car? Did you buy it that very morning too (before 8.28am)?

Assuming that the insurance was valid from 8.28am and the car was stopped at 9.08am - I very much doubt that 40 minutes is sufficient time for the computer database to upload data to the equipment in the Rozzers' vehicle.

Timing is everything. And driving without insurance (intentional or otherwise) is illegal.

Idiophreak

RuthnJasper wrote: »

Assuming that the insurance was valid from 8.28am and the car was stopped at 9.08am

From what I understand the car was stopped rather earlier - it was just all wrapped up, and the notice issued, at 9:08...

InsideInsurance

adouglasmhor wrote: »

I think the wife was buying the insurance as the husband was already driving away.

Ok, I was confused as it sounded like they had had one car seized, and then got done on a second car because of the questionable time of if the guy had left the house or not before the missus had spoken to the insurers.

I am surprised that there are any insurers that dont allow you to do installments online though

fmdddv

kingstreet wrote: »

Have you got a fixed penalty for £200 and six points, or did the officer give your husband a verbal NIP that he will be "considered for prosecution for the offence of..." or similar words?

It is the latter.

Thank you for the advise. I was making payment to the insurer as my husband was leaving. So we should have been insured as soon as the payment was taken, which was before he was stopped.
If there was delay in the insurer's system updating then surely, we should not be made accountable.

spacey2012

You know where the law stands, it is timing issue or nothing, morals are for people to argue over all day.
He is getting banned anyway, so what does he have to lose by pleading not guilty and and see what evidence the police come up with to contrary his argument.
The CPS will have to revue the case before trial at magistrates and if he has put forward evidence in writing that suggests he was insured, they are likely to drop the case to save them the applications for costs order.

Idiophreak

fmdddv wrote: »

It is the latter.

Thank you for the advise. I was making payment to the insurer as my husband was leaving. So we should have been insured as soon as the payment was taken, which was before he was stopped.
If there was delay in the insurer's system updating then surely, we should not be made accountable.

So you will have phone records that show exactly when the call ended?

And did they say cover would be immediate on the phone?