Driving without insurance

happilymarried2013

Hi guys,
Thanks for helping me out. i'm a newbie to this forum and have been warmly welcomed.
As regards to full story, hubbie and I only found this out yesterday, and details havent been forthcoming. He was stopped in March - I have no idea if he's paid the on the spot penalty or if he had points. Judging by their ability to control finances I'm inclined to say no.
If he recieves a ban he will not be able to work - thus worsening the situation. So cross atm, I feel like he's let my husband down. HE really looks up to his dad.

Joe_Horner

fivetide wrote: »

Possibly tax or, like some EU countries, your reg plate. The plate stays with you not the car. The car industry wouldn't go for it though. They know how much importance people place on having the latest NU REG on their car.

The insurance industry would also throw a fit. Compulsory insurance is a nice little captive market for them which, no matter how they spin their figures, is profitable for them or they wouldn't be in the game!

They've already made it generally pointless to take the minimum cover required, by hiking third party policy premiums to way above comprehensive ones based on the same risk.

There's no possible risk-based justification for the same driver, same car and same location having to pay more to insure against 3rd party claims only than they do to insure against own damage and (usually) inclusive windscreen and reakdown cover.

That's effectively forcing their customers to pay for cover that they may not actually want, by over-pricing what they need. Include the legally required bit in fuel, or whatever, and how many customers would they lose? I'd be back on minimum cover for a start!

As for "cheap" insurance for people caught uninsured - I wouldn't suggest having their premiums lower than thair personal driving history justifies, but I really don't see why an uninsured driver who hasn't had all these extra accidents should be priced out of the market if he tries to mend his ways!

smashingyour...

happilymarried2013 wrote: »

Hi guys,
Thanks for helping me out. i'm a newbie to this forum and have been warmly welcomed.
As regards to full story, hubbie and I only found this out yesterday, and details havent been forthcoming. He was stopped in March - I have no idea if he's paid the on the spot penalty or if he had points. Judging by their ability to control finances I'm inclined to say no.
If he recieves a ban he will not be able to work - thus worsening the situation. So cross atm, I feel like he's let my husband down. HE really looks up to his dad.

If he loses his job as a result of a ban that's tuff.

Mat_Lock

kneecap him so he can't drive ever again, flippin insurance dodgers !!

Iceweasel

I can't quite my head around this.

Driving with no insurance can be dealt with by an on the spot fine and 6 penalty points.

But ..... very few folks have £200 in their pocket to actually pay 'on the spot'.

And their licence would need to be handed in too, if like 90% of the population it was not in his pocket.

I fear that father in law has possibly not done what he was supposed to do next.

I would guess he's holding some info back, after having done a 'head in the sand' job - hoping the problem would go away.

How would the police generally deal with this type of offence? - seize the car until the penalty is paid - and even then not give it back until proof of insurance was shown. Perhaps even destroy the vehicle if no action on the law-breakers side?

happilymarried2013

kneecap him so he can't drive ever again, flippin insurance dodgers

I'd bloody love to, he's upset my husband. You're probably right, he's probably still witholding information. If he's been caught twice what do you reckon the punishment will be?
If he's avoided paying do you think that would be worse?

Tamping isn't the word!

Mat_Lock

I didn't mean to be so harsh but there's clearly a conscious decision not to get insurance after the first time of getting caught.

It only makes everyone elses lives a misery by paying more premiums plus what if he had an accident and seriously injured a child, your child or your partner. The penalties are not strict enough for these insurance dodgers !!

fivetide

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The insurance industry would also throw a fit. Compulsory insurance is a nice little captive market for them which, no matter how they spin their figures, is profitable for them or they wouldn't be in the game!

Where did I suggest not having compulsory insurance????

The point is, you thanked marlot for suggesting we add it to fuel, why should people who have never comitted an offence be paying for the misdeeds of others through a further fuel hike?

What we need is a simple way to make sure people have to buy insurance to at least cover 3rd party risks. This should, I think also be visible on the car.

The issue is, making sure that the insured person pays according to risk, at least on some level. Tax discs could be tricky, people change cars, names etc so I simply suggested tying it to the reg plate.

Lots of countries have reg plates tied to the driver not the car. It would be easier to see if a car was legal or not that way and when people renew their 'tags' as they do in the US the 3rd party premium could be part of that.

No insurance, no plates = very easy to spot.

I already said I got your point about it being a self fullfilling prophecy. Thing is, do you really think that adding it to fuel or even reg plates wouldn't have the insurance industry up in arms? This would be government insurance, not private sector in essence. Also, many simply wouldn't bother with the additional premiums.

Buy a £500 car, use the national insurance to drive it. Crash it, buy another, repeat.

Is that really a good idea?

Aretnap

Iceweasel wrote: »

Driving with no insurance can be dealt with by an on the spot fine and 6 penalty points.

But ..... very few folks have £200 in their pocket to actually pay 'on the spot'.

And their licence would need to be handed in too, if like 90% of the population it was not in his pocket.

It's not really an on the spot fine - that's just journalist-speak. You get 7 days to produce your licence, then 21 days to pay (or not pay) the fixed penalty.

How would the police generally deal with this type of offence? - seize the car until the penalty is paid - and even then not give it back until proof of insurance was shown. Perhaps even destroy the vehicle if no action on the law-breakers side?

A car can be seized if a constable believed it's being driven without insurance. The owner must pay a fee and produce proof that it's now insured to get it back (lots of chavs insure their cars, get them back, then cancel the insurance), but it's not necessary to pay the FPN to get it back - you may not want to pay it and contest the charge in court after all.

Herzlos

Joe_Horner wrote: »

There's no possible risk-based justification for the same driver, same car and same location having to pay more to insure against 3rd party claims only than they do to insure against own damage and (usually) inclusive windscreen and reakdown cover.

It could be that 3rd party only drivers cost statistically more in claims than fully comp drivers. One reasoning for this could be that fully comp drivers are probably more interested in looking after their car (they're taking on extra insurance for it), or that those that only insure 3rd party are more likely to treat their car as disposable since it's seemingly not worth the excess from fully comp.

3rd party is less cover than fully comp isn't the only consideration, otherwise there would be more competition for it.