car has been clamped but I don't actually want it.. what to do?

Car_54

Joe_Horner wrote: »

The problem is, who was using it? They can't just throw points at everyone potentially concerned for the same offence.

There are also different definitions of "using" for different circumstances. Being parked on a public road may constitute "using" in some situations, but not in others.

In fact, even moving a car from private ground onto the road has been found to not be "using" in at least one case - I'll try to find the reference but it was an obscure one and I don't have access to Lexis anymore.

The vehicle was parked on the road without insurance, which is an offence. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the registered keeper was responsible and would be the person to charge.

If she could establish that someone else was responsible, she
might still be charged with causing or permitting.

FiremanDave

Car_54 wrote: »

The vehicle was parked on the road without insurance, which is an offence. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the registered keeper was responsible and would be the person to charge.

If she could establish that someone else was responsible, she
might still be charged with causing or permitting.

It's difficult to a private individual to cause the use of no insurance. It's usual use is when it's a case of use the vehicle or I'll sack you.

Out of interest anyone know of anyone who's been done foe using a stationary vehicle without insurance?

Tilt

Car_54 wrote: »

The vehicle was parked on the road without insurance, which is an offence. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the registered keeper was responsible and would be the person to charge.

If she could establish that someone else was responsible, she
might still be charged with causing or permitting.

This is correct. In fact the RK is also TOTALLY responsible at all times to ensure the car has insurance attached to it where as the driver normally has his/own insurance cover. For example, if I was driving the car, i would be covered under MY insurance policy thus I could not be prosecuted under sec 143 of the RTA. BUT as the car itself has no insurance cover attached to it, it comes subject to sec 165 of the RTA which means the RK is subject to the Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE). The police could still pull me as the car would not appear on the MIB.

In this situation however, it is highly unlikely the RK will be prosecuted under sec 143 as the car isn't being driven.

FiremanDave

Tilt wrote: »

This is correct. In fact the RK is also TOTALLY responsible at all times to ensure the car has insurance attached to it where as the driver normally has his/own insurance cover. For example, if I was driving the car, i would be covered under MY insurance policy thus I could not be prosecuted under sec 143 of the RTA. BUT as the car itself has no insurance cover attached to it, it comes subject to sec 165 of the RTA which means the RK is subject to the Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE). The police could still pull me as the car would not appear on the MIB.

In this situation however, it is highly unlikely the RK will be prosecuted under sec 143 as the car isn't being driven.

That will confuse him even more.

Car_54

FiremanDave wrote: »

It's difficult to a private individual to cause the use of no insurance. It's usual use is when it's a case of use the vehicle or I'll sack you.

The offence isn't causing, it's causing or permitting. If you drive my car with no insurance then either (1) I've permitted it, and so committed that offence or (2) I haven't, and you are guilty of taking it without consent. In either case, you're also guilty of using with no insurance.

FiremanDave

Car_54 wrote: »

The offence isn't causing, it's causing or permitting. If you drive my car with no insurance then either (1) I've permitted it, and so committed that offence or (2) I haven't, and you are guilty of taking it without consent. In either case, you're also guilty of using with no insurance.

The act is actually use, cause or permit.

If I drive your car without insurance to take you shopping you are using it without insurance not permitting.

arcon5

Wow this thread has gone way off course.

In short op letting them take the car will not release you from fines issued. There may also be more to come. This is going to turn in to a very expensive mess of a situation that can't be avoided now.

Car_54

FiremanDave wrote: »

The act is actually use, cause or permit.

If I drive your car without insurance to take you shopping you are using it without insurance not permitting.

In those circumstances, you are clearly using the car, and would be prosecuted under section 143(1(a)).

A very imaginative prosecutor might argue that I am also using it, but why would he bother when he has an open and shut case against me for "causing or permitting any other person" (143(1(b)), which carries the same penalty?

FiremanDave

Car_54 wrote: »

In those circumstances, you are clearly using the car, and would be prosecuted under section 143(1(a)).

A very imaginative prosecutor might argue that I am also using it, but why would he bother when he has an open and shut case against me for "causing or permitting any other person" (143(1(b)), which carries the same penalty?

It's an open and shut case you're using it.

Rover_Driver

For the continious insurance offence, the registered keeper is liable, which the DVLA deal with.