Charged with driving w/out insurance but had fully comp

reeva11

Hi there,
I am writing on behalf of a friend. He had fully comp insurance on his existing vehicle. This included third party cover driving other cars which weren't his own. He purchased another vehicle for cash, and afterwards had to take his daughter to a counselling appointment. The police pulled him up and charged him with 'driving without insurance.' He explained that he had insurance (but he does have communication difficulties). The police were unconvinced. The matter went before court and he was charged. He experienced a nervous collapse just prior to and over this period hence the disengagement. The appt for his daughter was a bereavement counselling appt as his partner had passed under tragic circumstances. Several months later, he brings to my attention that he has this fine and he would like to appeal. He has good grounds to appeal but if unsuccessful, the costs might surpass current costs. Appeal processes allow a window of 21 days from conviction you see. This is 2.5 months later that he is asking. Do you think the magistrate would overturn this conviction based on his existing mental health problems and the family's recent bereavement? These are extenuating circumstances and there are many professionals involved in giving support, who can validate his claim. What are your thoughts?

FutureGirl

I always assumed the section of cover which enabled you to drive any car only enabled you to do so when the other car was already insured by someone else.

Why did he not just drive the car that he had insurance on?

rs65

reeva11 wrote: »

This included third party cover driving other cars which weren't his own. He purchased another vehicle for cash, and afterwards had to take his daughter to a counselling appointment. The police pulled him up and charged him with 'driving without insurance.' He explained that he had insurance

If he was driving his other car - then he wasn't insured.

foxtrotoscar_2

I can see no grounds for an appeal as he wasn't in fact insured to drive the car he was driving. Tell him to pay the fine (if hasn't already done so) and move on.

System

FutureGirl wrote: »

I always assumed the section of cover which enabled you to drive any car only enabled you to do so when the other car was already insured by someone else.

Not necessarily. LV don't require the vehicle tohave its own insurance.

Don't get confused with continuous insurance requirements - that is the owner's responsibility, not the driver.

DOC cover normally has the phrase or words to the effect that the car does not belong to that person or is not hired to that person under a hire purchase agreement.

Quentin

reeva11 wrote: »

Do you think the magistrate would overturn this conviction based on his existing mental health problems and the family's recent bereavement? These are extenuating circumstances and there are many professionals involved in giving support, who can validate his claim. What are your thoughts?

No chance.

There's no defence for driving uninsured.

Explain to him that getting caught that day is the lesser evil than having a crash and injuring someone.

Any costs would have ended up ultimately having to be paid by him which could have been far more than the fine he got.

If he wants to appeal the size of the fine he should get proper legal advice on his chances

grumpytoo

Its a good idea to add the new vehicle to one's policy as a "Temporary Additional Vehicle" as this saves the "Spanish Inquisition" of form-filling and queries about NCB. These day ANPR sets off alarms in the "fully loaded" police cruisers and fixed cameras can do similar. There is even an urban myth that claims that motorway cameras use facial recognition to see whether the driver of a vehicle is the one who is insured to drive it. (DVLA have pictures of British licence holders) I take the facial recognition with a large grain of salt as buses and trucks are commonly driven by lots of different people. It is also not illegal to wear sunglasses!

molerat

They have him bang to rights. No point wasting energy appealing. Driving without insurance, which he was, is an absolute offence.

RichardD1970

grumpytoo wrote: »

Its a good idea to add the new vehicle to one's policy as a "Temporary Additional Vehicle" as this saves the "Spanish Inquisition" of form-filling and queries about NCB. These day ANPR sets off alarms in the "fully loaded" police cruisers and fixed cameras can do similar. There is even an urban myth that claims that motorway cameras use facial recognition to see whether the driver of a vehicle is the one who is insured to drive it. (DVLA have pictures of British licence holders) I take the facial recognition with a large grain of salt as buses and trucks are commonly driven by lots of different people. It is also not illegal to wear sunglasses!

Not all, there are still loads of "old farts" with the old style paper licence.

molerat

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Not all, there are still loads of "old farts" with the old style paper licence.

Oi !! :mad:

usefulmale

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Not all, there are still loads of "old farts" with the old style paper licence.

And another Oi, here :mad: