Caught without Insurance

mrbadexample

Bettingmad wrote: »

Every vehicle on a road has to have insurance. Fact.

Actually, not a fact. :rolleyes:

You haven't quite got it yet, have you? Yes, a vehicle needs to be insured if used on the road. An insurance policy offering third-party cover driving other cars gives you exactly that. Where you've got confused (and changed the hypothetical situation) is then leaving that vehicle parked uninsured on the public highway. No-one said anything about that - if you move the goalposts far enough and often enough, you'll be right eventually. :rolleyes:

mrbadexample

withabix wrote: »

Here follows the legal sequence of events for purchasing a car and then driving it home:

1) find car you like
2) view it (not mandatory!)
3) pay for it or leave a deposit(and obtain V5)
4) go away and arrange insurance
5) stop off at post office and pay for road tax (if vehicle is not taxed)
6) go and collect car
7) display vehicle excise licence in vehicle windscreen.
8) drive it away

Not complicated.

............

omen666

Something else I forgot to bring into the mix was this. When she was stopped the car was not checked for insurance. The police allowed her to carry on driving, now how is that lawful allowing her to drive off when she has no insurance. Surely they did not do their job properly when they have the facility to check

mrbadexample

omen666 wrote: »

So all in all and it was a genuine misunderstanding what do you think she will get in terms of if she pleaded guilty and explained the situation as she saw it and believed?

She currently has 3 points on her licence and has only been driving 2 yrs 4 months.

Also she works with children, would this also hamper her efforts in gaining employment in the future as she has to endure CRB checks at each job

You're not going to like this very much.

Driving without insurance carries penalties of a level 5 fine (maximum £5000) and 6-8 points. It can be dealt with by a £200 fixed penalty notice, but it would appear that this is not the case here.

If she goes to court and pleads guilty (which it would appear she is), but offers her mitigation (i.e. that she thought she was covered by her third-party extension on her other policy), the fine is quite likely to be relatively small. However, the magistrates are obliged to endorse the licence with the minimum of 6 points. Whilst they do get to choose the level of the fine, they don't get a choice in this.

It won't affect future employment opportunities unless she goes for a driving job.

mrbadexample

omen666 wrote: »

Something else I forgot to bring into the mix was this. When she was stopped the car was not checked for insurance. The police allowed her to carry on driving, now how is that lawful allowing her to drive off when she has no insurance. Surely they did not do their job properly when they have the facility to check

If they had no reason to suspect she was uninsured, they may not have checked. They've done their job with the producer - it's picked up the offence.

IMHO, jumping up and down saying "but the police didn't do their job properly!" isn't going to help her.

Labman_2

omen666 wrote: »

Something else I forgot to bring into the mix was this. When she was stopped the car was not checked for insurance. The police allowed her to carry on driving, now how is that lawful allowing her to drive off when she has no insurance. Surely they did not do their job properly when they have the facility to check

Yes, I'm sure your sister would have been even happier with a fine, penalty points & a crushed car!:D

Bettingmad

mrbadexample wrote: »

Actually, not a fact. :rolleyes:

You haven't quite got it yet, have you? Yes, a vehicle needs to be insured if used on the road. An insurance policy offering third-party cover driving other cars gives you exactly that. Where you've got confused (and changed the hypothetical situation) is then leaving that vehicle parked uninsured on the public highway. No-one said anything about that - if you move the goalposts far enough and often enough, you'll be right eventually. :rolleyes:

So therefore a vehicle has to have its own insurance to be on a road to be legal. Wheres the confusion with that. Please don't inform people that they can legally drive any other vehicle if they have an insurance policy offering third party cover. My policy for instance specifically excludes any other person from driving my vehicle unless named on my policy.

mrbadexample

Bettingmad wrote: »

So therefore a vehicle has to have its own insurance to be on a road to be legal. Wheres the confusion with that. Please don't inform people that they can legally drive any other vehicle if they have an insurance policy offering third party cover.

:doh: Bettingmad, you haven't got the first idea what you are talking about.

A vehicle does not have to have it's own insurance to be legally on the road. Please stop perpetuating this rubbish. I told you earlier to quit while you were behind, but you will insist on making yourself look stupid. :rolleyes:

Bettingmad wrote: »

My policy for instance specifically excludes any other person from driving my vehicle unless named on my policy.

I could, quite legally, drive your car. I would be covered by my third-party insurance. Your above quote means that other people driving your car are not covered by your policy. :rolleyes: If I drove your car and had an accident, your policy would not pay out. Unsurprising really, as I'd be claiming on mine.

FelOn_2

withabix wrote: »

Here follows the legal sequence of events for purchasing a car and then driving it home:

1) find car you like
2) view it (not mandatory!)
3) pay for it or leave a deposit(and obtain V5)
4) go away and arrange insurance
5) stop off at post office and pay for road tax (if vehicle is not taxed)
6) go and collect car
7) drive it away

Not complicated.

Even less complicated, get one of these :rotfl: ....