Insurance problem

wgl2014

FWIW- you have a statutory defence to the no insurance charge. Personally I wouldn't accept a warning on principal.

I suspect the warning scheme is a way for Police to increase their 'solved' crime statistics without having to go to the trouble of proving things at court!

the_sherrif

This is often used in Scotland.Under the circumstances the procurator fiscal has decided either there is a possibility I might win if it goes to court or it was reasonable for me to assume the vehicle was insured.As I have no previous convictions and of good character they issue a warning instead.Tbh as far as motoring offences go ie parking and company insurance go the courts are more lenient up here and tend to use common sense more.

TooManyPoints

The letter was pretty clear basically it said although in the eyes of the law I had committed 2 road traffic offences due to the circumstances they would go down the road of a warning.

What was the second offence?

As far as the insurance matter goes you have an absolute rock solid statutory defence to the allegation. You have driven for your employer for twenty years and with a fleet of vehicles you have no reason to suspect that yours was not insured. You have no need to accept a warning (whatever implications that has) because if the matter went to court you would be acquitted. It's entirely a matter for you but as has been suggested I would certainly find out what a warning means in Scotland before you even think about accepting one for an offence of which you are not guilty. .

Warwick_Hunt

wgl2014 wrote: »

FWIW- you have a statutory defence to the no insurance charge. Personally I wouldn't accept a warning on principal.

I suspect the warning scheme is a way for Police to increase their 'solved' crime statistics without having to go to the trouble of proving things at court!

But surely the suspect would need to admit the offence to be warned?

As for solved crime statistics no insurance is no a recordable crime.

wgl2014

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

But surely the suspect would need to admit the offence to be warned?

As for solved crime statistics no insurance is no a recordable crime.

From the wording on the letter the OP has it would seem not, if you do nothing the cops assume you accept the 'warning'.

Slightly sloppy wording on my part re the statistics, what I was getting at is it would allow the bean counters to mark it down as finalized with a 'positive' outcome rather than NFA.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

But surely the suspect would need to admit the offence to be warned?

As for solved crime statistics no insurance is no a recordable crime.

The link above suggests that a warning is not a conviction. You admit the offence by accepting the warning.

However, I would be very reluctant to accept a warning for something I was entirely innocent of. I would definitely still seek legal advice on the implications. It has taken some time for the serious implications of accepting a caution to come out and I am frankly puzzled by the lack of useful information one way or another that I could find on the web.

Wig

I agree the link says it is not a conviction..

But it does say it is recorded for 2 years, so the OP was wrong to say it would not be recorded.

What was the 2nd offence?

And ask your private insurer if you have to declare warnings to them and if it will increase your premium and for how long do you have to report them?