Court for invalid insurance.. Help please!

Nokmond

So I have no idea of its for no insurance (which I clearly had) or not having business use. Not sure if them sections mean anything to anyone on here?! 

DullGreyGuy

You may want to update your attempts at blanking out details as your address is still readable. 

The cert says for 12 months? That suggests you bought new insurance not updating your existing policy?

Ebe_Scrooge

Nokmond said:

So I have no idea of its for no insurance (which I clearly had) or not having business use. Not sure if them sections mean anything to anyone on here?! 

At the time the ticket was issued you had no insurance for that registration number - that fact is indisputable.  I'll leave the question over the "back-dating" of the insurance to other more-qualified people.

Business use won't come into it, in the context of your query.  All the police are interested in is whether you have third-party insurance (the legal minimum requirement).  Of course, if you ever needed to make a claim and the insurance company thought you were using the bike for business purposes at the time, that would start a whole new discussion.  But that's an entirely different argument, and unrelated to this issue.

Nokmond

DullGreyGuy said:

You may want to update your attempts at blanking out details as your address is still readable. 

The cert says for 12 months? That suggests you bought new insurance not updating your existing policy?

No, I runs from August to August so no worries there, the 12 months refers to the original policy. 

Nokmond

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Nokmond said:

So I have no idea of its for no insurance (which I clearly had) or not having business use. Not sure if them sections mean anything to anyone on here?! 

At the time the ticket was issued you had no insurance for that registration number - that fact is indisputable.  I'll leave the question over the "back-dating" of the insurance to other more-qualified people.

Business use won't come into it, in the context of your query.  All the police are interested in is whether you have third-party insurance (the legal minimum requirement).  Of course, if you ever needed to make a claim and the insurance company thought you were using the bike for business purposes at the time, that would start a whole new discussion.  But that's an entirely different argument, and unrelated to this issue.

It wasn't back dated. I called my insurer after the initial contact with the police and asked them to update my reg plate. It was 15 mins later after they had made more checks that they cautioned me. So at the time of the caution I was 100% insured. 

TadleyBaggie

You don't seem to get this, being insured at the time they wrote up the paperwork is irrelevant. When stopped the insurance on the plate you were riding was not in place.

Grey_Critic

Without insurance they would have seized the bike. You were given the opportunity to rectify it - as TadleyBaggie says - When stopped the insurance on the plate you were riding was not in place.

Car_54

Ebe_Scrooge said:

Nokmond said:

So I have no idea of its for no insurance (which I clearly had) or not having business use. Not sure if them sections mean anything to anyone on here?! 

At the time the ticket was issued you had no insurance for that registration number - that fact is indisputable.  I'll leave the question over the "back-dating" of the insurance to other more-qualified people.

Business use won't come into it, in the context of your query.  All the police are interested in is whether you have third-party insurance (the legal minimum requirement).  Of course, if you ever needed to make a claim and the insurance company thought you were using the bike for business purposes at the time, that would start a whole new discussion.  But that's an entirely different argument, and unrelated to this issue.

The police are indeed interested in business use - we've seen lots of cases on pepipoo. Mind you, the OP says he was parked at the time!

Car_54

TadleyBaggie said:

You don't seem to get this, being insured at the time they wrote up the paperwork is irrelevant. When stopped the insurance on the plate you were riding was not in place.

But we insure vehicles, not plates. 

If the OP can produce a paper trail proving it was the same bike he should be acquitted.

DullGreyGuy

[Deleted User] said:

TadleyBaggie said:

You don't seem to get this, being insured at the time they wrote up the paperwork is irrelevant. When stopped the insurance on the plate you were riding was not in place.

But we insure vehicles, not plates. 

If the OP can produce a paper trail proving it was the same bike he should be acquitted.

And hence saying getting the letter of indemnity from the insurer which says they'd have covered the vehicle in the event of an accident.