Court for invalid insurance.. Help please!

m0t

The time difference is unlikely to help you, my cousin was done in similar circumstances and couldn’t get off even with legal advice. 

What you need is a letter from your insurance company stating that you were covered at the time you were originally stopped by the police. At the moment you have provided us (and presumably them) a screenshot of an insurance certificate that strongly indicates you took out a new 12 month policy whilst in the presence of the police which didn’t cover you at the point the started talking to you. 

A more cynical person might believe that they have you bang to rights and you have spotted a timing issue on the ticket and are trying to get off on a technicality. 

TadleyBaggie

[Deleted User] said:

But we insure vehicles, not plates. 

True, but vehicles are identified by plates.

facade

This same scenario (forgetting to change a reg number from a private plate) came up on here and then moved to Pepipoo last month https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6391727/got-private-plate-forgot-to-inform-insurer/p1

To save time, the upshot is the OP got a letter of indemnity from their insurer stating the vehicle was covered at the time (eventually, after finally getting hold of a manager) took it to the Police, they attached it to the case file and he got a No Further Action.

Manxman_in_exile

facade said:

This same scenario (forgetting to change a reg number from a private plate) came up on here and then moved to Pepipoo last month https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6391727/got-private-plate-forgot-to-inform-insurer/p1

To save time, the upshot is the OP got a letter of indemnity from their insurer stating the vehicle was covered at the time (eventually, after finally getting hold of a manager) took it to the Police, they attached it to the case file and he got a No Further Action.

Yes.

I'm not sure why the OP seems reluctant to follow the advice that @DullGreyGuy has given (I think) three times to get a letter of indemnity from his insurer...

Aretnap

TadleyBaggie said:

[Deleted User] said:

But we insure vehicles, not plates. 

True, but vehicles are identified by plates.

Vehicles can be identified in many ways. Registration numbers are one of those ways. But if the policy documents say that the policy covers "a red Honda motorbike owned by Nokmond", how many vehicles are there likely to be which fit that description? Especially if it also quotes a a private registration number which was on that motorbike until a month ago, can presumably be linked by the VIN by the DVLA, and is (maybe) not currently associated with any other motorbike?

TadleyBaggie

So the VRM declare to the insurance is irrelevant? Good luck running that defence in court.

SergeantBaker

TadleyBaggie said:

So the VRM declare to the insurance is irrelevant? Good luck running that defence in court.

It shouldn’t get that far. 

TooManyPoints

The charge on the written slip is at 10:42am so at that time I was covered.

That’s the time the slip was written out. You may find that the evidence against you mentions a different time.

Business use won't come into it, in the context of your query.

Yes it will (though I happen to think that is not the issue here). If a driver has only “Social Domestic and Pleasure” cover and is stopped whilst in the course of business (a very common “course of business” in such circumstances being the delivery of takeaway food) then he has no insurance cover, as required by the RTA. But as I said, I do not think that is the allegation here.

Vehicles can be identified in many ways. Registration numbers are one of those ways.

Indeed. As emphasised, insurers insure vehicles, not registration plates. It’s unfortunate that the administrative oversight drew the attention of the police to the bike. IIRC the Insurance Ombudsman has ruled that unless the change of VEM alters the insurer’s risk, they should not deny cover in circumstances like this, so a letter of indemnity is the way to go.

Nokmond: along with your court papers (which is probably a “Single Justice Procedure Notice”) you should have been served with the evidence the police intend to rely on to convict you. Among this should be the officer’s statement and this should clarify the time issue you mention. But you should approach this on the basis that the bike was insured - it simply had a different VRM to the one on your policy. 

facade

TadleyBaggie said:

So the VRM declare to the insurance is irrelevant? Good luck running that defence in court.

The defence is proving that the vehicle was insured at the time.  (The Police do not have to prove that it wasn't, as proving a negative is nigh impossible)

This is done via a letter of indemnity from the insurer stating that they accept that the vehicle was covered at the time, irrespective of the VRM being different to the one on the policy, as both VRMs identify the same vehicle.

sevenhills

Nokmond said:

I sent them the documents but they are still proceeding. 

I have taken documents in to the police station myself in the past.
Perhaps if you had done that you would know where you stand. I believe that you need to prove that you were insured within 7 days, perhaps your documents were lost in the post.