Court for invalid insurance.. Help please!

MoreProbs

Nokmond, had you also forgotten to update your bike's V5C with the new plate? Hopefully not. In which case you should be able to 100% demonstrate - using the DVLA or a commercial reg-check company - that the two plates belong to the same bike. Ergo, the bike was insured at the time, although on the incorrect plates.

facade

MoreProbs said:

Nokmond, had you also forgotten to update your bike's V5C with the new plate? Hopefully not. In which case you should be able to 100% demonstrate - using the DVLA or a commercial reg-check company - that the two plates belong to the same bike. Ergo, the bike was insured at the time, although on the incorrect plates.

It doesn't matter, the insurance company have to accept that it was covered.

Either a certificate of insurance valid at the time or a letter of indemnity (as has now been stated many times)

If the certificate was for the VIN number, it would be different.

It is beyond dispute that it is the same vehicle, but whether it was covered with a different VRM is the question.

The insurer may have declined to insure it had they known the private reg.  (e.g. it if it was V1LLA, it would get set on fire immediately round here, so the risk would be huge, and they might refuse to insure it - but they would insure ZZ19 ABC)

Jasonh2015

If it's a simple change in plates then any good insurer would issue out a letter of indemnity and confirmed the vehicle covered. It's a stretch for the police to say you were working if they are family. The vehicle is covered, not the plate.

TooManyPoints

It's a stretch for the police to say you were working if they are family

As I said, I do not believe that's the issue here. But for clarity, it is not a stretch. You don't have to be "working" and you don't have to be in receipt of pay. If you are (say) delivering food "helping out as a favour" you are using your vehicle for business purposes. I have seen a number of drivers run such a defence and they were convicted.

DullGreyGuy

TooManyPoints said:

It's a stretch for the police to say you were working if they are family

As I said, I do not believe that's the issue here. But for clarity, it is not a stretch. You don't have to be "working" and you don't have to be in receipt of pay. If you are (say) delivering food "helping out as a favour" you are using your vehicle for business purposes. I have seen a number of drivers run such a defence and they were convicted.

The devil will be in the detail... if you drive to collect a takeaway to deliver it to your family then that wouldnt be considered hire and reward but if your family owned the takeaway and youre doing them a favour delivering to customers then that would be hire and reward even if you arent being paid