Caught without Insurance but have a valid Certificate of Insurance

bluelad1927

prowla said:

So, to clarify: you were issued a fine for not being insured at a precise point in time when you were insured.

There is nothing in the UK to say that you have to carry proof of insurance AFAIK.

Did you do the renewal via phone? If so, you would normally be insured from then.

It seems to me that this is a case where a bit of common-sense could/should be applied.

But then again, that wouldn't help the revenue stream.

No they were not insured at the time of the stop and renewed it after the  officer had left.

As to your last sentence I imagine that you have never been hit by an uninsured driver and not experienced all the misery and financial costs that go with it. 

TooManyPoints

So, to clarify: you were issued a fine for not being insured at a precise point in time when you were insured.

That's not quite the position he is in. He has not been "issued a fine". He has been prosecuted for driving with no insurance and if he wants to defend the charge he faces a criminal trial.

First of all we have a camera sending him a letter telling him he had no insurance (but with no intention to prosecute). I think that was jolly decent of the camera. Though quite why (or how, for that matter) it would be writing to him just to let him know he had no insurance is a little unclear.

Then we have, at some unspecified time later, a police officer pulling him over because he suspected he had no insurance. Because no proof of cover could be produced, he was issued a “ticket”.

Then, after having been stopped without insurance, he purchases cover as soon as the officer has departed the scene (actually being quite fortunate that the officer did not choose to seize his vehicle). Somehow he manages to secure a certificate of insurance showing cover began nine minutes before that ticket was issued.

What we do know is this: 

“I'm totally up front here: my insurance lapsed in late March, the officer pulled me in June. I was driving without insurance, and I am wholly grateful to the officer for pointing this out. I had absolutely no idea I was not covered.”

So let's imagine how this will pan out in court at the trial:

The police will produce evidence that the OP was stopped because their officer suspected he had no insurance (probably because there was no cover shown on the MIB database). They will produce the officer's statement saying that the driver could not produce evidence of cover. At this point, without hearing a defence, the court would, bar a miracle, convict the OP.

So what defence does the OP present? Does he produce his certificate of insurance, seemingly issued eight minutes before the officer issued him with a ticket (presumably at a time when he was either talking to the officer or driving before he was stopped)? What does he say when asked how he managed to secure cover at that time?  

Insurers produce these [letters of retrospective indemnity] often enough when they've messed up and recorded a registration plate wrong or such...

But that's not the case here. The policy expired and they did not hear from the policyholder for three months and only then because he was stopped by the police.

It seems to me that this is a case where a bit of common-sense could/should be applied..

I think that’s precisely what has happened.

It's a weird space-time continuum.

No it isn't. It's a simple clerical error made by one party or another and does not provide you with a defence.

My advice to you is to change your plea to guilty at your earliest convenience. Quite why you ever allowed this matter to get to court when you know you were driving without insurance is a little mysterious. Whatever the cause of the time discrepancy, whether on the part of your insurers or the police officer, this can be easily explained and remedied in court.

Upon conviction you will face an income related fine of 1.5 weeks' net income. You will also pay a "Victim Surcharge" of 40% of that fine and have six points imposed on your driving record. If you plead guilty the fine will be reduced. If  you'd pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity that discount would have been one third. The court will recognise that you changed your plea at a late stage and so will probably reduce that discount to, perhaps, 20% if you are lucky. The police will ask for a contribution towards their prosecution costs. This will be £85-£90 if you plead guilty. If you are found guilty following a trial they will ask for £620.

This is already going to cost you far more than it should have. Time to switch to damage limitation mode.

Frank_DeFord

Okay, great, thanks everyone. I'm totally out of my depth here, and I suppose I grasped onto the idea I would escape on a technicality, as fishy as that technicality smells. I think you've all made it clear that this is not the hill to die on. Limitation mode engaged, and thank you everyone. I'll update after the court date with what happened.

For clarity from the above, a camera cannot prosecute in the case of no insurance (from what I was told by the officer) - you have to be caught (driver and vehicle.) In my instance, an ANPR camera pinged an officer in his vehicle, and he pulled me over once he'd received that information from the camera.

It was very nice of the officer not to seize the vehicle. I think he saw I was alone, out of town, with my three kids, and absolutely astonished I hadn't had insurance coverage. He somewhat apologised for the severity of the fine and points, but said the government is taking non-insurance absolutely seriously. I bought the insurance immediately, and then spotted the clerical error and proceeded as if I could defend myself out of a hefty number of points and fine.

Typhoon2000

I think you be hard pushed to convince a magistrate that you purchased insurance 9min earlier ( so probably 2min before being stopped) and manage to forget about it when asked by the officer if you had insurance and then go through your old emails to find the auto renewal which didn’t happen.

Frank_DeFord

Typhoon2000 said:

I think you be hard pushed to convince a magistrate that you purchased insurance 9min earlier ( so probably 2min before being stopped) and manage to forget about it when asked by the officer if you had insurance and then go through your old emails to find the auto renewal which didn’t happen.

Yes, agreed. I suppose earlier in this process I felt it wouldn't go that far. The prosecution would present the charge, I would counter with a valid certificate of insurance, case dismissed.

I'm totally wrong here, it's been a learning experience.

SteveJW

Frank_DeFord said:
It was very nice of the officer not to seize the vehicle. I think he saw I was alone, out of town, with my three kids, and absolutely astonished I hadn't had insurance coverage

This is in no way a dig at Frank

What if 5 minutes after the officer let the vehicle drive away, the vehicle hit the theoretical bus queue of nuns and mothers with young children

Surely the police have a duty of care to the general public

Typhoon2000

SteveJW said:

Frank_DeFord said:
It was very nice of the officer not to seize the vehicle. I think he saw I was alone, out of town, with my three kids, and absolutely astonished I hadn't had insurance coverage

This is in no way a dig at Frank

What if 5 minutes after the officer let the vehicle drive away, the vehicle hit the theoretical bus queue of nuns and mothers with young children

Surely the police have a duty of care to the general public

The risk to the nuns would have been the same if he had or didn’t have insurance, and their pay out would have been the same too. One would claim from the MIB rather than the driver if the driver was uninsured.

Aretnap

SteveJW said:

Frank_DeFord said:
It was very nice of the officer not to seize the vehicle. I think he saw I was alone, out of town, with my three kids, and absolutely astonished I hadn't had insurance coverage

This is in no way a dig at Frank

What if 5 minutes after the officer let the vehicle drive away, the vehicle hit the theoretical bus queue of nuns and mothers with young children

Surely the police have a duty of care to the general public

The purpose of seizing the car if to prevent the driver from continuing to drive uninsured in the immediate future (to fix the old situation where the police officer had no power to take control of the car and often had little option but to tell the driver to get back in his car and drive home). It's not to punish the driver or to prevent him from ever driving again.

If the driver gets his smartphone out at the roadside and buys insurance there and then, there is no risk of him continuing to drive uninsured - so no need to seize the car.

(Also the risk to the nuns and kittens is the same whether he has insurance or not - being insured doesn't suddenly turn a dangerous driver into a safe one, or vice versa).

Frank_DeFord

COURT DECISION:

Went before the Magistrates today, and I was super apologetic. I changed my plea before the case began (cue fist pump by the young prosecutor).

The Magistrates acknowledged my regret and remorse, and reduced my fine by 30%.

I left with 6 points, and £984 to pay over 3 months in fines, fees and costs. And a criminal record (allegedly non-disclosable.)

Moral of the story? If you're caught without insurance, take it on the chin and pay the ticket of £200 and 6 points. I've learned nothing else but that in this palaver.

Car_54

Frank_DeFord said:

COURT DECISION:

Went before the Magistrates today, and I was super apologetic. I changed my plea before the case began (cue fist pump by the young prosecutor).

The Magistrates acknowledged my regret and remorse, and reduced my fine by 30%.

I left with 6 points, and £984 to pay over 3 months in fines, fees and costs. And a criminal record (allegedly non-disclosable.)

Moral of the story? If you're caught without insurance, take it on the chin and pay the ticket of £200 and 6 points. I've learned nothing else but that in this palaver.

You don’t have a criminal record of any sort. It is not a recordable offence.