Car insurance after conviction

frankgraham2001

Hello, i was caught driving without insurance (complete accident) and have been given 6 points on my license and a £300 fine. As i have been driving for less than 2 years this would result in a revocation of my license. am now faced with the decision of if i want to go to court and argue special reasons and avoid the punishments completely. Or, If this fails. my solicitor thinks i have a very good chance of avoiding the points and as a result the revocation of my license and instead serve a short ban (7-14 days) with a larger fine.

The soliciting fees are £1500 and the ban could be £600. My question is, is it worth going to court and arguing to for short term ban instead of points in terms of insurance?

if i am indeed convicted and don't avoid punishments will my insurance be cheaper with no points and only a short ban or should i just save money on court fees and have my license revoked.

mr_stripey

how was it a complete accident to have no insurance? It is your responsibility to ensure you are insured to drive a vehicle.

What special reasons are you proposing to argue? 

born_again

The cost of fines etc are not the biggest issue here.

Ins will go through the roof going forward, as having no ins is something they do not like.

Exodi

mr_stripey said:

how was it a complete accident to have no insurance? It is your responsibility to ensure you are insured to drive a vehicle.

What special reasons are you proposing to argue? 

Presumably something like the OP getting a new bank card, the insurance not auto-renewing because of it and the OP not seeing any communications . I think the point is the OP is trying to draw a contrast between a nefarious person making a conscious and deliberate decision to drive uninsured. Of course the former is still no excuse, let's not argue semantics.

The special reasons that are typically argued are things like not having a vehicle significantly affecting a persons earning ability (e.g. if driving is required for their job).

I would highlight that it is obviously in the solicitors interests to plead a different sentence. As mr_stripey said, what are the grounds?

DullGreyGuy

Interested to know what the circumstances are that a solicitor thinks they can get an exception for?

The conviction will be declarable for as long as the points would be so there is little difference probably. 

TELLIT01

There was a case on one of the UK police programmes where a guy was stopped for no insurance on a company car.  He believed the car was insured but it was still seized.  The employer declared that it was an error on their part and he did get off.  In all the time I drove a company car it never occurred to me to ask if it was insured!

DullGreyGuy

TELLIT01 said:

There was a case on one of the UK police programmes where a guy was stopped for no insurance on a company car.  He believed the car was insured but it was still seized.  The employer declared that it was an error on their part and he did get off.  In all the time I drove a company car it never occurred to me to ask if it was insured!

And there are cases where an insurer's agent miskeyed the registration number and so the vehicle didnt show on MID and the cert had the wrong address. The insurer admits their mistake, issues a letter of indemnity saying they would have covered any claim as required by the RTA despite the error and its a get out of jail free card/letter.

Haven't heard any cases where you are successfully prosecuted but get leniency on consequences for a reason. 

Car_54

The magistrates have specific guidance NOT to apply a ban in order to circumvent revocation, so that's very unlikely to happen. 

What are the "special reasons" not to endorse?

Your insurance will be hit whether it's six points or a ban.

Mildly_Miffed

If you think you've got good "special reasons" why you genuinely believed you were covered, then by all means go to court and argue them. But they will need to be good.

The main defence is if the vehicle was provided by your employer or was hired, and you had no reason to believe it was uninsured.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks

Apart from that, it's a strict liability offence.

If it was a hiccup around an error on a new policy, and the insurer are happy to confirm you were indeed covered, then that would also be a defence.

frankgraham2001

the real question here is whether or not an insurer will treat me better if i have no points, a short ban and a conviction as opposed to a conviction, 6 points a licence revocation and fine?

i am trying to decide which route to take. the circumstances behind special reasons was an error that occurred while i was booking temporary insurance. at the last stage i clicked ok to finalise the cover and got up and left before the error presented itself. as such i was unaware that i wasn’t insured. i have booked this many times without issue but apparently the insurance company had recalculated my risk profile and had not informed me. as such i did my usual thing and booked only to be denied at the final step and i missed it. i have multiple cover notes from previous cover to demonstrate that i always insure myself and i have the browsing history showing that i was online booking insurance the day this happened.

so - will insurers adjust down for not having been given points meaning that the bench accepted that this was an accident ?

Herzlos

Given you're a new driver, then either option is going to be horrific in terms of insurance. The revocation may be slightly better since you'll have had to pass another driving test to regain your license.

But I'd certainly consider if you can just get away without a car for a couple of years until it eases off.