Appeal for insurance fine/points for honest mistake

Simmo128

My wife was stopped by police today for no insurance so is looking at fine & points. Looking it it it appears as though we have accidentally insured one of the family cars twice by mistake. Is there any wiggle room for appealing on this basis? The dual insured cars premium is more expensive of the two. 

TadleyBaggie

You can't appeal a fixed penalty. You would have to decline the offer and request that matter goes to court. Then you would have to plead not guilty and provide a viable defence. If the vehicle is in fact uninsured, then persuading the court not to reach a guilty verdict might be difficult. 

Best you take this to ftla.uk for more expert advice.

facade

As advised, take it to ftla.

There is a statutory defence to no insurance for an employee using a vehicle in the course of their employment that their employer had told them they were insured to drive, but not in this case.

She would need to present a Special Reasons Argument*- she honestly believed there was an insurance policy in place because you arranged it and told her that there was, as evidenced by payments that she had seen from a joint account or something.

You would need to support this in Court.

*Special Reasons Argument- you are still guilty, but don't deserve to be punished because of extenuating circumstances that the Court should consider.

TooManyPoints

I think a "Special Reasons" argument is unlikely to succeed. However, the cost of making it and failing will be the difference between the fixed penalty (£300) and a sentence under the normal guidelines (a fine of a week's net income though possibly less, a surcharge of 40% of the fine and costs of about £90).So you must consider whether it's worth a gamble.

You should note that if her argument succeeds, your wife will still have a conviction recorded against her and she may still be fined (if the court thinks fit). But she will have no endorsement or penalty points.

An acquittal is as unlikely as it comes. No Insurance is a "strict liability" offence - you either have it or you don't.

Tony5896

Wouldn’t it come down to if the insurance would have covered you in the event of a claim?

TooManyPoints

Wouldn’t it come down to if the insurance would have covered you in the event of a claim?

It comes down to whether there was "...in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of [the Road Traffic Act].".

And it seems there was not.

Mildly_Miffed

Tony5896 said:

Wouldn’t it come down to if the insurance would have covered you in the event of a claim?

This is your only get-out.

If you had discovered the fact that your car was uninsured after an at-fault accident, would the double-coverage insurer have smiled and paid anyway?

If you can get that in writing, you have a legal defence to the charge.

Otherwise, you are guilty of driving an uninsured car.

"My personal admin is terrible" is not a valid defence in law.

DullGreyGuy

TooManyPoints said:

Wouldn’t it come down to if the insurance would have covered you in the event of a claim?

It comes down to whether there was "...in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of [the Road Traffic Act].".

And it seems there was not.

Which is basically saying the same thing... technically Tony5896 is going further because they state a claim whereas the RTA only requires third party liability on a public highway 

There are cases where an insurer makes a mistake, eg the telephone operator miskeys the vehicle registration, and in those cases they will provide a letter of indemnity confirming that they would have covered liability and its a get out of jail free card. 

I have seen a couple of cases where it was a policyholder error, eg forgetting to tell them the registration plate has been changed, where insurers have also issued letters. Ultimately the OP has nothing to lose by speaking to the second insurer but I wouldn't be holding my breath that they'd accept that they were really insuring the other vehicle

Car_54

DullGreyGuy said:

Which is basically saying the same thing... technically Tony5896 is going further because they state a claim whereas the RTA only requires third party liability on a public highway 

Not so.. It is actually required "on a road or other public place". Section 143 (1).

DullGreyGuy

Car_54 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Which is basically saying the same thing... technically Tony5896 is going further because they state a claim whereas the RTA only requires third party liability on a public highway 

Not so.. It is actually required "on a road or other public place". Section 143 (1).

Hence why I didnt use the word "road"

RTA Only isn't a common version  of insurance, no one sells it to consumers but some commercial and corporates do buy it. It doesn't cover claims for incidents that happens on private land which the public dont have access to whereas the TP Only does. 

TooManyPoints

But the important distinction which Car_54 was making is that the RTA requires cover on roads and other public places. Sainsbury's car park is not a road nor is it a "public highway". But it is a "public place" for RTA s143 purposes.