Cancelled Insurance

Mildly_Miffed

faye1979 said:

He has claimed that he has been advised by a magistrate who is his friend that he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up.

He's wrong.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks/enacted

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Note the "AND". All three of those have to be true for it to be a defence. Basically, if he was driving a work vehicle, and had no reason to suspect it was not insured by the employer.

A - I presume this is his van, and it was just being insured in your name for... reasons? (We'll ignore "fronting")
C - he knew or had reason to believe.

But, no, there is no way in which this can land on you. Panic not. In the event he calls you to give evidence, you just answer truthfully that you did inform him, and here's the messages you and family member sent, along with his reply.

MeteredOut

faye1979 said:

He has claimed that he has been advised by a magistrate who is his friend that he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up.

I always find it funny how often people suddenly have friends who are magistrates or solicitors who are willing to advise them. Did he ever mention this friend before?

If not, I'd suspect the truth is that he's posted to a forum with limited information and someone has suggested "he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up."

He'd be best advised not to lie to a judge and that you have evidence that shows he was aware of the cancellation of the policy.

CliveOfIndia

MeteredOut said:

faye1979 said:

He has claimed that he has been advised by a magistrate who is his friend that he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up.

I always find it funny how often people suddenly have friends who are magistrates or solicitors who are willing to advise them. Did he ever mention this friend before?

Agreed.  The bottom line is, if you drive a car, it's your responsibility to make sure you're insured.  Doesn't matter who's paid for the insurance, who's arranged the insurance, whatever.  It's your responsibility to make sure the legal minimum cover is in place.

This kind of thing crops up pretty often on discussions where people are buying/test driving a car privately - and it leads to no end of discussions about "my insurance covers driving other cars", then "but the car needs to have it's own policy in place", and blah-de-blah.  Ultimately the onus is on the driver of any vehicle to make sure they're insured - it's pretty black-and-white in law.

Hoenir

faye1979 said:

He has claimed that he has been advised by a magistrate who is his friend that he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up.

The answer he received would depend on what he told the magistrate. As is often the case. People only say so much. Leaving out salient facts. Whatever the outcome. It's not your concern.  Lying in court isn't advisable. Only digs a bigger hole. 

faye1979

LightFlare said:

Just to clarify OP - can you confirm you actually did cancel it as you haven’t specifically stated that you did, merely that you’d told him you had

Whole policy was cancelled and he was informed it was cancelled 

TooManyPoints

Who is the Registered Keeper of this vehicle and who was the person keeping it at the time it was driven uninsured?

facade

Mildly_Miffed said:

faye1979 said:

He has claimed that he has been advised by a magistrate who is his friend that he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up.

He's wrong.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks/enacted

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Note the "AND". All three of those have to be true for it to be a defence. Basically, if he was driving a work vehicle, and had no reason to suspect it was not insured by the employer.

A - I presume this is his van, and it was just being insured in your name for... reasons? (We'll ignore "fronting")
C - he knew or had reason to believe.

But, no, there is no way in which this can land on you. Panic not. In the event he calls you to give evidence, you just answer truthfully that you did inform him, and here's the messages you and family member sent, along with his reply.

It sounds like he has been advised to make a Special Reasons not to disqualify plea- as he is facing a totting ban.

(This is where you are guilty as Sin but don't deserve to be punished in the interests of fairness- especially for the types of binary offences where either you did, or you didn't, like no insurance & speeding)

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/2-special-reasons/

to constitute a special reason, a matter must:

• be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance;
• not amount in law to a defence to the charge;
• be directly connected with the commission of the offence;
• be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing sentence.

Aretnap

facade said:

Mildly_Miffed said:

faye1979 said:

He has claimed that he has been advised by a magistrate who is his friend that he can claim special circumstances to driving with no insurance and say he was not aware the insurance was cancelled after the break up.

He's wrong.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks/enacted

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves
(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Note the "AND". All three of those have to be true for it to be a defence. Basically, if he was driving a work vehicle, and had no reason to suspect it was not insured by the employer.

A - I presume this is his van, and it was just being insured in your name for... reasons? (We'll ignore "fronting")
C - he knew or had reason to believe.

But, no, there is no way in which this can land on you. Panic not. In the event he calls you to give evidence, you just answer truthfully that you did inform him, and here's the messages you and family member sent, along with his reply.

It sounds like he has been advised to make a Special Reasons not to disqualify plea- as he is facing a totting ban.

(This is where you are guilty as Sin but don't deserve to be punished in the interests of fairness- especially for the types of binary offences where either you did, or you didn't, like no insurance & speeding)

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/road-traffic-offences-disqualification/2-special-reasons/

to constitute a special reason, a matter must:

• be a mitigating or extenuating circumstance;
• not amount in law to a defence to the charge;
• be directly connected with the commission of the offence;
• be one which the court ought properly to take into consideration when imposing sentence.

That's the closest thing to the correct answer yet in this thread, though it's still not quite right. It's got nothing to do with a totting ban. It would be an argument for special reasons not to endorse his licence, not special reasons not to disqualify, what with it being an offence that involves obligatory endorsement, not obligatory disqualification.

Driving a relative's car and being wrongly told, or led to believe, by the relative that you were covered is one of the fairly classic things that might constitute special reasons not to endorse. No need for it to be a works vehicle. In fact believing that you were covered to drive a works vehicle cannot constitute special reasons not to endorse, because it's a defence to the charge instead.

On the OP's account the ex would not be able to make a special reasons arguament without committing perjury... but that won't necessarily stop him trying.

TooManyPoints

It sounds like he has been advised to make a Special Reasons not to disqualify plea- as he is facing a totting ban.

That's not quite correct (though the difference may seem academic or even pedantic).

He would be making a "Special reasons no to endorse" (SRNE) argument. If this was successful, the court could neither impose points nor disqualify him. He would still have a conviction recorded against him. but the argument would be not to endorse his record rather than not to disqualify him. The reasons must be associated with the offence itself and not concerned with his personal circumstances.

If that argument is unsuccessful and he gets six points (and so faces a "toting up" ban) he can then make an "Exceptional Hardship" argument. As that suggests, that must centre on his personal circumstances and is not concerned with the details of the offences which led to the points being imposed.

From what we've been told, I believe a SRNE argument is extremely unlikely to succeed. I'd still like to know the answers to my earlier two questions as it may have some influence of the OP's position. 

Goudy

You're argument, if it comes to it (which it won't) is what sort of moron expects you to pay for their motor insurance after you've broken up? 

Even if you were still together, it's the drivers responsibility to make sure they are insured to drive (he should have checked with you), so it makes no difference if you are split up or not.

If they try to argue the point in court, it was never your responsibility to insure him to drive, ever.

The court knows that and it won't matter if you told him or not you cancelled it.
It's not a reasonable assumption for the court that you should have insured him in the first place let alone carried on after you split.
If it was, how long would you be expected to do that?

Their argument is a non starter and if they try it, the court will think he is arrogant to expect you would continue to insure him and then try to blame it on you when he didn't check.
His defence will likely back fire on him as he'll be wasting the courts time trying to deflect this on someone else.

I wouldn't worry about it, even if the highly unlikely chance you get called to give evidence, you can happily tell the court yes you cancelled the policy.
You aren't the one in court for driving whilst uninsured and you were never liable to make sure he was!

Ok, you had an arrangement when you were both together, but that was never open ended.