penaly points changed from 5 to 6 HELP!!!

cece_3

HELLO ALL,
This is my very 1st post and I am in trouble. I took a car for a test drive and was caught doing 33 in a 30 zone, so I got a speeding ticket which I forgot to pay. I was taken to court, did not appear and to my dismay was fined and charged for the speeding (fine) but also for driving without a insurance, I appealed and during the case the judge said on a technicality I was guilty(I could not prove that at the time I was driving the car was not mine, alas I had admitted to paying a deposit thinking this would help my case) and since the insurance had not been transfered to the new car,....no insurance. He gave me 5 points instead of 6 allowing me to drive. Now I have a letter from the court saying the judge made a mistake and cannot impose anything less than 6 which means I lose my license (new driver) help

What's this?

Full Edit
Quick Edit

//
« Next Oldest · Case Files · Next Newest »

LandyAndy

Speeding on a test drive.

Not checking you were insured.

'Forgetting' to pay speeding ticket.

Failing to appear in court.

Sorry I can't be sympathetic. Perhaps you've learned a valuable lesson.

briona

cece wrote: »

HELLO ALL,
This is my very 1st post and I am in trouble. I took a car for a test drive and was caught doing 33 in a 30 zone, so I got a speeding ticket which I forgot to pay. I was taken to court, did not appear and to my dismay was fined and charged for the speeding (fine) but also for driving without a insurance, I appealed and during the case the judge said on a technicality I was guilty(I could not prove that at the time I was driving the car was not mine, alas I had admitted to paying a deposit thinking this would help my case) and since the insurance had not been transfered to the new car,....no insurance. He gave me 5 points instead of 6 allowing me to drive. Now I have a letter from the court saying the judge made a mistake and cannot impose anything less than 6 which means I lose my license (new driver) help

I'm slightly confused... For a start you say this is your first post, which it obviously isn't (judging by the post count and date of first post) but having had a quick nose through your other posts, I have to wonder if you're some kind of troll?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=542443
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=540220
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=506656
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=505699
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=445576
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=642513

Surely all these posts CAN'T be for real?!? For a start, on the 30th August your post states that you've bought a property, which you've allegedly moved into with your 4 week old baby... But a post made on 2nd September states that you're in house share... Hmmmm... I only hope no one wastes too much time feeding this troll!

Crabman

briona wrote: »

I'm slightly confused... For a start you say this is your first post, which it obviously isn't (judging by the post count and date of first post)...

It looks like the OP has copied their post from Pepipoo where they posted for the first time: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=26496

cece - afraid I don't know what to do say in these circumstances, though hopefully someone will be able to advise you, either on here or Pepipoo

exel1966

LandyAndy wrote: »

Speeding on a test drive.

Not checking you were insured.

'Forgetting' to pay speeding ticket.

Failing to appear in court.

Sorry I can't be sympathetic. Perhaps you've learned a valuable lesson.

And a new driver !! Trolls don't deserve to be on the road !

cece_3

thank you Crabman!!
thats exactly what happened I joined pepipoo for the first time today and simply copied my post. I did have insurance but the police argued that becos I bought the car on that day (date on my vehicle license cert), they could not be sure it wasn't mine at the time of the accident at which time my insurance was showing my vehicle at the time (do u follow Briona- if only u had put all that effort into actually reading my post). I was actually advised not to go to court, that my fine would just be added on, and I did go to pay my fine a day late, the fine was accepted but then later returned followed shortly by the court summons.
Oh and lastly, I do post problems of my loved ones-family sand friends on here as do a lot of other people, and simply say me, bcos i find it easier and shorter, so there......its a new year lets try to be nicer, not hating on eachother honestly Briona any one would think u get paid for a first post

cece_3

oh and I did not fail to appear, I thought it was straight forward and opted to be tried in absentia

mrbadexample

It's not clear exactly why you had no insurance for the test drive. If you had a policy on your own vehicle that allows you to drive other cars on a third-party basis, you will normally find that it does not extend to any car owned by, or leased or hired to you. If you had paid a deposit prior to the test drive, this may constitute ownership - I'm not sure. To the best of my knowledge, it is for you to prove that you were insured at the time, not for the police to prove you weren't.

No insurance carries a mandatory endorsement of 6-8 points. The magistrate cannot award 5. I guess that's why they've written to you to advise you of the error. I don't know if you might be able to appeal on the grounds that it was not dealt with correctly on the first occasion - I suspect not.

cece_3

yes they said a deposit is part payment so I owned the veicle at that time and so did not have insurance covering me to drive the new car. He said i lost the case on a technicality but gave me 5 points as it was not intentional

raskazz

mrbadexample wrote: »

It's not clear exactly why you had no insurance for the test drive. If you had a policy on your own vehicle that allows you to drive other cars on a third-party basis, you will normally find that it does not extend to any car owned by, or leased or hired to you. If you had paid a deposit prior to the test drive, this may constitute ownership - I'm not sure. To the best of my knowledge, it is for you to prove that you were insured at the time, not for the police to prove you weren't.

This is just what I was thinking.

It may be that the OP's policy does not provide driving other cars cover at all. The OP states that he is a new driver - if he is under 25 then DOC would not be given, and if so then it is clear that no insurance for that vehicle was inforce, regardless of the ownership issue.

blue_monkey_2

How did you pay the deposit? If it was by card do you have the receit as this would have the time on it and then there is the time you were caught. If you paid after you were caught then the car was not yours.

Who pays a depsoit on a car they have not yet test driven?