penaly points changed from 5 to 6 HELP!!!

Markyt

Why would you put a deposit down a car before test driving it?

Was it a dealer? I thought it was their responsibility to ensure you were covered, either by your own insurance or the dealers?

LandyAndy

cece wrote: »

no there was no accident. I meant to type incidence, is there anyone out there who can actually anser my query rather than on some sort of witch hunt. I haven't got there liberty of time to argue fine points. I do have a motor insurance which says I can drive other cars, I am above 25, who pays a deposit to a pal before going for a spin, me thats who...Any other arsinine questions, sitting on ur high horses acting like y'all have never made a mistake, if I need preaching to I'll find a church, hope you had your "make myself feel all high and mighty" fix of the day."£$%Theads

assinine;) .

nej

Markyt wrote: »

Why would you put a deposit down a car before test driving it?

Was it a dealer? I thought it was their responsibility to ensure you were covered, either by your own insurance or the dealers?

He didn't. As far as I can tell, the car was owned by his mate. He test-drove it (as his insurance states he can drive other cars, he thought he was covered, and he was). He then got a speeding ticket on the test drive. After receiving the ticket (whether he was stopped and got it there and then I'm not sure) he put down a deposit on the vehicle. This act of putting a deposit down implies ownership, and therefore his insurance doesn't cover him, as the cover is usually "other cars not owned or leased by the policyholder". Because the timescales were so close, he cannot prove that he was driving under his existing insurance before the deposit transaction took place.

Therefore, as well as speeding he got done for no insurance.

Very very bad luck, but made a million times worse by not paying the fine or going to court.

blue_monkey_2

This is what I was getting at, I assumed that he was buying it from a dealer and this is why he had the test drive, dealers usually have their own insurance that covers you so this is why I asked about the payment.

Did your mate not have insurance on it? If so then why not just tell them that it was your mates car and you took it for a test drive, then you would have been covered. This is why I asked, try and ask a question which might offer to help and you get shot down in flames. You have to wonder!!

I guess you are going to have accept your fate and lose your licence then - unless you get a solicitor to challenge the letter and find out why the judge only gave you 5 when it should have been 6. The thing is, if you tell them you have lied them you'll get done for perjury as well. Depends what it is you want really.

raskazz

nej wrote: »

Very very bad luck, but made a million times worse by not paying the fine or going to court.

Exactly. I'm sure that if the OP had got his act together his insurer would probably have given him a letter of indemnity to take to court, thus avoiding the conviction for uninsured driving. As it is, taking action now is too little, too late.

seftonsun

Smirch_This wrote: »

I got nicked for doing 40mph in a 40 limit. Turned out the Land Rover had big wheels on it and was going faster than the speedo said. B*gger!

Do you not mean that you got “done” for doing more than 40 mph in a 40 mph zone? All because your wheels were too large for the calibration of the speedo, and although it was only reading 40 mph, your actual speed was somewhat in excess of the prescribed limit.

seftonsun

nej wrote: »

He didn't. As far as I can tell, the car was owned by his mate. He test-drove it (as his insurance states he can drive other cars, he thought he was covered, and he was). He then got a speeding ticket on the test drive. After receiving the ticket (whether he was stopped and got it there and then I'm not sure) he put down a deposit on the vehicle. This act of putting a deposit down implies ownership, and therefore his insurance doesn't cover him, as the cover is usually "other cars not owned or leased by the policyholder". Because the timescales were so close, he cannot prove that he was driving under his existing insurance before the deposit transaction took place.

Therefore, as well as speeding he got done for no insurance.

Very very bad luck, but made a million times worse by not paying the fine or going to court.

I'm still not clear here and cannot understand what the problem is.

1. If it was a test drive from a dealer, then the dealer would have the car insured?
2. If it was a test drive from a mate, then the OP has stated that their existing current insurance covered driving other vehicles (cars) other than those owned or leased by them (or similar)?
3. If the OP had purchased the car then I assume that they should have transferred their own insurance to this “new” car?

The OP says that the problem was demonstrating the actual time the ownership of the vehicle passed to them (from their mate?). The case hinged entirely on the police saying that the OP could not prove whether they were driving pre or post deposit. Well, if you are buying from a mate surely all you do is ask the mate to attend Court with you as a witness and confirm (assuming the OP is being truthful) that when you were driving the car and was caught for speeding you had not actually purchased the vehicle (whether by paying a deposit or otherwise)? Then, as the OP has confirmed, their own insurance would have covered them for driving a “third party” vehicle.

To my mind and based upon the information given (and it may not be wholly accurate of course) I cannot see how the OP has been prosecuted. All that was needed was the mate to attend the Court as a witness to corroborate waht the OP says was the actual circumstances. Or perhaps something is not 100% right with what has been posted by the OP?

And what's more, if what the OP is saying is accurate who the hell advised the OP to not attend Court in the first instant? Surely that was admitting the offence? All that has happened subsequently is as a result of not challenging the original summonse was in arrived, be it through the Court or getting the mate to go to the Police Station to confirm the ownership story. Unless the police considered that there was some porkies being told, they would have dropped the case there and then.

mrbadexample

LandyAndy wrote: »

assinine;) .

:doh: asinine




Sorry pal, couldn't resist.

mrbadexample

cece, I think you need to go and see a solicitor. You need to find out if:

1) You can appeal the original conviction on the grounds that you did not own the car at the time, and were therefore insured.
2) You can appeal against the endorsement of 6 points, as it was not correctly dealt with in the first instance.

I'm not sure if you'll get a definitive answer on here.

LandyAndy

mrbadexample wrote: »

:doh: asinine




Sorry pal, couldn't resist.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: