Driving no insurance

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

We're talking of where they have paid (and possibly had it refunded without their kwowledge until too late) or intended to pay (where they had autorenewal which didnt happen).
I cant see anything there which might be construed as libellous

Are we? The OPs post is below, which states that he let it lapse.

richardsheen said:

Sadly my insurance lapsed for a week and was unaware, a car hit me, he admitted liability. But have to go to magistrates court on monday for driving with no insurance, any idea of fine and points will get. got a solicitor to represent me.

Tom H said:

I work in the industry and the other day placed client on risk. The next day the MIB call up and ask if client has notified us of his pending IN10 conviction? I ask why and reason being that he was collecting vehilce from impound. Therefore they making it part of there duty to ensure the 'correct' premium paid for the risk. Thus making sure that they are insured correctly. Surely a good thing!!

Sorry, not even vaguely convinced by that.

saaby93 said:

As often said, where someone appears to have defaulted isn't it better to reduce their cover to RTA not only for the sake of the rest of us but also in case a mistake has been made?

If someone has defaulted, but still has the certificate in their possession then the insurer will provide cover under their RTA obligations. The driver who hs defaulted will still be uninsured and the Police will / can prosecute if they so wish.

saaby93 said:

Did they give the reason for the 'pending conviction'
Deliberately gone out and driven without insurance?
or
Thought he had insurance but turned out he didn't?

Just interested either way as cant find any stats

Oh, he’s bound to be part of the downtrodden masses, who are raped and pillaged every day by insurers who are literally cleaning out people’s banks accounts for billions every day, whilst simultaneously failing to renew any policies.

Just grow up and accept that the vast majority of uninsured drivers are doing so quite deliberately and playing the odds.

skwdenyer said:

As ever, the solution to this problem is simple: tack on a little extra to fuel duty and provide RTA cover to all motorists. The current system serves only to keep thousands of people employed in the insurance industry whose roles are quite obviously redundant, and to generate millions - if not billions - of pounds of superfluous advertising, mail-outs, sponsorship, and so on.

Oh good, loads more tax for me to pay, as if I don’t pay enough already. Maybe we could put a tax on petrol so that we can buy everyone a new car too?

All these “redundant insurance people” would probably all get employed by the Government, as your system will need a lot of people to service it. What about theft, or own damage cover, you don’t mention that? Of course with a nice monopoly, the government can charge what they like and just keep putting prices up without you having any option to go elsewhere for cover, or reduce it by getting a lower value car.

Maybe we could follow the Queensland, Australia approach where they do just what you suggest. Thing is you need to pay for fully comp and TP property damage on top too. Oh and just for info, it’s fully run and serviced by a “redundant insurance company” – Allianz.

[skwdenyer]

Noger said:

As I have said before, the unintended consequence of this is it prices younger drivers into faster cars.

With respect, the youth of today are already in far, far faster cars than I had when I was young. I started driving in 1987. At the time, a car I could afford (and afford to insure) was a Mini or a Mk1 Golf 1.3 or a 950 Ford Fiesta.

Let's take the last one, just as an example. 950cc. 0-60 in 17.80s. Top speed 85mph. 60bhp/ton. Minimal contact area, minimal grip.

In the modern world, what is an equivalent? Lets say a 5-year-old Ford Ka. The base model is a 1.3 offering 69bhp. This gives 0-60 in 14.1s and a top speed of 104mph. 80bhp/ton. Lots of contact area, lots of grip, high cornering speeds.

So, the progress of modern cars has provided us with far, far faster (around 20% in a straight line in 20 years) cars already. Those cars are, of course, much safer for the driver and passengers if they crash.

Deva Link said:

I have no doubt there would be utter carnage with young (and even not so young) lads driving extremely powerful cars with complete impunity.

And the irony is that, being in bigger cars, such drivers would be more likely to survive the accidents that they cause.

First, many here and elsewhere argue that speed does not kill. Second, cars have got progressively faster over the years, yet the "carnage" doesn't happen. Third, I fail to see why a simple regulation of vehicle type and/or power-to-weight related to driver age cannot be enacted. Right now, only rich youngsters drive fast cars - hardly a fair and reasonable basis upon which to regulate a society, is it? Are richer drivers safer than poorer ones?

All-in-all, I fail to see a compelling case for why my proposed solution is, in aggregate, worse.

R1 Loon said:

Oh good, loads more tax for me to pay, as if I don’t pay enough already. Maybe we could put a tax on petrol so that we can buy everyone a new car too?

You're already paying for the insurance of the uninsured through the levy on insurance. It would be more efficient, and therefore less taxing, to aggregate this over the whole driving population.

R1 Loon said:

All these “redundant insurance people” would probably all get employed by the Government, as your system will need a lot of people to service it.

Claims handling is quite efficient compared to sales, marketing, and so on.

R1 Loon said:

What about theft, or own damage cover, you don’t mention that? Of course with a nice monopoly, the government can charge what they like and just keep putting prices up without you having any option to go elsewhere for cover, or reduce it by getting a lower value car.

No, I think competition should exist for optional insurance. That's quite reasonable. But if everybody needs basic insurance it seems stupid for everybody to pay for the insurance companies to pay to market that compulsory insurance.

R1 Loon said:

Maybe we could follow the Queensland, Australia approach where they do just what you suggest. Thing is you need to pay for fully comp and TP property damage on top too. Oh and just for info, it’s fully run and serviced by a “redundant insurance company” – Allianz.

I referred to many in the insurance industry as being redundant, not the industry itself.

[R1 Loon]

skwdenyer said:

You're already paying for the insurance of the uninsured through the levy on insurance. It would be more efficient, and therefore less taxing, to aggregate this over the whole driving population.

£33pa estimated, isn't killing me, nor is my free car insurance and my wife's low(ish) car insurance and the separate policies for the bikes & horsebox, I'd still prefer to pay this out of my own pocket than be forced to pay much more via another tax on petrol.

skwdenyer said:

Claims handling is quite efficient compared to sales, marketing, and so on.

That's nice to hear

skwdenyer said:

No, I think competition should exist for optional insurance. That's quite reasonable. But if everybody needs basic insurance it seems stupid for everybody to pay for the insurance companies to pay to market that compulsory insurance.

So the billions that are wasted would still be wasted then, as the adverts would still exist and be just as long and cost just as much.

skwdenyer said:

I referred to many in the insurance industry as being redundant, not the industry itself.

Fair enough.

To be honest, I wouldn't be upset if this happened in some ways, but the cost would soon force the government to de-regulate and offer it back to the market. Multiple governments have tried to defuse the pension timebomb with a variety of theoretically thought through solutions, but none of these have worked and they've all reverted back to the open market with a bit of regulation built in around it.

Big government is inefficient in the extreme, superb at frittering money and poor at generating a true market price for anything. As such they tend to set out with grand ideas and then fail miserably.

[Tom H]

R1 Loon said:

Tom H said:

I work in the industry and the other day placed client on risk. The next day the MIB call up and ask if client has notified us of his pending IN10 conviction? I ask why and reason being that he was collecting vehilce from impound. Therefore they making it part of there duty to ensure the 'correct' premium paid for the risk. Thus making sure that they are insured correctly. Surely a good thing!!

Sorry, not even vaguely convinced by that.

Don't need to be convinced but better believe it.

[R1 Loon]

Tom H said:

Don't need to be convinced but better believe it.

Nope, don't believe it either.

The MIB is there to deal with accidents following uninsured or untraced drivers.

It's unlikely they are so clued up as to know about a police impounded vehicle,

or quick enough for MID to be updated with the MIB specifically looking for his insurance on the updated database.

Or that they had a vehicle impounded, as this would be a police matter.

Or that a vehicle would be returned to the driver following an accident if it was being dealt with by the MIB.

Or that they would pass comment on an individual's pending prosecution, that they have no involvement with.

Or that a claim would reach them quickly enough for them to be dealing before the car was released.

[Biker's Nemesis]

R1 Loon said:

Tom H said:

Don't need to be convinced but better believe it.

Nope, don't believe it either.

The MIB is there to deal with accidents following uninsured or untraced drivers.

It's unlikely they are so clued up as to know about a police impounded vehicle,

or quick enough for MID to be updated with the MIB specifically looking for his insurance on the updated database.

Or that they had a vehicle impounded, as this would be a police matter.

Or that a vehicle would be returned to the driver following an accident if it was being dealt with by the MIB.

Or that they would pass comment on an individual's pending prosecution, that they have no involvement with.

Or that a claim would reach them quickly enough for them to be dealing before the car was released.

Tin foil hat time.

[Deva Link]

TVR1 said:

Welcome back Deva Questioning the validity of a statement from someone who works in a particular industry again, are you? What a surprise.

Oh look - other people, including someone who really works in the industry, agree with me.

However please continue to post crap about things that you know nothing about.

[ZOLLAR]

Deva Link said:

TVR1 said:

Welcome back Deva Questioning the validity of a statement from someone who works in a particular industry again, are you? What a surprise.

Oh look - other people, including someone who really works in the industry, agree with me.

However please continue to post crap about things that you know nothing about.

Chikl guys its just taljin bo need to be petsonalc!!

[R1 Loon]

ZOLLAR said:

Chikl guys its just taljin bo need to be petsonalc!!

Is that Welsh?;)

[Noger]

skwdenyer said:

Noger said:

As I have said before, the unintended consequence of this is it prices younger drivers into faster cars.

With respect, the youth of today are already in far, far faster cars than I had when I was young. I started driving in 1987. At the time, a car I could afford (and afford to insure) was a Mini or a Mk1 Golf 1.3 or a 950 Ford Fiesta.

Let's take the last one, just as an example. 950cc. 0-60 in 17.80s. Top speed 85mph. 60bhp/ton. Minimal contact area, minimal grip.

In the modern world, what is an equivalent? Lets say a 5-year-old Ford Ka. The base model is a 1.3 offering 69bhp. This gives 0-60 in 14.1s and a top speed of 104mph. 80bhp/ton. Lots of contact area, lots of grip, high cornering speeds.

So, the progress of modern cars has provided us with far, far faster (around 20% in a straight line in 20 years) cars already. Those cars are, of course, much safer for the driver and passengers if they crash.

Deva Link said:

I have no doubt there would be utter carnage with young (and even not so young) lads driving extremely powerful cars with complete impunity.

And the irony is that, being in bigger cars, such drivers would be more likely to survive the accidents that they cause.

First, many here and elsewhere argue that speed does not kill. Second, cars have got progressively faster over the years, yet the "carnage" doesn't happen. Third, I fail to see why a simple regulation of vehicle type and/or power-to-weight related to driver age cannot be enacted. Right now, only rich youngsters drive fast cars - hardly a fair and reasonable basis upon which to regulate a society, is it? Are richer drivers safer than poorer ones?

All-in-all, I fail to see a compelling case for why my proposed solution is, in aggregate, worse.

All interesting, but mostly irrelevant. The "carnage" does happen the states in Canada that have cheap state provided insurance.

One of the factors in the good road safety in the UK is due to young male drivers being priced either off the road or into slower cars. It also means higher uninsured driving, so it is a balance. Measures like per mile pricing do help.

Restricting young drivers to less powerful cars (as with novices on bikes) seems a good idea.

[ZOLLAR]

R1 Loon said:

ZOLLAR said:

Chikl guys its just taljin bo need to be petsonalc!!

Is that Welsh?;)

Its welsh for "drank too much"

[skwdenyer]

Noger said:

skwdenyer said:

Noger said:

As I have said before, the unintended consequence of this is it prices younger drivers into faster cars.

With respect, the youth of today are already in far, far faster cars than I had when I was young. I started driving in 1987. At the time, a car I could afford (and afford to insure) was a Mini or a Mk1 Golf 1.3 or a 950 Ford Fiesta.

Let's take the last one, just as an example. 950cc. 0-60 in 17.80s. Top speed 85mph. 60bhp/ton. Minimal contact area, minimal grip.

In the modern world, what is an equivalent? Lets say a 5-year-old Ford Ka. The base model is a 1.3 offering 69bhp. This gives 0-60 in 14.1s and a top speed of 104mph. 80bhp/ton. Lots of contact area, lots of grip, high cornering speeds.

So, the progress of modern cars has provided us with far, far faster (around 20% in a straight line in 20 years) cars already. Those cars are, of course, much safer for the driver and passengers if they crash.

Deva Link said:

I have no doubt there would be utter carnage with young (and even not so young) lads driving extremely powerful cars with complete impunity.

And the irony is that, being in bigger cars, such drivers would be more likely to survive the accidents that they cause.

First, many here and elsewhere argue that speed does not kill. Second, cars have got progressively faster over the years, yet the "carnage" doesn't happen. Third, I fail to see why a simple regulation of vehicle type and/or power-to-weight related to driver age cannot be enacted. Right now, only rich youngsters drive fast cars - hardly a fair and reasonable basis upon which to regulate a society, is it? Are richer drivers safer than poorer ones?

All-in-all, I fail to see a compelling case for why my proposed solution is, in aggregate, worse.

All interesting, but mostly irrelevant. The "carnage" does happen the states in Canada that have cheap state provided insurance.

One of the factors in the good road safety in the UK is due to young male drivers being priced either off the road or into slower cars. It also means higher uninsured driving, so it is a balance. Measures like per mile pricing do help.

Restricting young drivers to less powerful cars (as with novices on bikes) seems a good idea.

I have no problem with restricting young drivers to less powerful cars. None of the alternatives are good:

• as now, only allow well-off youngsters to drive powerful cars (pretty stupid);
• allow all youngsters to drive powerful cars (at least equitable, unlike the status quo);
• allow nobody to drive powerful cars (not desirable, to me at least).

This simply leaves:

• restrict youngsters of all means (which seems pretty sensible).

IMHO, 1 uninsured driver is too many in a civilised society which has the means to avoid the problem in the first place. To have every single driver have to perform an identical activity once a year is just nonsense; logically that is precisely the sort of thing IMHO best performed by a tax-funded system.

Since I would argue that anybody in a 1.3 Ka or a "proper" Mini can be the fastest thing out there on a winding public road, I don't believe this would reduce anybody's fun, and would hardly limit young drivers' development...

If we must maintain a variant of the status quo, for heaven's sake make it means tested, so that low income groups aren't under-represented in the insured population. Insurance (third party, at least) exists for the benefit of society more than it does for the benefit of the insured. In consequence, it falls IMHO to society to ensure that it operates for the good of society. I fail to see how the current UK approach meets that standard.

[R1 Loon]

You seem to be viewing driving as a right, rather than a privilege though. If someone can not afford to own, run & maintain a car legally, then they should not have the rest of society fund it for them.

After all there will always be another loophole for them to exploit, eg, I know I'll be covered, so I'll just steal the petrol, or the car, or not bother with a driving licence in the first place.

Society is safe from uninsured drivers, due in no small part to the MIB. However, we should continue to catch, punish** and make life harder for the criminal, not simply give up and change the rules, so that their actions are no longer crimminal.

I do not believe that all drivers should be treated equally, just as I don't believe in communism, or any of the other left-wing politics. There will always be those who can afford better cars than others, irrespective of age, just as there will always be those who can afford better houses, better holidays etc. I applaud these people as most of them are the risk takers who employ the non-risk takers.

• IMO punshment should be far worse than it currently is. The fines may seem small, but at least we now confiscate cars on the spot, which makes it bloody expensive to keep driving uninsured.

[saaby93]

Noger said:

You can't reinstate the cover either (hence the letter). That is still backdating. You can "gap reinstate" which restarts the cover from the date you requested, not back to inception.

Show me where the law says that Noger
If it does say that mistakes can't be undone - someone needs to raise it.
I cant see why someone should pick up 6 points due to an insurer's typo ( or similar)

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

Show me where the law says that Noger
If it does say that mistakes can't be undone - someone needs to raise it.
I cant see why someone should pick up 6 points due to an insurer's typo ( or similar)

Here's some reading:

Road Traffic Act (RTA 1988) as amended by Road Traffic Act 1991 (RTA 1991). These acts deal not only with the car insurance but also with many aspects of road law.

The UK RTA 1988 on car insurance is divided into the following parts:

1) Principal Road safety provisions. This is concerned with driving offences and the promotion of road safety. It is an offence to drive or be in charge of a car when under the influence of drink or drugs. Certain offences were amended by RTA 1991 for example death by reckless driving as prescribed by RTA 1988, no longer exists. There are now two offences: a) causing death by dangerous driving b) causing death by driving when under the influence of drink or drugs.

2) Construction and Use of vehicles and equipment. This deals with testing of vehicles, maintenance and loading of goods vehicles.

3) Licensing of drivers. This includes the test and physical fitness of drivers. The minimum age for obtaining a driving licence in respect to different types of vehicle is as follows: (mopeds 16 and above, cars and motorcycles 17 and above, all commercial vehicles over 7.5 tonnes 21 and above)

4) Licensing of large goods vehicles and passenger carrying vehicles.

5) Driving Instruction. In order to instruct another driver (for payment) you need to be an improved instructor.

6) Third party liabilities. This is a key section in relation to UK car insurance laws. Section 143 deals with compulsory insurance or security against third party risks and users of cars to be insured against third party risks. This part of the act says that persons should not use a car on the road without car insurance, that a person should not let others drive their car without car insurance. Breach of these points is an offence. The word 'use' is much wider than just driving it. The presence on the road is sufficient to constitute use.

For example towing a broken vehicle is termed as use. In the case of Brown v Roberts (1963) a driver was the 'user' when his passenger opened a door into a pedestrian.

For the purpose of the act, motor vehicle means a mechanically propelled vehicle intended for use on the road. In McEachram v Hurst (1978) a moped was being pedaled along a road (its engine was not working) and the moped was held to be a motor vehicle. A 'road' is anywhere the public has access to (including farm roads or cul de sacs).

Car insurance policies must be held by an 'authorised insurer' who are defined in the Motor Insurance Companies Act (1982). They must also be members of the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB).

Sub-section 3 says that the policy must cover against death or bodily injury or third party property damage. It must also cover motoring within the European Union (EU) The third EU motor insurance directive goes into the minimum standards of cover whilst in Europe.

Car Insurance certificates - Whilst strictly speaking, the insured needs a certificate of car insurance before he can drive, in practice the car insurance broker can hold the cover note on his clients behalf. There are strong laws about cover notes and in particular the dates, it is an illegal to back date cover.

The main purpose of the Road Traffic Acts is to secure, so far as that may be possible, that those killed or injured or who sustain damage to their property as the result of a motor accident have an effective right of redress against those responsible. To do that, it ensures that the victims are not dependent for compensation on the personal wealth of the persons responsible: they are obliged to make adequate provision by way of insurance.

More below, if you want to study the whole Road Traffic Act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/conten...

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Car Insurance certificates - Whilst strictly speaking, the insured needs a certificate of car insurance before he can drive, in practice the car insurance broker can hold the cover note on his clients behalf. There are strong laws about cover notes and in particular the dates, it is an illegal to back date cover.

Yep I believe you've both said that before but that's for where someone phones up and says 'can I have cover from last week?'.

What we're talking about here is where say with the OP a mistake was made and it was supposed to aurorenew (as I think they were told) but didn't
or where a typo as with Deva Link has meant that they werent covered as they were told.

As far as I can tell there's nothing to say that mistakes can't be corrected
Instead the insurers seem to be hiding behind the 'no backdating' clause so that their customers become liable for 6 points ( and/or an accident) and for increased future premiums, which of course may benefit insurers.

If these were one offs they it would still need sorting out but as weve seen they're not.

I still can't remember a recent (month or three) ruling but the word peverse was used for the market conditions involved if anyone can help.

Unfair contract law also mentioned and that could take precedence but I'm not sure this is contractual, it's about how it's being interpreted.

[saaby93]

RTA147 said:

. Issue and surrender of certificates of insurance and of security.—
(1) A policy of insurance shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless and until there is delivered by the insurer to the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “certificate of insurance”) in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed.

(2) A security shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless and until there is delivered by the person giving the security to the person to whom it is given a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “certificate of security”) in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the security is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed.

(3) Different forms and different particulars may be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) above in relation to different cases or circumstances.

(4) Where a certificate has been delivered under this section and the policy or security to which it relates is cancelled by mutual consent or by virtue of any provision in the policy or security, the person to whom the certificate was delivered must, within seven days from the taking effect of the cancellation—
(a)surrender the certificate to the person by whom the policy was issued or the security was given, or
(b)if the certificate has been lost or destroyed, make a statutory declaration to that effect.

(5) A person who fails to comply with subsection (4) above is guilty of an offence.

Now we only need to find the terms of a certificate in the prescribed form
and case law about mistakes generally

[R1 Loon]

OK, saaby. I can't find it, but I'm not a lawyer and pretty poor when it comes to reading and interpreting the actual wording of Acts of Law. However insurers, which are multi-billion pound businesses tend to have access to barristers, lawyers and all relevant forms of expert legal advice.

All of them without exception state that it is illegal to backdate cover, so there may well be something in that.

As for "unfair contracts" if the Law states something can not be done (please don't ask me to find it, I've already answered that in the first paragraph), then it can not be unfair by definition. See below, to see if a lawyer doesn;t see it as an unfair contract then who will?

Here's an interesting one. Nick Freeman (Mr Loophole) appeared to have been driving around uninsured for quite a while. He doesn't seem to be chasing a backdated certificate, he seems to accept that a letter of indemnity from the insurers is sufficient for the period of their mistake, which would happen in every case as has always been stated.

Given that he is the person who has made a genuine career based on extensive knowledge, study, experience and application of the RTA; an area where you are no more than a toe-dipper, then I'd suggest that if there was a way to backdate cover then he'd have done it. I also like the fact that he calls it "my misdemeanour" not "someone else's fault"

Nick Freeman aka Mr Loophole said:

My mistaken misdemeanour

It’s been quite a week for criminal activity in the Freeman household. My daughter’s had a little bit of trouble, which you may have spotted on the front page and which I’ll come to later, and I discovered I’ve been driving without insurance.

It wasn’t my fault, I promise. I only discovered this when I wanted to tax my Aston Martin DBS Volante and couldn’t find my certificate of insurance.

Unconcerned, I phoned my broker who, equally unconcerned, promised to have one delivered in the morning.

"I am insured, aren’t I?" I deadpanned. "Of course you are," he chuckled. Ten minutes later he called back asking for details of the car, confessing it hadn’t been insured since November of last year.

Despite the fact that I had paid and there exists a recorded telephone instruction, there had been a cock up.

Even more worryingly, I had driven that car everywhere, even taking it to the continent. And I’m the last person to be told that the penalty for driving without insurance is six to eight points and a discretionary ban.

Fortunately, the matter was sorted out. But please take note – if it can happen to me, it can happen to you. It never hurts to check. Oh, and if the boys in blue are reading this, put the cuffs away. The insurers would have indemnified me.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/comment/blogs/s/1316442_opinion_nick_freeman

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Here's an interesting one. Nick Freeman (Mr Loophole) appeared to have been driving around uninsured for quite a while. He doesn't seem to be chasing a backdated certificate, he seems to accept that a letter of indemnity from the insurers is sufficient for the period of their mistake, which would happen in every case as has always been stated.

Doh that agrees with what we're saying
Most people when they phone up about a mistake are relieved with just being able to continue from where they are today and sigh relief they werent stopped or had an accident meantime.

However suppose he'd have phoned up following a police stop and 6 points being on the table (as with the OP) then what would have happened? Would any indemnity have kicked in to save him? Or would he have fought it on the grounds of a mistake it ought to be correctable. As that didn't happen we'll never know.

Are you saying the OP should be able to use this case so as to prevent points and fine?

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

Doh that agrees with what we're saying
Most people when they phone up about a mistake are relieved with just being able to continue from where they are today and sigh relief they werent stopped or had an accident meantime.

However suppose he'd have phoned up following a police stop and 6 points being on the table (as with the OP) then what would have happened? Would any indemnity have kicked in to save him? Or would he have fought it on the grounds of a mistake it ought to be correctable. As that didn't happen we'll never know.

Are you saying the OP should be able to use this case so as to prevent points and fine?

Are you really this stupid, or just deliberately refusing to accept things. I've got a mental picture of you sitting there with your fingers in your ears, saying "la,la, la, not listening" over & over again, as if that somehow makes you right.

The example I gave was to demonstrate that the most (in)famous loophole finder in the UK could not find a loophole to get his insurance backdated, instead being quite happy to accept the only form of redress, that of a letter of indemnity. There is no comparison between the OP's situation and Nick Freeman's, so the OP can not use this as a form of defence.

It's been said over and over again, that if an insurer makes a mistake, then they will issue a letter of indemnity. This effectively meets the requirements of the RTA and, whilst the Police may issue a NIP (in writing or verbally), the CPS are unlikely to pursue a prosecution, as it would not be reasonable (reasonable, as in "beyond reasonable doubt"). This answers your question on Nick Freeman's situation. However for clarity.

• The police may have decided to attempt to prosecute
• NF would have got a letter of indemnity
• If his car had been impounded, this would have been released upon presentation of this letter
• The CPS would accept presentation of this letter as proof that no offence was committed
• He could present the letter within 7 days at a police station of his choice, or
• He could present it in Court and the charge of driving without insurance would be dismissed.
• If he did this, he may face a subsequent (highly unlikely) charge of failing to produce in a timely fashion.

The OP simply did not have insurance, there is no comparison between the two situations. The insurer / broker did not make a mistake, he did not pay a premium, he did not renew. In fact it was you and another poster who muddied the waters by mentioning "auto-renewal" here:

Jonny671 said:

Didn't your insurance auto-renew? I thought nearly all do this..

saaby93 said:

I posted about this a few months back
Although they send you a letter saying it's going to auto renew, the first you know it hasnt auto renewed is when they remind you about lack of insurance 2 weeks after it's run out.

If you then ask them to renew it to including those 2 weeks they say tough you're on your own matey, we can't back date.

It's another way of adding to the list of uninsured (but thought they were) on the roads.

At no point did the OP suggest it should've auto-renewed. For reference none of my personal policies auto-renew, none of the company I work for's policies auto-renew (and it's a big insurer), the reason being that the FSA are a bit unsure of how happy they are with this practice and the complaints from people, claiming "theft" far outweigh the complaints from people who "forget" to insure their vehicles.

The RTA (S143) is very clear on this, I have quoted it below for reference. In summary drivers have to be insured, if they are not they have committed an offence unless they can meet all 3 of a certain set of circumstances. The OP doesn't meet these criteria so as per S143 (2) "If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence."

You can whinge, bh, moan, deny, or give your opinions all you like, but it doesn't alter the facts. You are wrong, your opinions are wrong, your questions are irrelevant and you really do make yourself look foolish.

I'll sit back now and await your next question, that conveniently ignores the whole of this post, instead trying to make another spurious point.

Road Traffic Act 1988 said:

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2)If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

(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.

Edited by R1 Loon on Saturday 11th December 16:22