Pulled over for tints-Getting 6 points for invalid insurance
Discussion
mph said:
tele_lover said:
RE telling the police where you were going- don't we have the right to remain silent? Then you wouldn't have got in to so much trouble.
The fact that the OP was open about where he was going surely demonstrates that he wasn't considering the insurance anomaly at the time. Given that the OP has two cars, one of which is insured for commuting, would it be worth him contacting the insurers, explaining that the trip was a one-off and asking whether they would have covered him in the event of an accident ?
LivLL said:
Yep many Police officers are notorious for acting purely on emotion and ignoring the law.
I suspect the officer in this case was one of “them”. Pathetic.
Anyway, don’t they impound cars found with no insurance on the spot? Something doesn’t add up.
He drove to McDonalds after - he would have been insured for that journey. I suspect the officer in this case was one of “them”. Pathetic.
Anyway, don’t they impound cars found with no insurance on the spot? Something doesn’t add up.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mph said:
tele_lover said:
RE telling the police where you were going- don't we have the right to remain silent? Then you wouldn't have got in to so much trouble.
The fact that the OP was open about where he was going surely demonstrates that he wasn't considering the insurance anomaly at the time. Given that the OP has two cars, one of which is insured for commuting, would it be worth him contacting the insurers, explaining that the trip was a one-off and asking whether they would have covered him in the event of an accident ?
They are unlikely to agree to initially, they would need to make it a complaint, on the basis outlined in the decision outcome I posted earlier, or the case study number 4 here.
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/data-insigh...
Given all the circumstances there is no claim involved so it is going to cost the insurer nothing, there is an insurance ombudsmans case study on the exact scenario which shows how they could settle in the customers favour, I think they would be unlikely not to comply fairly swiftly.
And if they didn't they could go to the ombudsmans and not just get the necessary letter but also get compensated for their refusal.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mph said:
tele_lover said:
RE telling the police where you were going- don't we have the right to remain silent? Then you wouldn't have got in to so much trouble.
The fact that the OP was open about where he was going surely demonstrates that he wasn't considering the insurance anomaly at the time. Given that the OP has two cars, one of which is insured for commuting, would it be worth him contacting the insurers, explaining that the trip was a one-off and asking whether they would have covered him in the event of an accident ?
The intricacies of adequate insurance is not written into the law in black and white beyond having a policely. I.e. if your insurer would have in fact insured you then any barrister worth his salt would successfully argue your case.
Think about it. How many technicalities would we be open to being prosecuted for if common sense didn't prevail.
If the company says they would have covered you, or the ombudsman has stated in fact it would enforce coverage then a you simply cannot be prosecuted for being uninsured - when in fact you actually are.
I've seen it in action, in days past where the cops would spend a little time calling the insurer etc for details especially with trade policies that can be abit ambiguous.
It would be a hard case to make as it is for the simple grounds that "going to work" is subjective in itself. As mentioned already who's to say he didn't actually mean he was going to work at gome/from a mcdonalds/was going to take the car to his mums and taxi to work etc.
Edited by thejaywills on Sunday 26th May 14:38
thejaywills said:
I've seen it in action, in days past where the cops would spend a little time calling the insurer etc for details especially with trade policies that can be abit ambiguous.
That happened on one of those Road Wars type programme: Traffic Cop stopped a lad delivering pizzas - called his insurance company and he was SD&P. He explained what the rider was doing and asked the insurer if they would still be held liable and they said yes. You can imagine how crest-fallen the cop looked.Edited by Sheepshanks on Sunday 26th May 16:20
E-bmw said:
LivLL said:
Yep many Police officers are notorious for acting purely on emotion and ignoring the law.
"Ignoring the law" so is it now legal to have illegal tints & incorrect insurance?My post followed one which seemed to suggest the OP would be let off if he’d licked the officers boots
If someone’s stopped for no insurance and illegal tints I’d expect them to be dealt with properly, not patted on the head and sent on the way if they suck up to the cops.
Edited by LivLL on Sunday 26th May 17:00
LivLL said:
Anyway, don’t they impound cars found with no insurance on the spot? Something doesn’t add up.
Yes they can, they often seize the vehicles without insurance and get them recovered their recovery agent. Owner then has to show proof of insurance when collecting and pay the storage fee. If there's mitigating circumstances then they can allow the driver to continue driving and the no insurance can be dealt with later.
thejaywills said:
Again, not really. If the insurance would have covered him then there would have been no standing to prosecute him because he wouldn't have committed a crime.
The intricacies of adequate insurance is not written into the law in black and white beyond having a policely. I.e. if your insurer would have in fact insured you then any barrister worth his salt would successfully argue your case.
Think about it. How many technicalities would we be open to being prosecuted for if common sense didn't prevail.
If the company says they would have covered you, or the ombudsman has stated in fact it would enforce coverage then a you simply cannot be prosecuted for being uninsured - when in fact you actually are.
I've seen it in action, in days past where the cops would spend a little time calling the insurer etc for details especially with trade policies that can be abit ambiguous.
It would be a hard case to make as it is for the simple grounds that "going to work" is subjective in itself. As mentioned already who's to say he didn't actually mean he was going to work at gome/from a mcdonalds/was going to take the car to his mums and taxi to work etc.
Insurance is a contract. The wording of that contract is the ONLY thing that matters. The intricacies of adequate insurance is not written into the law in black and white beyond having a policely. I.e. if your insurer would have in fact insured you then any barrister worth his salt would successfully argue your case.
Think about it. How many technicalities would we be open to being prosecuted for if common sense didn't prevail.
If the company says they would have covered you, or the ombudsman has stated in fact it would enforce coverage then a you simply cannot be prosecuted for being uninsured - when in fact you actually are.
I've seen it in action, in days past where the cops would spend a little time calling the insurer etc for details especially with trade policies that can be abit ambiguous.
It would be a hard case to make as it is for the simple grounds that "going to work" is subjective in itself. As mentioned already who's to say he didn't actually mean he was going to work at gome/from a mcdonalds/was going to take the car to his mums and taxi to work etc.
Edited by thejaywills on Sunday 26th May 14:38
matchmaker said:
I'm retired now but drive my wife to work every day. My insurance was SD&P only so I went online to add commuting. Total extra cost for the year? £10 admin fee.
I pondered that question earlier in the thread - I think it would be very difficult for anyone to say that you were commuting. If your occupation is retired then I’m surprised including commuting is possible.OTOH - you should pay more because you’re driving there and back.
And, who knows, maybe with commuting cover the insurer assumes the car is parked up all day unused, whereas in practice you could be all over the place,
911hope said:
Insurance is a contract. The wording of that contract is the ONLY thing that matters.
Wording of contracts are only part of the equation Statutory requirements are an implicit part of the contract regardless of they written into it or not.
It may not say that commuting is covered if the customer unintentionally failed to disclose that use, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't the case.
e-honda said:
Wording of contracts are only part of the equation
Statutory requirements are an implicit part of the contract regardless of they written into it or not.
It may not say that commuting is covered if the customer unintentionally failed to disclose that use, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't the case.
Wrong. Statutory requirements are an implicit part of the contract regardless of they written into it or not.
It may not say that commuting is covered if the customer unintentionally failed to disclose that use, it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't the case.
The contract wording is everything.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff