Stopped for no insurance in Business Vehicle.
Discussion
Hello chaps.
Recieved a call from my friend on Friday, if i could drive his van to his place of business and back.
It covers any driver between 25-74. Although he did not check this years insurance docs etc.
On Saturday just gone. I was stopped by an unmarked Audi police car.
Passenger of the car forced me to stop on a red route, he then proceeded to get out and point me onto a kerb on the main road.
He asked me a few questions about the van, contents etc.
He then wanted to open the rear of the van and check the contents.
He had a look through and then asked if i was insured on the vehicle.
I confirmed and he checked up on the mid and they only provided with the name of the policy holder and no additional terms or drivers.
So he said, i have no choice but to sieze the vehicle as its currently uninsured. (bit strange is it was insured and from the data he recieved, the driver wasn't! So was the vehicle correct to be taken?)
So he arranged for the vehicle to be siezed and gave me the siezure form and how to obtain the vehicle back. Also informing me of the way to claim the fee's for the removal etc.
I did not recieve a producer or a notice of intended prosecution, he only verbally said i would be reported for driving without insurance. He did fill in a slip which looks like a producer form but did not give it to me.
So my friend searched for policy and as stated on it.
Cover for the policy holder
cover for any driver between 25-74 with use in connect to business purposes.
So the Van was released by the police force after showing the documents.
Owner - plus insurance/mot/etc --- i was not present.
But now, i have this offence of driving without insurance. I don't have any paperwork to go and show my documents to clear it. Will this be sent in the post or straight to a court summons?
Recieved a call from my friend on Friday, if i could drive his van to his place of business and back.
It covers any driver between 25-74. Although he did not check this years insurance docs etc.
On Saturday just gone. I was stopped by an unmarked Audi police car.
Passenger of the car forced me to stop on a red route, he then proceeded to get out and point me onto a kerb on the main road.
He asked me a few questions about the van, contents etc.
He then wanted to open the rear of the van and check the contents.
He had a look through and then asked if i was insured on the vehicle.
I confirmed and he checked up on the mid and they only provided with the name of the policy holder and no additional terms or drivers.
So he said, i have no choice but to sieze the vehicle as its currently uninsured. (bit strange is it was insured and from the data he recieved, the driver wasn't! So was the vehicle correct to be taken?)
So he arranged for the vehicle to be siezed and gave me the siezure form and how to obtain the vehicle back. Also informing me of the way to claim the fee's for the removal etc.
I did not recieve a producer or a notice of intended prosecution, he only verbally said i would be reported for driving without insurance. He did fill in a slip which looks like a producer form but did not give it to me.
So my friend searched for policy and as stated on it.
Cover for the policy holder
cover for any driver between 25-74 with use in connect to business purposes.
So the Van was released by the police force after showing the documents.
Owner - plus insurance/mot/etc --- i was not present.
But now, i have this offence of driving without insurance. I don't have any paperwork to go and show my documents to clear it. Will this be sent in the post or straight to a court summons?
If you do end up being charged , just go to court with the insurance certificate your friend has - it is a legal document certifying that you ARE insured , therefore not guilty .
Unless your friend's policy has been voided for some reason unknown to you .
You also have the defence , if driving an employer's vehicle , that you had no reason to suppose you were not insured .
Unless your friend's policy has been voided for some reason unknown to you .
You also have the defence , if driving an employer's vehicle , that you had no reason to suppose you were not insured .
Were you doing work for your friend or just helping him out?
If for any reason the insurance cover is defective (which looks unlikely) then you may be covered by s.143 (3) Road Traffic Act 1988:
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 however that you would have to be using the vehicle in the course of your employment - which sounds as though you would be covered by the policy anyway, so the defence may not be any use to you unless it turns out that the policy has lapsed, etc.
If for any reason the insurance cover is defective (which looks unlikely) then you may be covered by s.143 (3) Road Traffic Act 1988:
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 however that you would have to be using the vehicle in the course of your employment - which sounds as though you would be covered by the policy anyway, so the defence may not be any use to you unless it turns out that the policy has lapsed, etc.
Cheers lads.
I'l await to recieve a letter for the next two weeks.
The insurance is active, the police woman actually spoke to the insurer when my friend went to get the van released. The stipulation/add on was not showing when the officer rang up the MID - The insurance was showing up with him as the policy holder.
Normal car insurance etc wouldn't cover it anyway as it was a vehicle for business use.
Just means i have to wait before i can produce, was hoping i could just do it without the wait.
Always makes you feel uneasy waiting for the letter to drop.
I'l await to recieve a letter for the next two weeks.
The insurance is active, the police woman actually spoke to the insurer when my friend went to get the van released. The stipulation/add on was not showing when the officer rang up the MID - The insurance was showing up with him as the policy holder.
Normal car insurance etc wouldn't cover it anyway as it was a vehicle for business use.
Just means i have to wait before i can produce, was hoping i could just do it without the wait.
Always makes you feel uneasy waiting for the letter to drop.
Roo said:
Does the insurance cover anyone between the ages of 25 and 74 to drive the van provided it was in connection with the insureds business?
Was this what you were doing?
Yes this is correct. Was this what you were doing?
The extension was not showing up when the officers contacted the MID database.
They only confirmed that my friend had a policy and he was the policy holder with no additional drivers on the policy. I did not have the policy to hand and my friend was at the cricket game so didn't have it available to him either.
They said thats reclaimable by writing to the police commisioner.
it was £150.
After they sent me and the other lads on the way, they then decided to start stopping other vans on foot in the middle of the road.
i'm not sure, i think they may have been hunting metal thieves or similiar as the officer was very keen to see what was in back.
it was £150.
After they sent me and the other lads on the way, they then decided to start stopping other vans on foot in the middle of the road.
i'm not sure, i think they may have been hunting metal thieves or similiar as the officer was very keen to see what was in back.
Hmmmm, I would be making sure that this really means any driver. Not "any named driver".
Most van policies allow you to put all your employees on as named drivers, and as long as they fulfil the criteria (not previously refused, no crim.convs, no med.cons) then it costs the same (i.e. we don't rate on them).
So if you have 6 chaps who can drive, you stick them all on and they can just in the van.
What they don't often mean is that you can throw the keys to anyone, without adding them as a named driver.
I don't believe you would be able to go S143(3) defence, as it isn't your employment. Unsurprisingly there have been a number of cases around this, and not all of them go the way of the driver.
The downside is that if it WERE you employment, then your mate could be done for causing or permitting. They are considered to be "using" the vehicle if it is for the business. And they still may face prosecution for causing.
Given "the relevant document" wasn't produced at the time it seems a fair seizure. That is why you want immediate MID2 notification of named drivers - for just this situation.
If it really was a "absolutely any driver without notifying the insurer" or you were added as a named driver, then you should be fine.
Most van policies allow you to put all your employees on as named drivers, and as long as they fulfil the criteria (not previously refused, no crim.convs, no med.cons) then it costs the same (i.e. we don't rate on them).
So if you have 6 chaps who can drive, you stick them all on and they can just in the van.
What they don't often mean is that you can throw the keys to anyone, without adding them as a named driver.
I don't believe you would be able to go S143(3) defence, as it isn't your employment. Unsurprisingly there have been a number of cases around this, and not all of them go the way of the driver.
The downside is that if it WERE you employment, then your mate could be done for causing or permitting. They are considered to be "using" the vehicle if it is for the business. And they still may face prosecution for causing.
Given "the relevant document" wasn't produced at the time it seems a fair seizure. That is why you want immediate MID2 notification of named drivers - for just this situation.
If it really was a "absolutely any driver without notifying the insurer" or you were added as a named driver, then you should be fine.
BertBert said:
So from the description of events, why did the officer have reason to believe the van was not insured as that is what he needs to take it away?
The MID said there was a policy in place. Why did he conclude it didn't cover you OP?
Bert
I don't know what the ANPR gets, but on MID you know if there are named drivers or there is missing data in this regard. i.e. if it truly is ANY driver.The MID said there was a policy in place. Why did he conclude it didn't cover you OP?
Bert
Should Noger's supposition prove to be correct, then the OP should still be able to make a Special Reasons Argument and avoid points and a fine. Itll need an experienced motoring solicitor though.
http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/Offences/Court/Speci...
http://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/Offences/Court/Speci...
Hi.
As said, insurance policy was in force.
The insurance was showing up but only the policy holder.
The following entitlement was not showing up when they checked the mid and then called them.
That's correct. The policy covers any driver without needed them to be named on the policy but must meet the age and licence duration criteria.
As said, insurance policy was in force.
The insurance was showing up but only the policy holder.
The following entitlement was not showing up when they checked the mid and then called them.
That's correct. The policy covers any driver without needed them to be named on the policy but must meet the age and licence duration criteria.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff