Nephews being charged with no insurance wasn't even driving

[RetroTed]

Hoping someone could give me some advice

My nephew took a civic in px last week and had it parked on a wide kerb outside his flat where the last owner left it, the kerb is easily wide enough for cars and pedestrians.

So last week my nephew was showing it to his mates and had the bonnet up car was not running and the police stopped. After a discussion on whos car it was and a check it showed as having no insurance so they are summonsing him to court for no insurance

Q..How can they do this when he wasn't driving the car nor even inside it at the time plus it wasn't even on the road. I thought they would of towed the car away but they never bothered

Any advice would be great, I've advised him to contact the CA locally but they're closed until Friday and understandably he's pooing

Thanks

[marshalla]

Car was parked on public land/highway and therefore needed to be insured.

[vonhosen]

RetroTed said:

Hoping someone could give me some advice

My nephew took a civic in px last week and had it parked on a wide kerb outside his flat where the last owner left it, the kerb is easily wide enough for cars and pedestrians.

So last week my nephew was showing it to his mates and had the bonnet up car was not running and the police stopped. After a discussion on whos car it was and a check it showed as having no insurance so they are summonsing him to court for no insurance

Q..How can they do this when he wasn't driving the car nor even inside it at the time plus it wasn't even on the road. I thought they would of towed the car away but they never bothered

Any advice would be great, I've advised him to contact the CA locally but they're closed until Friday and understandably he's pooing

Thanks

A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is an insurance policy in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person.

'Use' has an extremely wide definition & will include the circumstances you've outlined.

He needs to have it SORN'd and out of a public place.

[ookware]

Any car on the public highway needs insurance. If you want to keep it off road you need to SORN it and keep it on a driveway/garage/etc.

Unfortunately he appears bang to rights.

[annsxman]

This is governed by section 143 TRA 1988 which provides:

"(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or 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......"

I couldn't find any guidance on what constitutes "use of a motor vehicle"

The Government advice - https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-witho... - refers to "to drive a vehicle on a road"

so I wouldn't have thought that merely looking under the bonnet of the car constitutes "use" but others better informed than me will doubtless be along in a minute.

[vonhosen]

annsxman said:

This is governed by section 143 TRA 1988 which provides:

"(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or 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......"

I couldn't find any guidance on what constitutes "use of a motor vehicle"

The Government advice - https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-witho... - refers to "to drive a vehicle on a road"

so I wouldn't have thought that merely looking under the bonnet of the car constitutes "use" but others better informed than me will doubtless be along in a minute.

There is a lot of case law on the subject.

Plumbien v Vines 1995

Plumbien purchased a car in full working order. He parked it on the road outside his house and didn't drive it again. Over a period of seven months the test certificate expired, the insurance was cancelled, the tyres went flat, the back brakes seized and all the oil leaked out of the gearbox.

He was subsequently summonsed for 'using' a vehicle on a road without a test certificate or insurance and was convicted at Magistrates Court. He appealed on the grounds that a vehicle immobilised to that extent ceased to be 'used' for the purpose of the legislation.

Appeal dismissed & conviction upheld.

It doesn't have to be immediately drivable for him to still have use of it.

[sunnydude959]

I suppose being parked on a public highway/public footpath (or half/half) would constitute as being on public land, for which the car needs to be insured. Say, for example, if the car were to roll off because the handbrake wasn't on and it hit something or caused an accident then the RK's insurance policy would be liable.

It was nothing to do with him being in the car, or near the car, or even 500 miles away from the car, its the RK's responsibility to ensure a car is insured properly.

I sound like a really boring old fart now, but that's how it would be seen from a legal point of view in my opinion.

However....... I'm sure there are technicalities under the term "use" that you could explore, as other posts have said.

(RK = Registered Keeper)

[balls-out]

sunnydude959 said:

I suppose being parked on a public highway/public footpath (or half/half) would constitute as being on public land, for which the car needs to be insured. Say, for example, if the car were to roll off because the handbrake wasn't on and it hit something or caused an accident then the RK's insurance policy would be liable.

It was nothing to do with him being in the car, or near the car, or even 500 miles away from the car, its the RK's responsibility to ensure a car is insured properly.

I sound like a really boring old fart now, but that's how it would be seen from a legal point of view in my opinion.

(RK = Registered Keeper)

Is that so? I assumed it was the owner not the RK?

[Buzz84]

If he's just got it then presumably it isn't taxed under the new rules either.

why would he get a summons and not a fixed penalty?

[vonhosen]

balls-out said:

sunnydude959 said:

I suppose being parked on a public highway/public footpath (or half/half) would constitute as being on public land, for which the car needs to be insured. Say, for example, if the car were to roll off because the handbrake wasn't on and it hit something or caused an accident then the RK's insurance policy would be liable.

It was nothing to do with him being in the car, or near the car, or even 500 miles away from the car, its the RK's responsibility to ensure a car is insured properly.

I sound like a really boring old fart now, but that's how it would be seen from a legal point of view in my opinion.

(RK = Registered Keeper)

Is that so? I assumed it was the owner not the RK?

144A places the burden on the registered keeper making it an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance.

[sunnydude959]

balls-out said:

Is that so? I assumed it was the owner not the RK?

I believe its the RK who is in charge of taxing and insuring, because the 'Owner' could be e.g. the finance company or the leasing company.

But for the vast majority of cash purchases, the RK and Owner are the same person.

[Red Devil]

OP's nephew is by no means the first to have failed to understand that the highway includes all kerbs, verges, etc. up to the boundary of the adjoining land, and I doubt he will be the last.

If the car is untaxed/SORNed he could also have the DVLA after him due to the change of keeper. Conversely, if he has re SORNed it the declaration is false because the vehicle is not off the road on private land.

It reminds me of Dr Richard Dawood and his fight with Camden BC over parking his scooter. He lost.

[dowahdiddyman]

Sorry no advice needed,they have him bang to rights. I think he`s actually got of light, parking on a pavement is a no-no,and it aint taxed. The pavement is still classed as a public highway so sorry but it`s a case of bend over and take it.

[annsxman]

vonhosen said:

There is a lot of case law on the subject.

Plumbien v Vines 1995

Plumbien purchased a car in full working order. He parked it on the road outside his house and didn't drive it again. Over a period of seven months the test certificate expired, the insurance was cancelled, the tyres went flat, the back brakes seized and all the oil leaked out of the gearbox.

He was subsequently summonsed for 'using' a vehicle on a road without a test certificate or insurance and was convicted at Magistrates Court. He appealed on the grounds that a vehicle immobilised to that extent ceased to be 'used' for the purpose of the legislation.

Appeal dismissed & conviction upheld.

It doesn't have to be immediately drivable for him to still have use of it.

I knew there was somewhere out there who would have access to the case law. Thanks.

[TooMany2cvs]

RetroTed said:

My nephew took a civic in px last week

Does he have a trade policy that'd cover him?

The lack of SORN/tax shouldn't be an issue, if he's flagged it as being in the motor trade.

[ging84]

would a case back in 1995 still be applicable, given than now there is the continuous enforcement rules, there is essentially a specific offence set up to deal with this very situation, and has much less of a penalty.

[vonhosen]

ging84 said:

would a case back in 1995 still be applicable, given than now there is the continuous enforcement rules, there is essentially a specific offence set up to deal with this very situation, and has much less of a penalty.

There is a difference between a motor vehicle in a garage over winter (used in summer) that hasn't been SORN'd & a vehicle that is in use (as per the legislation) on a road or public place.

[martinnitram]

OP
Is the car in his name .

[vonhosen]

martinnitram said:

OP
Is the car in his name .

If it isn't that wouldn't be fatal to prosecution under 143.

[StottyEvo]

vonhosen said:

'Use' has an extremely wide definition & will include the circumstances you've outlined.

Very true, I just wish that words used in law have the same meaning as words used by people.

He'll be charged with IN10, 6-8points and a fine.