Had up on a technicality!
Discussion
I was pulled over by the plod yesterday after I flagged up their ANPR, for apparently driving without insurance. Technically this turns out to be correct due to the wording of my policy.
Here’s the background. Here goes:
I am the registered keeper and main policy holder on Car A. My wife is a named driver. Both of us are fully comp on this car. This policy entitles me, or so I thought, to drive any other vehicle on a 3rd Party basis.
My wife is the main policy holder for Car B on a 3rd party basis as the car is only worth £600ish. I use this one from time to time as a workhorse for moving stuff etc. I am not a named driver but I was driving it under the assumption that I was covered under my policy on Car A. However, and here is my downfall, I am also the registered keeper of this vehicle.
Unbeknown to me, I was only entitled to drive any other vehicle providing I didn't own that vehicle. I did not know this, so I admit a co*k up on my part.
The penalty for my oversight is that I have been reported for the offence of driving without insurance. Luckily the plods in question showed some leniency and allowed my wife to drive down and drive Car B away. I then drove her car, so no seizure etc. and no costs.
My gripe is that I have paid for both policies(£1000+), both cars are roadworthy with MOT & Tax and I have unintentionally infringed the law. Both policies are up to date and have not lapsed and I have never ever driven without insurance intentionally.
Now I wasn't cautioned at the time, but they said that I would be reported for the offence. What does that mean? Should I expect a summons?
If anyone has any advice I would be most grateful indeed. I know "ignorance is no excuse" and all, but it is still worth fighting IMO. Cheers.
Here’s the background. Here goes:
I am the registered keeper and main policy holder on Car A. My wife is a named driver. Both of us are fully comp on this car. This policy entitles me, or so I thought, to drive any other vehicle on a 3rd Party basis.
My wife is the main policy holder for Car B on a 3rd party basis as the car is only worth £600ish. I use this one from time to time as a workhorse for moving stuff etc. I am not a named driver but I was driving it under the assumption that I was covered under my policy on Car A. However, and here is my downfall, I am also the registered keeper of this vehicle.
Unbeknown to me, I was only entitled to drive any other vehicle providing I didn't own that vehicle. I did not know this, so I admit a co*k up on my part.
The penalty for my oversight is that I have been reported for the offence of driving without insurance. Luckily the plods in question showed some leniency and allowed my wife to drive down and drive Car B away. I then drove her car, so no seizure etc. and no costs.
My gripe is that I have paid for both policies(£1000+), both cars are roadworthy with MOT & Tax and I have unintentionally infringed the law. Both policies are up to date and have not lapsed and I have never ever driven without insurance intentionally.
Now I wasn't cautioned at the time, but they said that I would be reported for the offence. What does that mean? Should I expect a summons?
If anyone has any advice I would be most grateful indeed. I know "ignorance is no excuse" and all, but it is still worth fighting IMO. Cheers.
If your wife is the main policy holder on car b, I'm confused as to how ANPR would flag YOU as having no insurance as iirc it only checks the cars insurance. It's not as if ANPR 'flashes' the reg & 'snaps' the driver & cross checks them is it! Are you sure both policies are paid up?!
A couple of puzzles there...
ANPR would only be able to flag whether an insurance policy was in effect for that VRN, I don't see how it could flag that you are not insured to drive it.
It doesn't matter that you are the registered keeper of car B, so long as you are not the owner. The policy wording is usually to the effect that you can drive any other vehicle that does not belong to you. So long as your wife is the owner I don't see a problem.
ANPR would only be able to flag whether an insurance policy was in effect for that VRN, I don't see how it could flag that you are not insured to drive it.
It doesn't matter that you are the registered keeper of car B, so long as you are not the owner. The policy wording is usually to the effect that you can drive any other vehicle that does not belong to you. So long as your wife is the owner I don't see a problem.
Ownership is a difficult issue. A registered keeper is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle, but being the registered keeper and the car is used by your family would certainly suggest ownership.
Looking at confused.com's faqs it states here
I haven't had the opportunity to look up the case law on it, but no doubt someone will.
Regarding the lack of caution, that does not prevent prosecution. It simply means that your responses to questions asked once the offence was suspected are likely to be inadmissable as evidence.
Looking at confused.com's faqs it states here
Confused.com faqs said:
What is the difference between the 'owner' and 'registered keeper'?
There may be a reason for the owner and registered keeper to be different individuals. For example, you may use a car that is owned by someone else in which case you would be the registered keeper. Or you may own a car that you allow your children to use and therefore the registered keeper would be one of your children.
This would suggest that you can use and be RK of a car, but not be the owner. There may be a reason for the owner and registered keeper to be different individuals. For example, you may use a car that is owned by someone else in which case you would be the registered keeper. Or you may own a car that you allow your children to use and therefore the registered keeper would be one of your children.
I haven't had the opportunity to look up the case law on it, but no doubt someone will.
Regarding the lack of caution, that does not prevent prosecution. It simply means that your responses to questions asked once the offence was suspected are likely to be inadmissable as evidence.
Edited by Soren2 on Friday 8th February 09:31
JimboM said:
However, and here is my downfall, I am also the registered keeper of this vehicle.
Unbeknown to me, I was only entitled to drive any other vehicle providing I didn't own that vehicle. I did not know this, so I admit a co*k up on my part.
Exactly what does your insurance policy state - RK or OWNER? as the RK of a vehicle is not necessarily the owner.Unbeknown to me, I was only entitled to drive any other vehicle providing I didn't own that vehicle. I did not know this, so I admit a co*k up on my part.
So if your policy does actually state only that you cannot drive other vehicles you own then would you be able to demonstrate that your wife is the owner?
Confused.com faqs said:
What is the difference between the 'owner' and 'registered keeper'?
There may be a reason for the owner and registered keeper to be different individuals. For example, you may use a car that is owned by someone else in which case you would be the registered keeper. Or you may own a car that you allow your children to use and therefore the registered keeper would be one of your children.
Errr... WTF??? That's mad.There may be a reason for the owner and registered keeper to be different individuals. For example, you may use a car that is owned by someone else in which case you would be the registered keeper. Or you may own a car that you allow your children to use and therefore the registered keeper would be one of your children.
The registered keeper is the person who is named on the V5. The owner is the legal owner of the vehicle. In the case of a company car, the keeper is the employee and the owner is the company.
Am I missing something completely obvious here?
Confused.com looks to be very confused to me.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 8th February 09:41
That sounds very weird. So when they ask who is the owner and who is the registered keeper on these insurance questions, you basically have to say that it depends on who is driving the car at that specific moment.
So if it is parked in the garage, there is no registered keeper then? Always thought that the name on the V5 was the registered keeper. "Registered" as a name already suggests that it is recorded somewhere. It is not recorded when one of your children is driving at the time. Think they confuse the words "registered keeper" with "keeper" here, as the person who drives the car is the "keeper" at the time, but not necessarily the "registered keeper".
So if it is parked in the garage, there is no registered keeper then? Always thought that the name on the V5 was the registered keeper. "Registered" as a name already suggests that it is recorded somewhere. It is not recorded when one of your children is driving at the time. Think they confuse the words "registered keeper" with "keeper" here, as the person who drives the car is the "keeper" at the time, but not necessarily the "registered keeper".
JimboM said:
Unbeknown to me, I was only entitled to drive any other vehicle providing I didn't own that vehicle. I did not know this, so I admit a co*k up on my part.
Hmm...I would have that was well understood, but DOC cover is forever causing problems. If it worked the way you said, then you could have 2 cars - one insurance group 1 and one group 20 but only insure the group 1 car. There was talk of it being done away with a couple of years ago - some insurance companies dropped it off their policies, but it doesn't seem to have become widespread.One thing that does appear ridiculous in your case is that normally adding a husband or wife to a policy doesn't increase the premium - in fact with some insurers is reduces it.
Strangely Brown said:
Confused.com faqs said:
What is the difference between the 'owner' and 'registered keeper'?
There may be a reason for the owner and registered keeper to be different individuals. For example, you may use a car that is owned by someone else in which case you would be the registered keeper. Or you may own a car that you allow your children to use and therefore the registered keeper would be one of your children.
Errr... WTF??? That's mad.There may be a reason for the owner and registered keeper to be different individuals. For example, you may use a car that is owned by someone else in which case you would be the registered keeper. Or you may own a car that you allow your children to use and therefore the registered keeper would be one of your children.
The registered keeper is the person who is named on the V5. The owner is the legal owner of the vehicle. In the case of a company car, the keeper is the employee and the owner is the company.
Am I missing something completely obvious here?
Confused.com looks to be very confused to me.
Edited by Strangely Brown on Friday 8th February 09:41
As to the offence- I'd take it on the chin, just bad luck. Do NOT go down any route suggested re selling the car the day before etc the plod are very hot on this and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice nearly always ends in all concerned getting a jail term. Just take the points and put it down to experience.
Strangely Brown said:
Am I missing something completely obvious here?
Confused.com looks to be very confused to me.
They are talking rubbish. The registered keeper is the person named on the V5, and irrespective of driver it does not change unless the V5 is amended. The owner may or may not be the same person.Confused.com looks to be very confused to me.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 8th February 10:06
There must be more to this than meets the eye. I don't understand how the police could have known you were not insured. ANPR would have flagged the vehicle as insured, unless there is actually a defect in your wife's cover/MID entry.
Did you actually show them the policy documentation for both your own and your wife's car?
Did you actually show them the policy documentation for both your own and your wife's car?
No way am I taking this "on the chin".....! Thanks for the advice but I think I will take my chances. Surely the law is to do with evidence and what you can prove? Innocent until the basta*ds prove otehrwise! The courts rely on people rolling over and "taking it on the chin!" Let them earn their money for a change.
I can prove that I do not own the vehicle as I have a sales invoice transferring ownership to my wife, dated prior to the offence. Thats the ownership part taken care of.
I have sent the V5 off to the DVLA after by some stroke of luck, just the day prior to plod stopping me I saying to my wife "we should really transfer the car to you darling". Unfortunately, due to some confusion I didn't pop it in the post until today. I happened to only be doing a short journey in the car when they stopped me and never ever drive the car usually.
I can prove that I do not own the vehicle as I have a sales invoice transferring ownership to my wife, dated prior to the offence. Thats the ownership part taken care of.
I have sent the V5 off to the DVLA after by some stroke of luck, just the day prior to plod stopping me I saying to my wife "we should really transfer the car to you darling". Unfortunately, due to some confusion I didn't pop it in the post until today. I happened to only be doing a short journey in the car when they stopped me and never ever drive the car usually.
JimboM said:
Maybe it wasn't ANPR. Maybe they just ran the plates and it was registered to a male and the only person it was insured for was female? I am quite obviously not female as I am 6ft,19st and balding.
Ever thought about a police career?You seem to have the physical attributes.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff