Court for no insurance.
Discussion
Poshbury said:
My daughter has been told to attend court for not having insurance on a car that she left with a car dealer to sell on his forecourt.
I have in my mind that his traders insurance should cover that eventuality.
Rather than the vehicle being used without insurance, is the allegation that, as the Registered Keeper, she failed to have in place a valid policy of insurance on the vehicle? I have in my mind that his traders insurance should cover that eventuality.
Google 'Continous Insurance Enforcement'.
justinio said:
Interesting (if unfortunate) dilemma.
I assume ANPR caught the car while out on a test drive and flagged as having no insurance (assuming your daughter had cancelled insurance).
Did she complete the V5, filling in the trader slip, or does she still have it?
Sounds like a "sale or return" type sale ,so she's still registered keeper.I assume ANPR caught the car while out on a test drive and flagged as having no insurance (assuming your daughter had cancelled insurance).
Did she complete the V5, filling in the trader slip, or does she still have it?
Poshbury said:
My daughter has been told to attend court for not having insurance on a car that she left with a car dealer to sell on his forecourt.
I have in my mind that his traders insurance should cover that eventuality.
It'll cover the car being used without any other insurance.I have in my mind that his traders insurance should cover that eventuality.
But it WON'T cover the car being kept uninsured and either taxed or unlicenced. Was it SORNed? If not, then that's what she's being tapped for - a breach of the continuous insurance regs, not being used without insurance - which would be the driver's problem anyway, not the keeper. She'd be bang-to-rights, too.
Continuous insurance has only been in place for six years now...
TooMany2cvs said:
Poshbury said:
My daughter has been told to attend court for not having insurance on a car that she left with a car dealer to sell on his forecourt.
I have in my mind that his traders insurance should cover that eventuality.
It'll cover the car being used without any other insurance.I have in my mind that his traders insurance should cover that eventuality.
But it WON'T cover the car being kept uninsured and either taxed or unlicenced. Was it SORNed? If not, then that's what she's being tapped for - a breach of the continuous insurance regs, not being used without insurance - which would be the driver's problem anyway, not the keeper. She'd be bang-to-rights, too.
Continuous insurance has only been in place for six years now...
The law only states that the vehicle has to be continuously insured, is it the law that the insurance has to be in a certain persons name or be on a database somewhere? Just seems like yet another law brought out specifically to go for the low hanging fruit again, You've got to love our Governments.
Typically motor trade policies will state that any vehicle in custody or control of the policyholder (ie the trader) and usually any employee or person under a contract to the policy holder, and any person demonstrating accompanied by the policyholder or employee/person under a contract, is covered for motor trade purposes. (not usually for SDP purposes, unless specified on the policy).
The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
If the motor trader has the keys, it's hard to see how it isn't covered by his motor trade policy against third party risks as it is specifically in his custody or control.
And unlike DOC, there seems no need to comply with any policy which an insurer might place, typically stating the vehicle must be covered elsewhere.
Your daughter/whoever may not be covered to driver her own vehicle, but explaining that the insurance for Third party risks lies with the person with custody or control, and that she does not, should surely be a reasonable explanation.
Indeed,lapsing/cancellation of the policy, may ensure that there is no claim to be met by her in the event of an incident, and that she's not cheekilly intending to use DOC on a variety of vehicles herself, by maintaining a master private policy on a vehicle she has essentially disposed of, pending a change of keeper notification from a sale, is one answer to the lapse/cancellation.
A letter from the trader explaining they had custody or control of the vehicle, and providing the details, will show that the vehicle is insured by the person using it.
Now as to the law, regarding continuous insurance, you'd be better speaking to a criminal expert possibly than a humble insurance clerk.
The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
If the motor trader has the keys, it's hard to see how it isn't covered by his motor trade policy against third party risks as it is specifically in his custody or control.
And unlike DOC, there seems no need to comply with any policy which an insurer might place, typically stating the vehicle must be covered elsewhere.
Your daughter/whoever may not be covered to driver her own vehicle, but explaining that the insurance for Third party risks lies with the person with custody or control, and that she does not, should surely be a reasonable explanation.
Indeed,lapsing/cancellation of the policy, may ensure that there is no claim to be met by her in the event of an incident, and that she's not cheekilly intending to use DOC on a variety of vehicles herself, by maintaining a master private policy on a vehicle she has essentially disposed of, pending a change of keeper notification from a sale, is one answer to the lapse/cancellation.
A letter from the trader explaining they had custody or control of the vehicle, and providing the details, will show that the vehicle is insured by the person using it.
Now as to the law, regarding continuous insurance, you'd be better speaking to a criminal expert possibly than a humble insurance clerk.
mickmcpaddy said:
How does that work then, The law says that insurance is an absolute offence, the car is either insured or it isn't.
Yup. And lack of a MID entry for the plate is taken as lack of insurance. If the RK can prove that it WAS insured, but not on MID for some other reason, then that would be a defence in court.mickmcpaddy said:
So if the vehicle is insured somewhere then its impossible for it to be "not insured"
But most trade policies require cars that are on risk for more than a trivial period to be put onto MID by the policyholder.mickmcpaddy said:
it cant be down to the keeper to have it insured either because if the dealer insured it properly then the keeper wouldn't get any summons.
Yup, if the dealer had put it on MID, there wouldn't be an issue. But it IS the keeper's problem, because they're the one legally responsible.mickmcpaddy said:
The law only states that the vehicle has to be continuously insured, is it the law that the insurance has to ... be on a database somewhere?
To all intents and purposes, yep. MID.mickmcpaddy said:
Just seems like yet another law brought out specifically to go for the low hanging fruit again, You've got to love our Governments.
It's hardly onerous to conform with, ffs. If it's taxed, it's gotta be on MID. If it's not on MID, it's gotta be SORN.Let's go back a step - if it's sat on the dealer's forecourt, sale or return, why is it taxed? SORN it, get the money back, and the dealer can use it on tradeplates for test drives.
Jujuuk68 said:
The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
MID changes have to be notified within 14 days, IIRC. Hardly difficult.mickmcpaddy said:
So failing to have a vehicle show up on MID is against the law?
No. Failing to have insurance on a car that is not SORN is against the law. Absence from MID is taken as evidence that the law has been broken, but it is not an offence in itself. If the car was covered and MID is wrong, no offence has been committed.Similarly, if a police car covered by the blues and twos exemption goes through a speed camera, that could trigger a notice but it wouldn't have identifeid an offience.
The difference is that there is no need to send out a s.172 notice so the DVLA moves straight to prosecution.
......so many unanswered question... did the daughter cancel her insurance (if so why ? or did it naturally expire ? did the daughter rell the trader that the car wasn't insured ? why did the trader allow the car on the road without trade plates ? did he think it was on MID and took a flier ? what has the trader got to say about it all ? where is the car now ?
Jujuuk68 said:
The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
MID changes have to be notified within 14 days, IIRC. Hardly difficult.
It is if you're of any size, or spread out over several sites,particularly if its the Fleet managers holiday, or you're a business doing a lot of repairs. Most insurance repairs, for example tend to take longer than 14 days, especially if AMC instructed. By the time the engineer is instructed, inspects, passes report to amc/solicitor, who then pass to the client to agree, before receiving back, sending by post to the insurer and then awaiting a cheque...
If webuyanycar for arguments sake, are buying hundreds of cars a day,over dozens of branches, and many sold in less than 14 days, how many cars will be showing on MID at any time when in their custody/control? They'll just be an insurance policy that maxes the vehicles on cover to say x hundred cars at any time, with broad policy terms like the max value of any vehicle £50k and a max fleet value of say £5 mill.
There's a reason most commercial motor trade polices covering fleets of any reasonable size are only required to inform the insurer say once per 1/4. Updating a broker is onerous. To update mid almost as much so. Given the traders tend to have their own MID access, it's astonishing how much stuff does go on mid then is not taken off til after the car is sold and inevitably after an accident, when the insurer queries cover "oh, we sold it x days ago!".
The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
MID changes have to be notified within 14 days, IIRC. Hardly difficult.
It is if you're of any size, or spread out over several sites,particularly if its the Fleet managers holiday, or you're a business doing a lot of repairs. Most insurance repairs, for example tend to take longer than 14 days, especially if AMC instructed. By the time the engineer is instructed, inspects, passes report to amc/solicitor, who then pass to the client to agree, before receiving back, sending by post to the insurer and then awaiting a cheque...
If webuyanycar for arguments sake, are buying hundreds of cars a day,over dozens of branches, and many sold in less than 14 days, how many cars will be showing on MID at any time when in their custody/control? They'll just be an insurance policy that maxes the vehicles on cover to say x hundred cars at any time, with broad policy terms like the max value of any vehicle £50k and a max fleet value of say £5 mill.
There's a reason most commercial motor trade polices covering fleets of any reasonable size are only required to inform the insurer say once per 1/4. Updating a broker is onerous. To update mid almost as much so. Given the traders tend to have their own MID access, it's astonishing how much stuff does go on mid then is not taken off til after the car is sold and inevitably after an accident, when the insurer queries cover "oh, we sold it x days ago!".
Jujuuk68 said:
Jujuuk68 said:
The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
MID changes have to be notified within 14 days, IIRC. Hardly difficult.
It is if you're of any size, or spread out over several sites,particularly if its the Fleet managers holiday, or you're a business doing a lot of repairs. Most insurance repairs, for example tend to take longer than 14 days, especially if AMC instructed. By the time the engineer is instructed, inspects, passes report to amc/solicitor, who then pass to the client to agree, before receiving back, sending by post to the insurer and then awaiting a cheque...
If webuyanycar for arguments sake, are buying hundreds of cars a day,over dozens of branches, and many sold in less than 14 days, how many cars will be showing on MID at any time when in their custody/control? They'll just be an insurance policy that maxes the vehicles on cover to say x hundred cars at any time, with broad policy terms like the max value of any vehicle £50k and a max fleet value of say £5 mill.
There's a reason most commercial motor trade polices covering fleets of any reasonable size are only required to inform the insurer say once per 1/4. Updating a broker is onerous. To update mid almost as much so. Given the traders tend to have their own MID access, it's astonishing how much stuff does go on mid then is not taken off til after the car is sold and inevitably after an accident, when the insurer queries cover "oh, we sold it x days ago!".
Yeah, I saw it.The vehicle may not be notified to the broker or insurer, as typically a trader may only have to declare vehicles once every quarter, and that declaration is generally limited to vehicles he owns, as the point of a trade policy is to allow customer vehicles to be driven for test/sale purposes, and so it's totally impractical for the MID to be updated on an hour by hour basis.
MID changes have to be notified within 14 days, IIRC. Hardly difficult.
It is if you're of any size, or spread out over several sites,particularly if its the Fleet managers holiday, or you're a business doing a lot of repairs. Most insurance repairs, for example tend to take longer than 14 days, especially if AMC instructed. By the time the engineer is instructed, inspects, passes report to amc/solicitor, who then pass to the client to agree, before receiving back, sending by post to the insurer and then awaiting a cheque...
If webuyanycar for arguments sake, are buying hundreds of cars a day,over dozens of branches, and many sold in less than 14 days, how many cars will be showing on MID at any time when in their custody/control? They'll just be an insurance policy that maxes the vehicles on cover to say x hundred cars at any time, with broad policy terms like the max value of any vehicle £50k and a max fleet value of say £5 mill.
There's a reason most commercial motor trade polices covering fleets of any reasonable size are only required to inform the insurer say once per 1/4. Updating a broker is onerous. To update mid almost as much so. Given the traders tend to have their own MID access, it's astonishing how much stuff does go on mid then is not taken off til after the car is sold and inevitably after an accident, when the insurer queries cover "oh, we sold it x days ago!".
This will just be another person doing something innocent that however many years back would have been a non-event , yet now in our over-regulated society has them criminalised under the guise of preventing some crime or another that those that actually commit continue to do so as they didn't care about the Law before and predictably don't care about modifications to it either.
Never mind, if the money (and convictions) roll in, then they can claim the success and the political capital that goes with it.
Jujuuk68 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
MID changes have to be notified within 14 days, IIRC. Hardly difficult.
It is if you're of any size, or spread out over several sites,particularly if its the Fleet managers holidayJujuuk68 said:
or you're a business doing a lot of repairs. Most insurance repairs, for example tend to take longer than 14 days, especially if AMC instructed. By the time the engineer is instructed, inspects, passes report to amc/solicitor, who then pass to the client to agree, before receiving back, sending by post to the insurer and then awaiting a cheque...
Minor detail - if the V5C's been sent back as being in trade, then continuous insurance doesn't apply.I think she'll be okay to be honest.
V5C isn't proof of ownership, so as long as in Court she can prove the date she sold the car (bank statements, receipt, etc.) then she can't be prosecuted for owning a car with no insurance, because it wasn't hers when the offence was committed.
For those above asking why the trader drove the car on the road without trader's plates, he didn't. The system has obviously flagged the car has no insurance and isn't SORN as the V5C is still in her name.
If you sell to a trader ALWAYS make sure the V5C is filled out and sent off yourself!
I'm surprised it's gone this far though? You must have had letters through the post at some point prior to be offered a court date?
V5C isn't proof of ownership, so as long as in Court she can prove the date she sold the car (bank statements, receipt, etc.) then she can't be prosecuted for owning a car with no insurance, because it wasn't hers when the offence was committed.
For those above asking why the trader drove the car on the road without trader's plates, he didn't. The system has obviously flagged the car has no insurance and isn't SORN as the V5C is still in her name.
If you sell to a trader ALWAYS make sure the V5C is filled out and sent off yourself!
I'm surprised it's gone this far though? You must have had letters through the post at some point prior to be offered a court date?
Joeguard1990 said:
I think she'll be okay to be honest.
V5C isn't proof of ownership, so as long as in Court she can prove the date she sold the car (bank statements, receipt, etc.) then she can't be prosecuted for owning a car with no insurance, because it wasn't hers when the offence was committed.
The OP states that the car had been left with the dealer to be sold, I get the impression it is on a sale or return basis and as such the daughter has not received any money for the car and the v5 has not been put into the dealers name.V5C isn't proof of ownership, so as long as in Court she can prove the date she sold the car (bank statements, receipt, etc.) then she can't be prosecuted for owning a car with no insurance, because it wasn't hers when the offence was committed.
Quite a mess and I'm intrigued to see how this pans out.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff