HORT1 still in use?

[Pizzaman19]

Hi all, my son was given an HORT1 the other day but are they still valid and in use by the plod ?

If so when producing proof of 24 hr temporary insurance do they just review the cover note and if all appears in order say off you go lad or do they check with the insurer ?

It’s been 20 years since I’ve seen one of those.

Thanks in advance

[Pizzaman19]

Thanks for the reply. Even the officer said he had not used one of these in over 20 years and that he was doing it to cut my son some slack and give him the opportunity to present the documents. However, the thought occurs to me as to whether this was a legal way of letting him off.

[Pizzaman19]

Poor kid, it looks like if the above is true, it looks like he’s going to lose his license because there was an administrative error when he was purchasing temporary insurance and the payment didn’t go through even though he had full intentions to be insured.

[Pizzaman19]

That’s true, he missed the “log on to the hsbc app to verify payment” after the insurance company accepted the application. It’s not as if he was intentionally driving without insurance

[Pizzaman19]

The Gauge said:

The police will have checked his insurance status on their work device, seen that he has no insurance but issued the HORT1 to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm guessing he came across to them a decent lad and not a scrote, hence the producer. Seems though that he wasn't actually insured if he didn't verify payment with the insurer.

There will be lots of people get short term insurance cover without actually verifying the payment so that they have a cover note if stoped by police, who will be well aware of this scam. The police wont know if your lad made a genuine mistake, or was trying to work/scam the system. I'm guessing he will be reported for no insurance and he will have to discuss any mitigating circumstances with the magistrates.

Edited by The Gauge on Monday 26th February 09:30

Thank you for this most accurate and sensible reply. I suppose the question now remains is it worth going to court to demonstrate that he was genuinely trying to make payment and not blatantly driving without insurance. If he attends the police station without evidence of insurance, I believe that he will be issued with six points. Instantly his license will be revoked and the vehicle seized rather than be given any opportunity to discuss with the magistrate.

So the question remains, is it worth seeking legal advice and going to court to put his case before a magistrate?

[Pizzaman19]

Thank you, for that I have already spoken to a specialist motoring law solicitors in Liverpool. I have explained the story to him and he has advised that he thinks my son will have good chances, pleading, special reasons as the whole law hinges upon whether the person knowingly drove without insurance, or believe that they were insured at the time of the event, the solicitors suggested that my son go and produce the documents or explain at the police station why he is unable to produce the documents. He will then receive a fixed penalty notice within a couple of months and he should not accept them and choose to go to court where he completed his case , and hopefully the court will like him and give him a diminished or reduced judgements, resulting in not getting points and accepting a short 7 to 14 day ban instead

[Pizzaman19]

The Gauge said:

They wont now seize his car in those circumstances. They will only seize his car if he is caught driving again without insurance, so his car is safe.

The officer who issued him the producer could have seized his car there and then and reported him to the courts (or fixed penalty) for driving without insurance, but obviously the cop decided to give him some leeway and offer him some time to produce his insurance certificate if he had one. For that you perhaps need to be grateful, as a different cop may have handled it differently.

Bear in mind if he goes not guilty and is then found guilty he could face a stiffer punishment than accepting the points, but from this point on I'd follow any legal advice you receive.

The advice from The solicitor is to go in with a guilty plea and explain that there were special reasons why he was driving without Insurance that hinge around the fact that he was completely unaware that he was driving without Insurance, having attempted to book temporary insurance prior to the journey.

Asda, I explained the circumstances to the solicitor. This is the suggested way forward.

“ Further to our conversation, it is my advice that we may assist in this matter by preparing the case and thereafter providing representation, based on a guilty plea with mitigation before the court. It will be our aim to seek to avoid the endorsement of penalty points based on ‘special reasons’, pursuant to section 44 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, on the grounds of Ilan’s genuine and honest belief (held reasonably) that adequate insurance was in place at the material time, relying upon Rennison v Knowler [1947].

In the event that ‘special reasons’ are not found, we will thereafter seek to present ‘plea in mitigation’ before the court, with the aim of seeking to persuade the court to impose a short-term discretionary disqualification from driving in the alternative to a penalty point endorsement so as to avoid the revocation of his driving licence by DVLA, under the ‘new driver’ provisions (accumulating 6 or more penalty points for an offence / offences committed within the first 2 years of driving) pursuant to The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995.”

[Pizzaman19]

agtlaw said:

What you’ve described is not likely to amount to special reasons. If you get a weak bench then it is possible, but unlikely. Very optimistic to describe your prospects of success as “good.”

Guilty plea followed by a short ban is a realistic expectation of sentence.

Thank you kindly for taking the time to reply. When I spoke to C D Solicitors they asked if there was evidence of him having temporary insurance from the insurance company before to which I replied yes and we have at least 5 cover notes from them. We can also demonstrate that my son used the web page to book insurance the day before the event even though the attempt was unsuccessful it is still in the browser cache.

This is an excerpt from the email exchange today.

“ It will be our aim to seek to avoid the endorsement of penalty points based on ‘special reasons’, pursuant to section 44 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, on the grounds of Ilan’s genuine and honest belief (held reasonably) that adequate insurance was in place at the material time, relying upon Rennison v Knowler [1947].

In the event that ‘special reasons’ are not found, we will thereafter seek to present ‘plea in mitigation’ before the court, with the aim of seeking to persuade the court to impose a short-term discretionary disqualification from driving in the alternative to a penalty point endorsement so as to avoid the revocation of his driving licence by DVLA, under the ‘new driver’ provisions”

The outcome we are hoping for is that his license isn’t revoked. If you think that will be highly unlikely then I am at a loss. I would be very grateful for your opinion

Thank you

[Pizzaman19]

LosingGrip said:

Just wondering how much are you paying for this advice?

Is it not cheaper to take the FPN, go back to a provisional and then go for a retest?

If AGTLaw is saying its a weak chance...

Take in to account that his insurance would double and it’s already near unaffordable now.

[Pizzaman19]

agtlaw said:

“The defendant must show that he was in some way misled. An honest belief can amount to special reasons only if there were reasonable grounds for that belief: Rennison v Knowler [1948] 1 K.B. 488. However, the High Court said in that case, as the respondent had failed to ascertain properly the extent of his policy, he could not establish reasonable grounds for that belief. Lord Goddard L.C. said:
“The obvious duty, therefore, of the owner is to see that he is insured and to make himself acquainted with the contents of his policy. He is not obliged to have a motor vehicle, but, if he does, he must see that he has such a policy as the law requires. If he does not understand his policy, he can seek guidance and instruction, but, if he neither informs himself of its provisions nor gets advice as to what it covers, we are unable to see that he has any reasonable ground for believing that the policy covers something which it does not. Belief, however honest, cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as a special reason unless it is based on reasonable grounds.”([1948] 1 K.B. 488 at 494)” – Wilkinson’s Road Traffic Offences

I fail to see that he was misled into believing that he was insured.

As I understand it, he did not complete the payment process. That’s not misleading. He didn’t check for confirmation. He didn’t receive any indication that the insurance policy was in force.

This would be a different matter if a parent arranged the insurance, cocked it up, then informed a son or daughter that the insurance had been sorted. In those circumstances, son or daughter would have reasonable grounds to argue Special Reasons as he or she was misled.

SR is a weak argument in the circumstances outlined. I estimate prospects of success at no more than 20%.

However, revocation can be avoided by arguing for a short ban rather than penalty points. You do not have to establish SR to get this outcome. You only need a sympathetic bench.

Thank you. I will contact the aforementioned solicitors today. I had already thought about this and had drawn a similar conclusion to yours on the basic ground that it is up to him all the parent to establish that the insurance is valid and in place and not seeing the process to the end is his responsibility. Therefore I agree it is weak ground for special reasons.

We will hope for a sympathetic bench. The 18-year-old in question is a seriously likable person and has a very hummable personality. Everybody loves him, including the police officer that did not immediately sees his vehicle and issue a fixed penalty.. it’s a testament to his personality that the police waited an hour for a colleague to go back to the station and bring back the antiquated producer forms to give him the best chance.

[Pizzaman19]

The Gauge said:

I've never arranged a short term cover note, so do the insurance company issue the cover note before the payment was due to be made? I'd have thought they would wait for payment to be made before issuing any cover note.

The cover notice is electronic in as much as the files section of my wife’s portal are updated. It’s not a physical principal cover note and yes that’s issued after payment. However one assumes that there will be no problem after you. Click the page now button

[Pizzaman19]

The Gauge said:

I've never arranged a short term cover note, so do the insurance company issue the cover note before the payment was due to be made? I'd have thought they would wait for payment to be made before issuing any cover note.

The cover notice is electronic in as much as the files section of my wife’s portal are updated. It’s not a physical principal cover note and yes that’s issued after payment. However one assumes that there will be no problem after you. Click the page now button

[Pizzaman19]

Okay, the plot thickens having spoken to a legal firm who are very experienced. In this matter. There is a good chance that if special reasons are not considered that they can plea for guilty and take a short ban instead of endorsing the license. The benefits from that would mean that he would not have the points on his license and not have his license revoked. However, from any Insurance points of view, he would still have the conviction for driving without insurance however, no points will be added to his license now I need to understand how that affects his insurance quotations, whether they will consider it as a full driving without insurance conviction or will they take into consideration the fact that he was not endorsed with points on his license, meaning that the court were lenient, because they believed his claim that he was unaware that he had no insurance.