No insurance - with a bit of a twist

[berlintaxi]

McVities said:

As I understand it, when points are added to a licence they are applied at the point of conviction and not the date of the original offence.
Quite happy to be corrected about this (being PH, no doubt I will be!).

Only for dangerous driving or a ban, drink driving etc.,otherwise the date of offence.

[speedking31]

I didn't think you could be banned in absentia, and therefore he will have to attend court. This is effectively a totting up ban, even though in one hit. There are people driving with >12 points, so why not a probationer with >6? Keep fingers crossed.

[kiethton]

speedking31 said:

I didn't think you could be banned in absentia, and therefore he will have to attend court. This is effectively a totting up ban, even though in one hit. There are people driving with >12 points, so why not a probationer with >6? Keep fingers crossed.

It's not a ban, it's a license rescindicaiton

[Durzel]

speedking31 said:

I didn't think you could be banned in absentia, and therefore he will have to attend court. This is effectively a totting up ban, even though in one hit. There are people driving with >12 points, so why not a probationer with >6? Keep fingers crossed.

It's not a ban of any kind. It's 6 points which triggers DVLA revoking his licence, completely independently of anything the court might decide to mete out. There's nothing stopping him taking his test again as soon as he is able.

[craigjm]

kiethton said:

speedking31 said:

I didn't think you could be banned in absentia, and therefore he will have to attend court. This is effectively a totting up ban, even though in one hit. There are people driving with >12 points, so why not a probationer with >6? Keep fingers crossed.

It's not a ban, it's a license rescindicaiton

I think the term is licence revocation but you are correct it is not a ban.

[kiethton]

craigjm said:

I think the term is licence revocation but you are correct it is not a ban.

That's the badger, forever getting similar words muddled

[surveyor_101]

Andehh said:

All a moot point, get a lawyer and do this properly.

Pistonheads & the ilk are great to discuss the point, but are worth bugger all in court.

There is some truth to that however he may not have the funds for a solicitor. These more minor motoring offences tend to be pretty absolute offences,

I had a duty solicitor when I was 18 clocked for 100 plus and he was useless, maybe made things worse. I belief you can't have a duty solicitor for more minor offence like this now. He said I would get 1 year ban take my 2k savings and make me resit my test. I got 4 month ban £800 fine!

I have successfully put a case for exceptional hardship and avoided a totting up ban without a solicitor who wanted £350 vat on the day and did not fancy my chances.

I read up on exceptional hardship and what circumstances the magistrates can apply it and defended myself so I do have some experience.

The fact that he didn't get a fixed penalty I believe suggests its ban lose licence scenario.

[anonymous-user]

Can anybody confirm that it is usual for the police to go through such fine details as whether or not commuting is listed on an insurance policy? Honestly, I am quite stunted that not having commuting listed on a policy is grounds for prosecution for a no insurance offense.

And before the grumpy, 'Its the same as driving without any insurance at all' bridge want to pipe up, feel free to show an example or two of third party liability cover being legally revoked by an insurance company in claims arising from circumstances like this, because I certainly cannot find any.

Where does it end?

"When starting your policy you claimed you'd cover at most 10,000 miles a year, but after verifying your MOT and service history you've covered 10,279 miles to this date (a day before renewal), so therefore we'll be seizing your vehicle for no insurance"?

Or

"When starting your policy you were clearly asked to declare any and all modifications, dealer accessories and optional extras above the standard specification, your car has optional heated seats you didn't tell your insurance company about. A recovery truck has been called"?

[craigjm]

kiethton said:

craigjm said:

I think the term is licence revocation but you are correct it is not a ban.

That's the badger, forever getting similar words muddled

I think you made the word recindication up not sure you would get that past the countdown judges

[speedking31]

Every day's a school day I'm sure I've heard phrases like 'totting up ban'.
Anyway, these guys reckon you can get a short ban rather than a totting up revocation. They don't have to worry about your future insurance premiums though

[surveyor_101]

speedking31 said:

Every day's a school day I'm sure I've heard phrases like 'totting up ban'.
Anyway, these guys reckon you can get a short ban rather than a totting up revocation. They don't have to worry about your future insurance premiums though

Either way his insurance is going to be bad for the next 5 years. Also if he get IN10 offence you can't get car finance I believe either.

Temp job might not wait 7-14 days, not exactly win win.

I dont think the JPs can impose less than 6 -8 points? Maybe 5 points and a fine would be more appropriate.

Does he live with parents or does he have a mortgage and dependants?

[surveyor_101]

279 said:

Can anybody confirm that it is usual for the police to go through such fine details as whether or not commuting is listed on an insurance policy? Honestly, I am quite stunted that not having commuting listed on a policy is grounds for prosecution for a no insurance offense.

Yes they can check these days easier now its on on MID, type of cover etc.

Depends in my experience they only do so if A your driving and pee'ed them off or B you failed the attitude test.

[Durzel]

279 said:

Can anybody confirm that it is usual for the police to go through such fine details as whether or not commuting is listed on an insurance policy? Honestly, I am quite stunted that not having commuting listed on a policy is grounds for prosecution for a no insurance offense.

And before the grumpy, 'Its the same as driving without any insurance at all' bridge want to pipe up, feel free to show an example or two of third party liability cover being legally revoked by an insurance company in claims arising from circumstances like this, because I certainly cannot find any.

Where does it end?

"When starting your policy you claimed you'd cover at most 10,000 miles a year, but after verifying your MOT and service history you've covered 10,279 miles to this date (a day before renewal), so therefore we'll be seizing your vehicle for no insurance"?

Or

"When starting your policy you were clearly asked to declare any and all modifications, dealer accessories and optional extras above the standard specification, your car has optional heated seats you didn't tell your insurance company about. A recovery truck has been called"?

It's usual for Police to check that someone is insured. As insurance can have several classes (commuting, business use classes 1-3, commercial, etc) then not having sufficient cover for the usage that they find yourself under means you aren't insured, which in simple terms means you have no insurance, not a little bit of insurance, or "I would've had the right insurance if I knew I was supposed to have XYZ". None.

[JayM85]

surveyor_101 said:

Either way his insurance is going to be bad for the next 5 years. Also if he get IN10 offence you can't get car finance I believe either.

Temp job might not wait 7-14 days, not exactly win win.

I dont think the JPs can impose less than 6 -8 points? Maybe 5 points and a fine would be more appropriate.

Does he live with parents or does he have a mortgage and dependants?

3 kids, another on the way, rented house rather than mortgage but still has to pay the rent, I don't think mitigating circumstances is a thing though for no insurance, it looks like it has to be special conditions which can give an absolute discharge which means DVLA don't automatically revoke.

[anonymous-user]

Durzel said:

It's usual for Police to check that someone is insured. As insurance can have several classes (commuting, business use classes 1-3, commercial, etc) then not having sufficient cover for the usage that they find yourself under means you aren't insured, which in simple terms means you have no insurance, not a little bit of insurance, or "I would've had the right insurance if I knew I was supposed to have XYZ". None.

If the OP's BIL wrote off my car on his way to work without commuting cover, it would have very little if any impact on my claim as a third party. His insurer would still be obliged to pay out.

If a guy that hasn't bothered to get any form of insurance what so ever, writes off my car, I'm stone cold screwed.

There's a very big practical difference in the two situations, and given the worry about 3rd party claims is a large part of the rhetoric out there against uninsured drivers, you could be fooled for thinking that the Police would be concentrating on people outright taking the piss (of which there are MANY still out there), as opposed to operating as an insurers' auditing service.

Further to the examples I mentioned earlier - The differences between relationship status can make a considerable difference to my premiums (more so than the difference between SDP and SDP&C), should I be calling my insurance co the next time I get dumped? Where, DOES it end? When am I not insured?

Edited by 279 on Monday 26th June 17:45

[dacouch]

279 said:

If the OP's BIL wrote off my car on his way to work without commuting cover, it would have very little if any impact on my claim as a third party. His insurer would still be obliged to pay out.

If a guy that hasn't bothered to get any form of insurance what so ever, writes off my car, I'm stone cold screwed.

There's a very big practical difference in the two situations, and given the worry about 3rd party claims is a large part of the rhetoric out there against uninsured drivers, you could be fooled for thinking that the Police would be concentrating on people outright taking the piss (of which there are MANY still out there), as opposed to operating as an insurers' auditing service.

Further to the examples I mentioned earlier - The differences between relationship status can make a considerable difference to my premiums (more so than the difference between SDP and SDP&C), should I be calling my insurance co the next time I get dumped? Where, DOES it end? When am I not insured?

Edited by 279 on Monday 26th June 17:45

In both of your examples, both drivers are uninsured and it becomes an MIB claim for an uninsured driver.

In your first example the MIB would (Normally) pass it back to the Insurer of the vehicle to pay the claim as an "Article 75 Insurer".

In your second example (Assuming there is no insurance policy on the vehicle) then the MIB would deal with the claim.

In the eyes of the law, both drivers were driving without Insurance.

If your idea had legs, Taxi drivers and Couriers would be ok taking out a policy for Social, Domestic and Pleasure Use only.

There is a reason that the Certificate of Insurance contains all of the wording it contains, this is due to this being required by the statute law covering Insurance. The Certificate states the registration of the vehicle, the drivers it covers, the from and to dates of cover and the permitted use as this is what the Insurer and thus the Certificate is covering.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

279 said:

Where does it end?

"When starting your policy you claimed you'd cover at most 10,000 miles a year, but after verifying your MOT and service history you've covered 10,279 miles to this date (a day before renewal), so therefore we'll be seizing your vehicle for no insurance"?

Or

"When starting your policy you were clearly asked to declare any and all modifications, dealer accessories and optional extras above the standard specification, your car has optional heated seats you didn't tell your insurance company about. A recovery truck has been called"?

If you said you'd do 10K miles a year, ending up doing 10279 isn't unreasonable, and certainly not pulling the wool over your insurers eyes. If you omitted heated seats, that's not unreasonable either, as it's hard to know what's standard or what isn't.

But certain things are easy to know, like if you drive to work, how old you are,who drives the car, where you live etc.

So if I insure my car for me and the wife, it's not unreasonable to know my son can't drive. If he drives he's uninsured, even though I have the car insured. If I say I'm 50, but I'm only 48, that's unreasonable also. It's not a reasonable mistake to make. If you declare pleasure use only, and you drive to work, that's unreasonable.

[BertBert]

So slightly OT, if the ins co is bound by law to pay out 3rd party liability anyway, how does that count as not insured?

[QuickQuack]

Since neither commuting nor business use add much, if anything, to a policy, why don't standard insurance policies for consumers just include all fecking driving? Why on earth is there such a distinction in the first place since it makes eff all difference to cost but can mean that some poor sod gets screwed over on a technicality? This is one thing that really boils my piss about car insurance. I'm not talking about fleet policies, company cars etc, only policies sold direct to consumers to insure their own vehicles (not forgetting bikes obviously).

[mickthemechanic]

I thought "A permanent place of work" was just a term used to exclude people using there private vehicle as a work vehicle say going from house to house window cleaning. Just because he was on a temporary contract has nothing to do with his insurance company. He was going to permanent place of work surely or am I missing something.