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

[BertBert]

It feels like a non-question. If he got one they are still in use. If he complies with the request all will be fine.

[Sebring440]

Pizzaman19 said:

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

Who gave this to him? If it was the police that gave your son this producer, you can assume it is still in use.

If it was the local ice cream van driver, you have every right to be suspicious.

[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.

[Bigends]

The Met and a few other forces don't use them anymore..many forces still do though. As long as he has proof that he was insured at the time of the stop he should be ok

[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.

[BertBert]

Yup, if he didn't manage to buy the insurance he wasn't 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

[Ezra]

There's not really any room to manoeuvre with insurance, you either have it or you don't. I doubt very much the police will simply look at a doc without checking with the insurer.

[Orang]

Pizzaman19 said:

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

Has he spoken to the insurer?

Some years ago I was stopped (one quiet Sunday afternoon) for no insurance. Turned out that I had not checked the documents details when they arrived in the post and the vehicle registration number was wrong. The police spoke to the insurer who confirmed that they would accept that I was insured with them.

Upshot of this was that I was told stay where `i was stopped until I had spoken to insurer and confirmed with them that they were sending out amended paperwork.

[vaud]

Ezra said:

There's not really any room to manoeuvre with insurance, you either have it or you don't. I doubt very much the police will simply look at a doc without checking with the insurer.

If he has a certificate then the insurer might consider it a debt.

If he doesn't have a certificate then...

[The Gauge]

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

[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?

[LosingGrip]

Pizzaman19 said:

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?

If he pops down to the station he'll be reported for no insurance. Normal process is to issue a FPN £300 fine and six points by the ticket office. However he could elect to go to court if he wishes.

Legal advice would be worth getting as to whether its worth going to court or not.

[LunarOne]

You could always sell the vehicle beforehand so it can't be seized!

[vaud]

Pizzaman19 said:

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?

No insurance is an absolute offence as I understand it (not a lawyer)

You could message AGTLaw https://www.counsel.direct/ who is an expert on motoring law and frequents this forum. Only ever heard positive things about him.

[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

[The Gauge]

Pizzaman19 said:

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.

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.

[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.”

[The Gauge]

I genuinely wish him the best of luck with getting a satisfactory outcome. Going on the way you have described it, it appears to be an easy mistake to make, but with the best of intentions. My son is currently at the stage of having driving lessons and when the time comes for him to consider insurance I'll be sure to make him aware of the potential issue.

I know that some scrotes use this method of appearing to have insurance cover without actually having it, kind of trying to pull the wool over the cops eyes. Hopefully if your lad is a decent kid then this will come through in court.