No insurance - with a bit of a twist
Discussion
Hi all,
Long time lurker, and don't like my first post asking for help, but needs must.
Brother in law (I know, I know, it really is though) was pulled over in his new (to him) car on his way to work, he had purchased it the day before and switched his insurance over the same day, all was good until he got pulled.
There are several points to make here.
The first, and perhaps most important is, he is (was) in his 2 year probationary period at the time of the offence - 2 years has now passed, he's just received the letter through asking him to submit his plea a couple of days ago and is no longer in the probationary period.
The second point is, he did have insurance on the car, however it did not cover commuting, and this is why, at the time of being pulled over, he had no insurance. This was an honest mistake - commuting didn't add any extra cost to his premium, and he was allowed to drive away after adding it on. He did not have commuting because the insurers website asks if you commute for work, and then adds a side note which states "including driving to or from a permanent workplace".
His job is not permanent, he is on a temporary contract and his boss has confirmed this with him since the offence, and did offer to attend court with him to make this clear.
However, as I understand it, driving without insurance is an absolute offence and he would receive 6 points on his licence, this would, in turn mean his licence would be revoked, there is no alternative for lesser points.
So - he is now faced with 3 options on the online plea part of the gov website:
Plead guilty and accept the 6 points and £300 fine
Plead not guilty and attend court (this seems unwise to me, he would be relying on the wording of the site and I feel that wouldn't stand up)
Plead guilty and opt to attend court - however, this again would mean he would argue his case, potentially he could use the special circumstances rule.
I should also add that he has 3 children (a 4th on the way) and is the sole earner, and his job relies on driving (not just to/from work, but as part of his job) although from what I've read, there is no lesser punishment available so he couldn't ask for leniancy in this case, is that correct?
Now - a slight twist
He asked me to take a look at the statement online, I had a quick look at it and the first thing I noted was, the registration was wrong (it had an extra letter) I believe this doesn't matter as there is a rule that allows for such mistakes, but I did mention it to him, he said he didn't have the letter handy to check, so I sent him the charge statement and he immediately pointed out the date was incorrect - the date shown online as the date of offence is over 2 months AFTER he was actually stopped, the date showing online would mean that he was no longer in the probationary period.
The date on the letter (which he has since been able to get hold of and check) shows the date he was stopped, but does show the incorrect registration (this, I believe is the officer's statement).
So - what does he do, is there any way for him not to lose his licence at this point?
Online he has the 3 options as above, my initial suggestion to him was to plead guilty but attend court and see if anything could be done but given the incorrect offence date showing on the charge, if he pleads guilty he would be lying, as he 100% did not commit that offence on that date.
A dishonest person might plead guilty to the offence on the incorrect date, meaning the 6 points would apply from then and not result in having his licence revoked, but that clearly isn't the way to go - what should he do in this case?
Long time lurker, and don't like my first post asking for help, but needs must.
Brother in law (I know, I know, it really is though) was pulled over in his new (to him) car on his way to work, he had purchased it the day before and switched his insurance over the same day, all was good until he got pulled.
There are several points to make here.
The first, and perhaps most important is, he is (was) in his 2 year probationary period at the time of the offence - 2 years has now passed, he's just received the letter through asking him to submit his plea a couple of days ago and is no longer in the probationary period.
The second point is, he did have insurance on the car, however it did not cover commuting, and this is why, at the time of being pulled over, he had no insurance. This was an honest mistake - commuting didn't add any extra cost to his premium, and he was allowed to drive away after adding it on. He did not have commuting because the insurers website asks if you commute for work, and then adds a side note which states "including driving to or from a permanent workplace".
His job is not permanent, he is on a temporary contract and his boss has confirmed this with him since the offence, and did offer to attend court with him to make this clear.
However, as I understand it, driving without insurance is an absolute offence and he would receive 6 points on his licence, this would, in turn mean his licence would be revoked, there is no alternative for lesser points.
So - he is now faced with 3 options on the online plea part of the gov website:
Plead guilty and accept the 6 points and £300 fine
Plead not guilty and attend court (this seems unwise to me, he would be relying on the wording of the site and I feel that wouldn't stand up)
Plead guilty and opt to attend court - however, this again would mean he would argue his case, potentially he could use the special circumstances rule.
I should also add that he has 3 children (a 4th on the way) and is the sole earner, and his job relies on driving (not just to/from work, but as part of his job) although from what I've read, there is no lesser punishment available so he couldn't ask for leniancy in this case, is that correct?
Now - a slight twist
He asked me to take a look at the statement online, I had a quick look at it and the first thing I noted was, the registration was wrong (it had an extra letter) I believe this doesn't matter as there is a rule that allows for such mistakes, but I did mention it to him, he said he didn't have the letter handy to check, so I sent him the charge statement and he immediately pointed out the date was incorrect - the date shown online as the date of offence is over 2 months AFTER he was actually stopped, the date showing online would mean that he was no longer in the probationary period.
The date on the letter (which he has since been able to get hold of and check) shows the date he was stopped, but does show the incorrect registration (this, I believe is the officer's statement).
So - what does he do, is there any way for him not to lose his licence at this point?
Online he has the 3 options as above, my initial suggestion to him was to plead guilty but attend court and see if anything could be done but given the incorrect offence date showing on the charge, if he pleads guilty he would be lying, as he 100% did not commit that offence on that date.
A dishonest person might plead guilty to the offence on the incorrect date, meaning the 6 points would apply from then and not result in having his licence revoked, but that clearly isn't the way to go - what should he do in this case?
I'd advise he gets lawyered up, pleads not guilty, attends court with said hotshot lawyer, and has the whole thing thrown out of court due to sloppy paperwork on the part of plod.
Judges have no problem punishing the police for unsatisfactory paperwork - this could absolutely work in your BIL's favour, especially if his lawyer is properly clued up (it's a waste of money getting a thick one, with no experience of this sort of thing).
Judges have no problem punishing the police for unsatisfactory paperwork - this could absolutely work in your BIL's favour, especially if his lawyer is properly clued up (it's a waste of money getting a thick one, with no experience of this sort of thing).
6 points on probation period just means he needs to retake his test.
In terms of commuting; the important aspect is that he is driving the car to a single place in order to work for that day; and that he's not using the car for business purposes by visiting multiple sites in a single day - as this obviously means the risk goes up as the car will be driven around more.
As confusing as the wording on the policy around commuting is... under what world did he think Social, Domestic and Pleasure would cover him for getting to/fro work.
edited to fix from provisional
In terms of commuting; the important aspect is that he is driving the car to a single place in order to work for that day; and that he's not using the car for business purposes by visiting multiple sites in a single day - as this obviously means the risk goes up as the car will be driven around more.
As confusing as the wording on the policy around commuting is... under what world did he think Social, Domestic and Pleasure would cover him for getting to/fro work.
edited to fix from provisional
I think he may well be stuffed. The side note saying "including..." is just clarifying part of the common definition of commuting, not restricting it to that. it's probably going to be an uphill battle to argue otherwise.
Most people would call "travelling to work", "commuting", even if the job is a temporary contract. If he's working as a self employed contractor then his use was probably "business use".
His only out I expect would be to get his insurance company to state that he was covered for that journey before he called up, which I expect they won't because he wasn't...
Most people would call "travelling to work", "commuting", even if the job is a temporary contract. If he's working as a self employed contractor then his use was probably "business use".
His only out I expect would be to get his insurance company to state that he was covered for that journey before he called up, which I expect they won't because he wasn't...
BMWBen said:
I think he may well be stuffed. The side note saying "including..." is just clarifying part of the common definition of commuting, not restricting it to that. it's probably going to be an uphill battle to argue otherwise.
Most people would call "travelling to work", "commuting", even if the job is a temporary contract. If he's working as a self employed contractor then his use was probably "business use".
His only out I expect would be to get his insurance company to state that he was covered for that journey before he called up, which I expect they won't because he wasn't...
It was a fairly new job on a temporary contract - he's not self employed, and doesn't drive his car for business, he drives one of the company vans which are covered under a separate policyMost people would call "travelling to work", "commuting", even if the job is a temporary contract. If he's working as a self employed contractor then his use was probably "business use".
His only out I expect would be to get his insurance company to state that he was covered for that journey before he called up, which I expect they won't because he wasn't...
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!).
From what I've read, they get applied from the time of the offence, otherwise I think he'd just take the points and get on with it as one of those lessons in life.Quite happy to be corrected about this (being PH, no doubt I will be!).
PurpleMoonlight said:
Why did he get pulled in the first place?
ANPR flagged for no insurance or tax as he'd just sorted it out the night before - he was able to show his email for tax on his phone, but his insurance company take "up to" 48 hours to email through amended documents so he couldn't show those - the officer rang the company who confirmed he had insured the vehicle, but then said he isn't insured for commuting - they then added commuting on there and then for him so he was able to keep the car/drive home.Edited by JayM85 on Monday 26th June 14:04
At what point was he asked what he was doing in terms of driving the car? ie where are you going?
Whenever I have ever been stopped by the police for whatever reason I have never been asked where I was going so how do they know that he was commuting and therefore "incorrectly insured"
Whenever I have ever been stopped by the police for whatever reason I have never been asked where I was going so how do they know that he was commuting and therefore "incorrectly insured"
craigjm said:
At what point was he asked what he was doing in terms of driving the car? ie where are you going?
Whenever I have ever been stopped by the police for whatever reason I have never been asked where I was going so how do they know that he was commuting and therefore "incorrectly insured"
He was followed into his work's car park, wearing the uniform, and then asked where he was going (I thought asking where you are headed was fairly common?) so it would have been pretty hard to claim he was going elsewhere - that and the fact he genuinely thought he was insured, so had nothing to hide. (The officer's notes do state that he seemed genuinely shocked and believes it was an honest mistake).Whenever I have ever been stopped by the police for whatever reason I have never been asked where I was going so how do they know that he was commuting and therefore "incorrectly insured"
JayM85 said:
craigjm said:
At what point was he asked what he was doing in terms of driving the car? ie where are you going?
Whenever I have ever been stopped by the police for whatever reason I have never been asked where I was going so how do they know that he was commuting and therefore "incorrectly insured"
He was followed into his work's car park, wearing the uniform, and then asked where he was going (I thought asking where you are headed was fairly common?) so it would have been pretty hard to claim he was going elsewhere - that and the fact he genuinely thought he was insured, so had nothing to hide. (The officer's notes do state that he seemed genuinely shocked and believes it was an honest mistake).Whenever I have ever been stopped by the police for whatever reason I have never been asked where I was going so how do they know that he was commuting and therefore "incorrectly insured"
Most peoples jobs aren't permanent in the sense that they are ever lasting, even when they're PAYE. I doubt your BIL will get very far arguing the semantics of "permanent". The word is pretty much used to disambiguate between Commuting cover and Class 1 Business Use, the latter being the correct cover for travelling between multiple places of work.
As a minimum even if he were confused as to the scope of the word "permanent" he should've erred on the side of caution and had one or the other, as Social, Domestic & Pleasure use is clearly insufficient to cover him travelling to offices to work - hence the pull. A court would rightly ask him why he thought his SD&P policy would cover him to travel to work.
Also it's been covered off already but it's the date of offence that counts for sentencing (and therefore probation), so it doesn't matter how long the process or paperwork gets drawn out - it won't help.
EDIT: I also think the fact commuting cover would've cost nothing to add is academic, since he presumably didn't know that until after he had been stopped, and if he had been in a total loss accident I'm sure the insurance company would've disclaimed liability due to insufficient cover. I also can't see them giving him a letter indemnifying him because they haven't made a mistake, they have indemnified the risk they were asked to cover. You can't modify your policy retrospectively to cover a use that you happen to get stopped for, otherwise everyone would do that and pay the difference when it came to it.
As a minimum even if he were confused as to the scope of the word "permanent" he should've erred on the side of caution and had one or the other, as Social, Domestic & Pleasure use is clearly insufficient to cover him travelling to offices to work - hence the pull. A court would rightly ask him why he thought his SD&P policy would cover him to travel to work.
Also it's been covered off already but it's the date of offence that counts for sentencing (and therefore probation), so it doesn't matter how long the process or paperwork gets drawn out - it won't help.
EDIT: I also think the fact commuting cover would've cost nothing to add is academic, since he presumably didn't know that until after he had been stopped, and if he had been in a total loss accident I'm sure the insurance company would've disclaimed liability due to insufficient cover. I also can't see them giving him a letter indemnifying him because they haven't made a mistake, they have indemnified the risk they were asked to cover. You can't modify your policy retrospectively to cover a use that you happen to get stopped for, otherwise everyone would do that and pay the difference when it came to it.
Edited by Durzel on Monday 26th June 14:36
Durzel said:
Most peoples jobs aren't permanent in the sense that they are ever lasting, even when they're PAYE. I doubt your BIL will get very far arguing the semantics of "permanent". The word is pretty much used to disambiguate between Commuting cover and Class 1 Business Use, the latter being the correct cover for travelling between multiple places of work. As a minimum he should've had one or the other, as Social, Domestic & Pleasure use clearly doesn't cover him travelling to offices to work - hence the pull.
Also it's been covered off already but it's the date of offence that counts for sentencing (and therefore probation), so it doesn't matter how long the process or paperwork gets drawn out - it won't help.
Thanks, yes - I thought perhaps the fact that he has been told it is specifically a temporary position rather than being given a permanent contract might make a difference. All of that aside though, when you log onto the gov site to submit a plea, it has the offence date as last week (rather than back in April, when it actually occured). What is the right course of action there - if he pleads guilty to the offence listed, he would be lying, as he didn't commit the offence last week.Also it's been covered off already but it's the date of offence that counts for sentencing (and therefore probation), so it doesn't matter how long the process or paperwork gets drawn out - it won't help.
I assume he should be ringing the court and letting them know about the mistake(s) since there are more than one? But in being honest he's also losing his licence (and by proxy, his job) which means the household income is gone.
MorganP104 said:
I'd advise he gets lawyered up, pleads not guilty, attends court with said hotshot lawyer, and has the whole thing thrown out of court due to sloppy paperwork on the part of plod.
Judges have no problem punishing the police for unsatisfactory paperwork - this could absolutely work in your BIL's favour, especially if his lawyer is properly clued up (it's a waste of money getting a thick one, with no experience of this sort of thing).
No, he will be wasting his money. You don't "get off" because of a slight error in paperwork. it will be corrected once it gets to court and the case continues.Judges have no problem punishing the police for unsatisfactory paperwork - this could absolutely work in your BIL's favour, especially if his lawyer is properly clued up (it's a waste of money getting a thick one, with no experience of this sort of thing).
If the poster was put at a disadvantage because of the error that is a different matter - he wasn't, it won't matter.
It seems to me that the keyof getting this resolved in the BIL's favour is to get the insurance company to provide confirmation that the commuting part of the cover would have been in place from the start of the policy, which would have covered him during the stop.
If there was no cost difference to add the commuting part, then there can be no accustation that the BIL was trying to avoid paying extra for commuting, and that it was just an admin error in it being missed from the start. Particularly so if the policy was only a day or so old anyway.
If there was no cost difference to add the commuting part, then there can be no accustation that the BIL was trying to avoid paying extra for commuting, and that it was just an admin error in it being missed from the start. Particularly so if the policy was only a day or so old anyway.
Mandat said:
It seems to me that the keyof getting this resolved in the BIL's favour is to get the insurance company to provide confirmation that the commuting part of the cover would have been in place from the start of the policy, which would have covered him during the stop.
If there was no cost difference to add the commuting part, then there can be no accustation that the BIL was trying to avoid paying extra for commuting, and that it was just an admin error in it being missed from the start. Particularly so if the policy was only a day or so old anyway.
The policy had been running for some time, but he switched it over to a new car, over the phone the night before - he wasn't working at the start of the policy so definitely wasn't commuting then, it's his fault for not thinking to change it, the ambiguity on the website was only noticed when he went to check after being pulled. Even though it didn't have an additional cost, it's unlikely they'll backdate the commuting coverage for him, and they did inform the police officer over the phone that he wasn't covered by commuting, but added it on there and then for him.If there was no cost difference to add the commuting part, then there can be no accustation that the BIL was trying to avoid paying extra for commuting, and that it was just an admin error in it being missed from the start. Particularly so if the policy was only a day or so old anyway.
Ignorance is no defence in law.
If your driving to work you need commuting. If your travelling all over for work you need to make sure your insurers are happy as some may charge more for a non fixed place. They often charge more for commuting.
Its not an honest mistake its ignorance, if he should of clarified this with his insurers.
In terms of date of offence that should be the day he was pulled and in his two years.
When I totted up I got to court months later and 3 of my points had expired but its date of offence not conviction I think you will find.
He may get away but they tend to take the 2 year probationary seriously in my experience. 6 points for not having correct insurance and I not aware that mags can be very flexible with it.
If your driving to work you need commuting. If your travelling all over for work you need to make sure your insurers are happy as some may charge more for a non fixed place. They often charge more for commuting.
Its not an honest mistake its ignorance, if he should of clarified this with his insurers.
In terms of date of offence that should be the day he was pulled and in his two years.
When I totted up I got to court months later and 3 of my points had expired but its date of offence not conviction I think you will find.
He may get away but they tend to take the 2 year probationary seriously in my experience. 6 points for not having correct insurance and I not aware that mags can be very flexible with it.
surveyor_101 said:
Ignorance is no defence in law.
If your driving to work you need commuting. If your travelling all over for work you need to make sure your insurers are happy as some may charge more for a non fixed place. They often charge more for commuting.
Its not an honest mistake its ignorance, if he should of clarified this with his insurers.
In terms of date of offence that should be the day he was pulled and in his two years.
When I totted up I got to court months later and 3 of my points had expired but its date of offence not conviction I think you will find.
He may get away but they tend to take the 2 year probationary seriously in my experience. 6 points for not having correct insurance and I not aware that mags can be very flexible with it.
Completely agree, however the date of the offence is showing as last week (rather than the actual date which was almost 3 months ago) on the online plea page - if he pleads guilty today to the offence (which he quite clearly is), he'd be pleading guilty to commiting the offence last week (which he didn't).If your driving to work you need commuting. If your travelling all over for work you need to make sure your insurers are happy as some may charge more for a non fixed place. They often charge more for commuting.
Its not an honest mistake its ignorance, if he should of clarified this with his insurers.
In terms of date of offence that should be the day he was pulled and in his two years.
When I totted up I got to court months later and 3 of my points had expired but its date of offence not conviction I think you will find.
He may get away but they tend to take the 2 year probationary seriously in my experience. 6 points for not having correct insurance and I not aware that mags can be very flexible with it.
In the grand scale of things, yes, it is ignorance, however it's quite obvious he didn't attempt to deceive and if he does end up having his licence revoked, nobody wins - he was paying (a not insignificant sum) for insurance, and driving to work which he fought hard to get, to provide for his partner and children, if he loses this job he'll be back on benefits until he can find something else, which is a lose lose situation as far as I'm concerned.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff