Caught driving with no insurance question
Discussion
Hi,
A friend (honest!) has just been ticketed for no insurance and has been told by the police to take the matter to court due to the circumstances. (Bitter ex canceled insurance without telling etc).
I've two questions that I can't google the answer to:
1) To my naive mind this seems brave and very difficult to prove she didn't know. (I full well know she wouldn't have known, she's a stand-up citizen, but to PROVE?)
2) She was told to challenge to get the offence dropped. Surely the offence has been committed and the best outcome is minimal points/fine?
She was treated very well by the police I should add and I apologise if this is a stupid question.
Thanks.
A friend (honest!) has just been ticketed for no insurance and has been told by the police to take the matter to court due to the circumstances. (Bitter ex canceled insurance without telling etc).
I've two questions that I can't google the answer to:
1) To my naive mind this seems brave and very difficult to prove she didn't know. (I full well know she wouldn't have known, she's a stand-up citizen, but to PROVE?)
2) She was told to challenge to get the offence dropped. Surely the offence has been committed and the best outcome is minimal points/fine?
She was treated very well by the police I should add and I apologise if this is a stupid question.
Thanks.
I'm afraid that driving without insurance is a “strict liability” offence. This means that without proper insurance covering the driving, you are considered guilty of the offence.
A friend of mine found this out when caught having failed to renew his policy as his wife was dying of cancer and his mind was fully dealing with that and keeping his young family going.
But if she is a credible witness, the court will see the absence of any intention to do so as a mitigating factor.
He was, I think, convicted but not fined or punished in any way.
A friend of mine found this out when caught having failed to renew his policy as his wife was dying of cancer and his mind was fully dealing with that and keeping his young family going.
But if she is a credible witness, the court will see the absence of any intention to do so as a mitigating factor.
He was, I think, convicted but not fined or punished in any way.
Hmm, it sounds to me like your friend could potentially play the victim card, here.
Most insurance companies keep records of who does what (phone calls, eMails, etc.), so they would most likely be able to trace who cancelled the insurance, and when it was done. She also has the advice of the Police, which they will be duty bound to admit giving, should they be asked to.
I would advise that your friend gets lawyered up, and goes from there.
Side note: If I were her, I'd be keen to avoid the points/fine, as an "IN10" (i.e. no insurance) offence code on one's driving licence is a lot worse than having points for speeding (in terms of the effect on future insurance premiums).
Most insurance companies keep records of who does what (phone calls, eMails, etc.), so they would most likely be able to trace who cancelled the insurance, and when it was done. She also has the advice of the Police, which they will be duty bound to admit giving, should they be asked to.
I would advise that your friend gets lawyered up, and goes from there.
Side note: If I were her, I'd be keen to avoid the points/fine, as an "IN10" (i.e. no insurance) offence code on one's driving licence is a lot worse than having points for speeding (in terms of the effect on future insurance premiums).
The police called the insurance company, the details of the transactions can only bolster her case.
So it's right then that the offence has been committed, and the best outcome is that the court deems no fine/points - does that mean she won't have to declare on her insurance?
Thanks.
(Whilst I agree lawyering-up would be great, I'm hoping a bit of a disproportionate option from a cost perspective)
So it's right then that the offence has been committed, and the best outcome is that the court deems no fine/points - does that mean she won't have to declare on her insurance?
Thanks.
(Whilst I agree lawyering-up would be great, I'm hoping a bit of a disproportionate option from a cost perspective)
Edited by Bear-n on Saturday 3rd February 21:00
The only possible get out for driving without insurance is if you're driving a company car and had every reason to believe it was insured. So your friend is stuffed. Her only crumb of satisfaction is that the ex can be prosecuted too, for aiding and abetting no insurance, an IN12 conviction.
I got nicked for no insurance, in my case I had phoned up esure and asked them to renew , they didn’t ! They had it all recorded , which was a massive result . They simply provided me with a letter of indemnity saying that they would have covered me in the event of an accident, took it police station and that was that! I would be going back to the insurer and ask for said letter! If they haven’t followed procedure of the cancellation was fraudulent then they might just type one up !
Infact my one was emailed to me and I printed it out , I took that and to my knowledge they didn’t verify it , they crossed something of in a log book and handed it back to me !
Infact my one was emailed to me and I printed it out , I took that and to my knowledge they didn’t verify it , they crossed something of in a log book and handed it back to me !
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The only possible get out for driving without insurance is if you're driving a company car and had every reason to believe it was insured. So your friend is stuffed. Her only crumb of satisfaction is that the ex can be prosecuted too, for aiding and abetting no insurance, an IN12 conviction.
That is wrong. If her ex was able to cancel the policy, then I presume he was the policyholder? So if he was that bitter an ex, why on earth was she still driving around on his insurance...?
If he wasn't the policyholder, then I'd be asking the insurer why they accepted his instruction to cancel, and demanding they provide a letter saying that she was actually covered, but they'd dropped a b
k, terribly sorry.
If he wasn't the policyholder, then I'd be asking the insurer why they accepted his instruction to cancel, and demanding they provide a letter saying that she was actually covered, but they'd dropped a b
k, terribly sorry.cashmax said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The only possible get out for driving without insurance is if you're driving a company car and had every reason to believe it was insured. So your friend is stuffed. Her only crumb of satisfaction is that the ex can be prosecuted too, for aiding and abetting no insurance, an IN12 conviction.
That is wrong. Potentially a special reasons case. Basically, a guilty plea but if D can establish no fault (especially if misled) then anticipate no points. Prosecutor must be put on notice of the application. Avoid one office ‘national’ solicitors as they will over-promise, underdeliver and overcharge.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
In what way?
To aid and abet another individual in the commission of a crime would infer that the individual committing the crime is knowingly doing so.If what you say is true, and we accept that the person committing the crime was not only unaware they were doing so but were also doing the same thing they had done previously and knew to be legal numerous times, then it would appear to be a not dissimilar situation for the driver to the company car scenario you mentioned. And therefore somewhat contradictory to deal with it any differently.
Entirely different, for example, to continuing to drive after the expiration of a policy because the driver thought the vehicle was insured without verifying the expiration date.
matjk said:
I got nicked for no insurance, in my case I had phoned up esure and asked them to renew , they didn’t ! They had it all recorded , which was a massive result . They simply provided me with a letter of indemnity saying that they would have covered me in the event of an accident, took it police station and that was that! I would be going back to the insurer and ask for said letter! If they haven’t followed procedure of the cancellation was fraudulent then they might just type one up !
Infact my one was emailed to me and I printed it out , I took that and to my knowledge they didn’t verify it , they crossed something of in a log book and handed it back to me !
Sounds like it wasn't cancelled fraudulently though, if it was a joint policy that she was still driving on then either of them could cancel it at any time if they had the security information the company asks. If she had her own policy that he knew the details for then that's a different matter. Infact my one was emailed to me and I printed it out , I took that and to my knowledge they didn’t verify it , they crossed something of in a log book and handed it back to me !
I was also under the impression its an absolute offence, but mitigation can be taken into account by a judge, your friend could be found guilty but then given an absolute discharge as the sentence, so yes, they did it, but the punishment is in effect negated.
I am not a lawyer etc etc......
I am not a lawyer etc etc......
surely there are two scenarios:
ex had right to make changes to / cancel the policy
in which case it was the driver's responsibility and they didn't ensure they were covered, etc.
ex had no right to cancel the policy
in which case the contract should still stand as it has not been cancelled legally, she should still be covered and the issue is simply that it was no longer recorded on the insurance database... legal requirement is to be covered, not to be on the database, so if this is the scenario, the insurance company need to resolve the issue by confirming that they took the wrong action and undo the consequences...
not sure why either of those scenarios need to go to court...
ex had right to make changes to / cancel the policy
in which case it was the driver's responsibility and they didn't ensure they were covered, etc.
ex had no right to cancel the policy
in which case the contract should still stand as it has not been cancelled legally, she should still be covered and the issue is simply that it was no longer recorded on the insurance database... legal requirement is to be covered, not to be on the database, so if this is the scenario, the insurance company need to resolve the issue by confirming that they took the wrong action and undo the consequences...
not sure why either of those scenarios need to go to court...
Stoofa said:
Post at Pepipoo - I'm sure one of their lawyers/solicitors will give you the realistic chances of escaping this one.
Or contact AGT who posted in this thread and who’s a top barrister specialising in motoring cases?http://www.counsel.direct
TooMany2cvs said:
If her ex was able to cancel the policy, then I presume he was the policyholder? So if he was that bitter an ex, why on earth was she still driving around on his insurance...?
If he wasn't the policyholder, then I'd be asking the insurer why they accepted his instruction to cancel, and demanding they provide a letter saying that she was actually covered, but they'd dropped a bk, terribly sorry.
This ^^^If he wasn't the policyholder, then I'd be asking the insurer why they accepted his instruction to cancel, and demanding they provide a letter saying that she was actually covered, but they'd dropped a b
k, terribly sorry.OP ?
Appreciate the continuing advice folks, but didn't intend to dwell on the underlying reason too much - mainly because I don't know the ins and outs, other than he paid for the year in full when they were more happily married, then cancelled it without telling her after they separated (they are still married and if I'm honest, from overhearing conversations there's a fair bit of mental abuse in play) . The police seemed happy with the facts after a call to the insurance company, I guess why they advised her next steps as such.
I'm trying to do some research on her behalf, as she's a decent sort (she used to work for me) and I don't want to see her get shafted. She doesn't earn a lot too so I've been googling (what fun that is eh?) her chances of getting criminal legal aid.
Just trying to do what I can without infringing on her privacy too much :-)
This AGT person (*waves*) that has posted on the thread, thanks; I wouldn't be as cheeky as to just contact you for advice, but if you were feeling prepared to give some advice to the actual lady in question that would be fantastic. Of course, I absolutely don't expect that, but like I say she is the decent sort and appreciate your advice so far anyhow; I wish my googling would stop taking me to the sites you talk of!
I'm trying to do some research on her behalf, as she's a decent sort (she used to work for me) and I don't want to see her get shafted. She doesn't earn a lot too so I've been googling (what fun that is eh?) her chances of getting criminal legal aid.
Just trying to do what I can without infringing on her privacy too much :-)
This AGT person (*waves*) that has posted on the thread, thanks; I wouldn't be as cheeky as to just contact you for advice, but if you were feeling prepared to give some advice to the actual lady in question that would be fantastic. Of course, I absolutely don't expect that, but like I say she is the decent sort and appreciate your advice so far anyhow; I wish my googling would stop taking me to the sites you talk of!
Edited by Bear-n on Sunday 4th February 19:34
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff