Uninsured driver no FPN issued at time of stop |
Uninsured driver no FPN issued at time of stop |
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:36
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
Hi all,
Hoping for a bit of advice on the following please! Bit of an odd one here. I paid for our fully comp insurance on our car at time of purchase - full annual policy. My girlfriend was stopped last week and was cautioned by a police officer for driving without insurance. We were both hugely surprised - it transpired insurance co had tried to charge the wrong bank card (the one I initially bought the policy with) even though I had used a different card to pay for it on the call. They are checking the phone call and contacting me tomorrow (9.7) with further info. They had cancelled the policy - my partner had missed the letter assuming it was marketing stuff. This is totally our fault obviously on the letter front. Police officer very sympathetic at time of stop (maybe two pretty girls driving had something to do with it!). He took a statement and as mentioned cautioned her. He said that she might get a NIP in the post but sometimes these never get issued. She got temp cover via a phone call (they said she didn't need to declare the points with this, am guessing as she hasn't plead not/guilty yet) but they didn't require any proof of this cover. My questions: Should she have been given a FPN at the time with a ticket number etc? Should the officer have taken her licence away to add the points to it? Thanks for the advice. All seems a bit odd as she was not given ANYTHING by the officer - no paperwork at all. Cheers, Will This post has been edited by Son of Captain A: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:37 -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:36
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 18:54
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Life Member Posts: 24,214 Joined: 9 Sep 2004 From: Reading Member No.: 1,624 |
My questions: Should she have been given a FPN at the time with a ticket number etc? Should the officer have taken her licence away to add the points to it? No. No. QUOTE All seems a bit odd as she was not given ANYTHING by the officer - no paperwork at all. Most, if not all, forces now operate a centralised system - instead of the occifer deciding whether to deal with an alleged offender by reporting them for consideration of prosecution, issuing an FPN or just giving them a bollocking, a Traffic Offence Report is submitted and someone in an office somewhere makes the decision. The alleged offender is usually given a copy of the TOR, although there is no legal requirement to do so. -------------------- Andy
Some people think that I make them feel stupid. To be fair, they deserve most of the credit. |
|
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:11
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Given that they normally seize cars for no insurance, and normally she would be given a copy of the TOR, it sounds like it was just a warning. Possibly a combination of being pretty and him calling the insurance company and them confirming the failed payment, as opposed to no policy at all.#
As has been said the confirmation will be if you receive nothing further through the post from the police. If the insurance company concede it was their error they may well retrospectively cover anyway, which is a certain defence. Being pretty can get you a long way. I had an attractive friend who used to hare along the motorways (at 1xxmph speeds). She used to wear nothing under her leathers, and tactically unzip her top if stopped. Apparently the police were very understanding. |
|
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:21
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
"She used to wear nothing under her leathers, and tactically unzip her top if stopped. Apparently the police were very understanding. Gonna try this next I'm out on my bike lol Thanks for the insight. I'll keep you posted - it should be 14 days right? Or is it up to 6months? -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:46
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,306 Joined: 4 Mar 2017 Member No.: 90,659 |
Give it a try. I would but I suspect it would antagonise them and I'd get a bit of pepper spray for my trouble.
There is no requirement for it to be within 14 days if your partner was warned she could be reported for prosecution at the time. That is difficult to confirm second hand but likely so as your partner has gathered the no insurance aspect. Either way the police seem to tend to send it within fourteen days regardless. If you wanted to you could chase it. Or just not poke the hornet's nest. Either way with the insurance company if they confirm it is their error it is very important to push for retrospective cover. Even if not push for it as a gesture of goodwill. That is your insurance policy (pardon the pun) against an expensive six points conviction. This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 20:49 |
|
|
Sun, 8 Jul 2018 - 21:04
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,610 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
There is no requirement for it to be within 14 days if your partner was warned she could be reported for prosecution at the time. That is difficult to confirm second hand but likely so as your partner has gathered the no insurance aspect. Either way the police seem to tend to send it within fourteen days regardless. There is no requirement under s 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in respect of an insurance offence, so no 14 day time limit at all. The lack of a seizure may be because cover was obtained immediately over the phone and as such the officer considered seizure to be disproportionate. -------------------- Moderator
Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed. |
|
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 09:25
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 349 Joined: 21 Apr 2016 Member No.: 83,881 |
There is no requirement for it to be within 14 days if your partner was warned she could be reported for prosecution at the time. That is difficult to confirm second hand but likely so as your partner has gathered the no insurance aspect. Either way the police seem to tend to send it within fourteen days regardless. There is no requirement under s 1 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in respect of an insurance offence, so no 14 day time limit at all. The lack of a seizure may be because cover was obtained immediately over the phone and as such the officer considered seizure to be disproportionate. Discretion, may also extend to accepting this was an honest mistake and not taking things any further regarding the no insurance. (Stranger things have happened!) -------------------- If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 14:18
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
I had a long chat with our insurance company who ended up saying they would reinstate the policy from today with a letter of indemnity covering us from the point of cancellation to now so I think we're in the clear.
Could anyone advise on next steps with the police if we get a letter/NIP? Should I do anything in advance of this? Thanks, Will -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Mon, 9 Jul 2018 - 15:00
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
Until you have contact details for the person dealing with it, not much you can do, but when you get that information send them a copy (COPY) with a simple explanation that payment was attempted and the insurance company has accepted it was there failing and that the driver was in fact insured at the material time.
As a aside its good to see an insurance company correcting a mistake readily and not putting the customer through the ringer. -------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 08:17
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
Just a quick one - nothing received so far. If nothing (no NIP) is received within 14 (working?) days, is that the end of it?
Thanks -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 08:27
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 56,198 Joined: 9 Sep 2003 From: Warwickshire Member No.: 317 |
As above, a few times, No.
-------------------- There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!
S172's Rookies 1-0 Kent Council PCN's Rookies 1-0 Warwick Rookies 1-0 Birmingham PPC PCN's Rookies 10-0 PPC's |
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 09:23
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 3,300 Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Member No.: 47,602 |
Just a quick one - nothing received so far. If nothing (no NIP) is received within 14 (working?) days, is that the end of it? Thanks No, and there is no need for her to be sent a NIP. She may be sent a COFP, or a court summons/requisition. The only deadline is six months to initiate the latter. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 09:24
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
Just a quick one - nothing received so far. If nothing (no NIP) is received within 14 (working?) days, is that the end of it? Thanks No, and there is no need for her to be sent a NIP. She may be sent a COFP, or a court summons/requisition. The only deadline is six months to initiate the latter. So it's just a case of sit and wait for six months? We have no FPN/Ticket number etc. -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 09:56
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 41,510 Joined: 25 Aug 2011 From: Planet Earth Member No.: 49,223 |
Unless you have a point of contact the it may be difficult.
They may initiate a prosecution but your defence will be (if it goes that far) that you can prove you had insurance cover at the material time - I'd ensure you have written evidence from the insurer if you don't already... -------------------- RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 12:40
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
The below is what they have written to us - this ok?
"To whom it may concern: We understand a query has arisen regarding the motor insurance arrangements of XXXXXX, whilst driving vehicle registration XXXXXX, on the XX/XX/XX. We are not able to issue a replacement Certificate of Motor Insurance for the date in question, however we can confirm that Diamond are prepared to indemnify the above driver for their use of this particular vehicle on that date, in accordance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988. If you require further information about this, please contact our Police Liaison Office on XX. Our opening hours are Monday to Friday 8am to 8pm, Saturday 9am to 5pm and Sunday 9:30am to 4pm. Yours sincerely" -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 16:26
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
What a lot of Police Forces do now is issue a Traffic Offence Report (TOR) instead of an FPN(E). The alleged Offender is told that they are being reported for the Offence of xxx, and that they'll hear from the Police at a later date as to whether or not they'll be prosecuted.
The TOR goes off to (in my force) the Traffic Criminal Justice Unit who make the actual decision and inform the driver by letter. As Southpaw says below, the fact that the Insurance Co. was prepared to offer cover is no doubt what prevented seizure. |
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 17:33
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
As Southpaw says below, the fact that the Insurance Co. was prepared to offer cover is no doubt what prevented seizure. Is the fact they are willing to indemnify rather than back date the insurance enough? Cheers and apologies if this seems like a stupid question but it's our first time through this. -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 18:31
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,572 Joined: 28 Mar 2010 Member No.: 36,528 |
The insurers state that they are prepared to indemnify the driver in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, which is what is required. That is therefore sufficient and the absence of back-dating presumably means that a few days have been obtained free.
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 19:56
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 80 Joined: 7 Aug 2008 Member No.: 21,682 |
The insurers state that they are prepared to indemnify the driver in accordance with the Road Traffic Act, which is what is required. That is therefore sufficient and the absence of back-dating presumably means that a few days have been obtained free. I can't deny your logic. Thank you! -------------------- Me vs Islington 1-0
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Jul 2018 - 22:07
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 634 Joined: 8 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,778 |
If it were me I’d be contacting the police explaining (as you said at the time) you are insured and it was an insurance company mistake. Then provide the letter the insurance co have given you rather than wait for any summons.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 08:57 |