Oops no insurance, insurance |
Oops no insurance, insurance |
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 - 09:22
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 5 Aug 2004 From: SCOTLAND Member No.: 1,487 |
Last December i was stopped for speeding 42mph in a 30 zone (suspect) and while the checks were bieng done it was found that i was not covered by insurance it was my partners car who was fully insured and fully road leagal i at the time thought i was coverd by my own insurance policy for a car that i had which was also fully comp and which allowerd me to drive her car i had got rid of my car but had kept my policy running or i thought i had as it turns out my policy had ran out about 4 weeks previous so i was no longer covered. I was then charged with no insurance as well as the speeding (fair enough) The police then proceeded to sieze the car without informing my partner bearing in mind my partner is reg disabled and i was on my way to collect her from the hospital that didnt seem to matter thoughnow the car was 100 yards from the house but they still took it . Now the bad boy bit i already have 6 points on my licence i am my partners carer and i am looking at a ban under the totting up
Can anyone tellme did the police have the right to take the car and i am i really that stuffed thanks to all on this site Kev |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 - 09:22
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 - 11:40
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 449 Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Member No.: 10,168 |
Of course they have the right to seize the car. It was being driven by an uninsured driver. We'd all have had something to say if they'd let you carry on driving, and collided with an innocent victim.
You're looking at 6 points and £300 fine probably. If you can show genuine hardship to your partner or others relying on you, you might escape a totting ban. I wouldn't hold your breath though. Good luck. This post has been edited by borsicorn: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 - 11:42 |
|
|
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 - 11:54
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 937 Joined: 3 Mar 2009 Member No.: 26,706 |
As above,yes the police have every right to sieze the vehicle.
No insurance is an absolute offence,you didn't have it,so you're busted,sorry. Your only hope of avoiding a mandatory ban under the "totting up" is to prostrate yourself before the magistrate explaining your predicament regarding your partners need with you as a carer and hope the magistrate hasn't had a bad morning. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 - 10:46
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 299 Joined: 14 Mar 2005 Member No.: 2,564 |
Last December i was stopped for speeding 42mph in a 30 zone (suspect) and while the checks were bieng done it was found that i was not covered by insurance it was my partners car who was fully insured and fully road leagal i at the time thought i was coverd by my own insurance policy for a car that i had which was also fully comp and which allowerd me to drive her car i had got rid of my car but had kept my policy running or i thought i had as it turns out my policy had ran out about 4 weeks previous so i was no longer covered. I was then charged with no insurance as well as the speeding (fair enough) The police then proceeded to sieze the car without informing my partner bearing in mind my partner is reg disabled and i was on my way to collect her from the hospital that didnt seem to matter thoughnow the car was 100 yards from the house but they still took it . Now the bad boy bit i already have 6 points on my licence i am my partners carer and i am looking at a ban under the totting up Can anyone tellme did the police have the right to take the car and i am i really that stuffed thanks to all on this site Kev As an aside, having got rid of the car, the validity of the insurance poilicy would be questionable anyway. You have to have an "interest" in something to insure it which makes it dubious to insure something you don't own. Whether or not the third party cover would still apply is uncertain, however, the insurance companies first response I can pretty much guarantee would be no. |
|
|
Mon, 6 Apr 2009 - 12:40
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
Kev
QUOTE As an aside, having got rid of the car, the validity of the insurance poilicy would be questionable anyway. You have to have an "interest" in something to insure it which makes it dubious to insure something you don't own. Whether or not the third party cover would still apply is uncertain, however, the insurance companies first response I can pretty much guarantee would be no. nonsense ownership is not required for insurance to be taken out -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 - 14:12
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 209 Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,809 |
Kev QUOTE As an aside, having got rid of the car, the validity of the insurance poilicy would be questionable anyway. You have to have an "interest" in something to insure it which makes it dubious to insure something you don't own. Whether or not the third party cover would still apply is uncertain, however, the insurance companies first response I can pretty much guarantee would be no. nonsense ownership is not required for insurance to be taken out However, the process of taking out insurance always - in my experience - involves the question "Are you the owner of the vehicle?", and any change to that would certainly be the sort of material information which the insurance company would want to know ... and which the policy holder is legally obliged to give. |
|
|
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 - 14:19
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 449 Joined: 19 Jan 2007 Member No.: 10,168 |
So? What point are you making, Geek?
A person is insured to drive a vehicle. A vehicle is not insured. Whether or not a person owns a vehicle is irrelevant, so I don't understand your thought process. I can take out insurance for my son / daughter / mother / father to drive my vehicle. Which they clearly do not own. This post has been edited by borsicorn: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 - 14:20 |
|
|
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 - 14:46
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,749 Joined: 11 Oct 2007 From: hull Member No.: 14,394 |
So? What point are you making, Geek? A person is insured to drive a vehicle. A vehicle is not insured. Whether or not a person owns a vehicle is irrelevant, so I don't understand your thought process. I can take out insurance for my son / daughter / mother / father to drive my vehicle. Which they clearly do not own. Agreed, my motor trade policy covers anything, irrespective of owner. -------------------- ARSE DRINK FECK........
DRINK MORE TOILET DUCK 50 mls vodka 50 mls Red Bull 330 mls Blue Wkd 25 mls tequila |
|
|
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 - 14:56
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 900 Joined: 8 Aug 2006 Member No.: 7,035 |
IF the OP had got rid of his car, then someone else would be insuring it, as far as i know, you can't have two policies on the same vehicle. Also, as has been said, you need to have an interest in the insured object. I can't get contents insurance on my neighbours house and claim on it when they lose something.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc...2hddOalwrhP7O8g |
|
|
Wed, 8 Apr 2009 - 15:48
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13,506 Joined: 9 Jan 2008 From: manchester Member No.: 16,521 |
have you actually read that document or are you just quoting the introduction
you do not insure a vehicle under the road traffic act, you insure your self as driver of that vehicle,ie your insurence your self against your own negligence the interest you describe is the 3rd part liabilities ie you run over somebody and they want money, this clearly is a potential lost to your self and therefore covered similarly if you take out fully comp some one elses car and damage it, they have a claim against you for losses inured by your driving this again gives you an interest where it doesnt work is where the car is double insured for thief, where only the party who could demonstrate the loss would be able to make the claim -------------------- jobo
anyone but Murray, Wish granted for another year, |
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 10:36
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,689 Joined: 11 Sep 2007 From: Glasgow, Scotland Member No.: 13,654 |
Agreed.
Insurance is a nightmare... If you do not have it then your done. If you are speeding and do not wish to contest it then you are done. Others will be able to answer this one: Surely the OP would be done for the greater of the two offences, he could not be done with both??? I believe the insurance issue is more serious than the speeding and carries 6 points on it's own. This would lead to a totting ban of six months and a fine. I do not believe there is much room for discretion with regards to insurance. Are you in England and Wales? If so then you can mitigate where by you admit the offence but put forward mitigating circumstances such as the issues that would be caused with regards to transporting your 'better half'. Not unusual for people to have more than 12 points these days... -------------------- I am who I am... If you do not know who I am then treat me as such... Words of wisdom are easily handed down but the message conveyed is most likely lost within the mis-interpretation of what is put forth. Mortality is short lived but long lasting...
Want to hear about MY success stories??? Well, I'm still alive! Gotta count for something... I've also managed to re-produce... As for the law, well I like to think I have made head way on occasion but it's a cut throat world and no sooner have you won than you're taking part in another race....... Guilty until proven innocent... Speed doesn't kill... Poorly designed, constructed and maintained roads do... Do not try to bend the rules for that is impossible. Instead, first understand that there are NO rules... When will we learn that ‘teaching someone a lesson’ never teaches anything but resentment -- that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance. – Harry Browne |
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 14:25
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 33,634 Joined: 2 Apr 2008 From: Not in the UK Member No.: 18,483 |
Others will be able to answer this one: Surely the OP would be done for the greater of the two offences, he could not be done with both??? I believe the insurance issue is more serious than the speeding and carries 6 points on it's own. This would lead to a totting ban of six months and a fine. No, speeding and no insurance are two separate offences and both can be charged. A lesser offence can not be charged when it is a "lesser included offence" in a more serious offence. Eg theft will not be charged along with robbery, as theft is part of the robbery (unless as an alternative charge). The position is slightly different when it comes to passing sentence as there is the totality principle, which says that the aggregate of the sentences handed down should reflect the totality of the offending. In other words, you don't just pass the full sentence on each offence. You pass the full sentence on the most serious offence and then reduce the sentence on the less serious offences (or even impose no separate penalty) in order to reflect the true totality of the offending. -------------------- 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. |
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 17:01
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 209 Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Member No.: 24,809 |
So? What point are you making, Geek? A person is insured to drive a vehicle. A vehicle is not insured. Whether or not a person owns a vehicle is irrelevant, so I don't understand your thought process. I can take out insurance for my son / daughter / mother / father to drive my vehicle. Which they clearly do not own. It's not the situation which matters, it's the change in the situation. When the OP took out the insurance, he owned the car, and I am sure he told the insurance company that. Later he stopped owning the car. That's a material change to the circumstances, and as such he has to tell the insurance company, just as he would have to tell them if he modified the vehicle during the year. So? What point are you making, Geek? A person is insured to drive a vehicle. A vehicle is not insured. Whether or not a person owns a vehicle is irrelevant, so I don't understand your thought process. I can take out insurance for my son / daughter / mother / father to drive my vehicle. Which they clearly do not own. Agreed, my motor trade policy covers anything, irrespective of owner. Great. Can I claim against it if I have an accident, then? Or does it, perhaps, only cover you for claims against you as the driver (and possibly any employees you have)? |
|
|
Thu, 9 Apr 2009 - 17:37
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,689 Joined: 11 Sep 2007 From: Glasgow, Scotland Member No.: 13,654 |
Thanks Southpaw.
I wan't too up to speed on the ins and outs but I am now. Thank you. -------------------- I am who I am... If you do not know who I am then treat me as such... Words of wisdom are easily handed down but the message conveyed is most likely lost within the mis-interpretation of what is put forth. Mortality is short lived but long lasting...
Want to hear about MY success stories??? Well, I'm still alive! Gotta count for something... I've also managed to re-produce... As for the law, well I like to think I have made head way on occasion but it's a cut throat world and no sooner have you won than you're taking part in another race....... Guilty until proven innocent... Speed doesn't kill... Poorly designed, constructed and maintained roads do... Do not try to bend the rules for that is impossible. Instead, first understand that there are NO rules... When will we learn that ‘teaching someone a lesson’ never teaches anything but resentment -- that it only inspires the recipient to greater acts of defiance. – Harry Browne |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Wednesday, 17th April 2024 - 20:32 |