PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] No valid insurance
coke_zero
post Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 17:44
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,347



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? - Met police
Date of the offence: - 17/1/18
Date of the NIP: - 17/1/18
Date you received the NIP: Verbally
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - Swandon way SW11
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Yes
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? - Brother of the registered keeper
How many current points do you have? - 9
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons -

Was driving home in my sisters car from doing some shopping - went to refill fuel at petrol station and there was a marked police car sitting there. After I paid, I was approached by the police car and asked who the car belonged to as it's registered to a female. Told them it was my sisters car and they did their checks. They came back and said I am not insured on her policy which, I am not. I have my own insurance policy on my own car and I was not aware that I was not allowed to drive other vehicles. I confirmed with the insurance company over the phone when I took the policy out that I'd be able to drive other vehicles and I was told I would be able to. My mistake but I never actually checked the policy documents as they were never posted to me but were all available online. Had a long conversation with the officers explaining the entire situation to them. They told me the car would be impounded but my sister was on her way home and asked the officers over the phone if she could come to collect the car to avoid it being impounded. They were very reluctant at first but eventually had another call to attend to so left me there with the car to wait for my sister - then told me they'd check that I didn't end up driving it again lol.

I know I probably don't have much luck and my only option would be to take the points but since I already have 9 points this will mean an automatic totting up ban. Would it be worth going to court (perhaps with a motoring solicitor) to argue the case that I was under the impression that I was insured or perhaps ask for a lesser ban like 2 weeks rather than the 6 months.

I'm responsible for taking my mother to her hospital appointments since she's of elderly age and not in the greatest of conditions so it would be a major inconvenience to our lives as I'd have to accompany her by public transport or pay for a cab to take her there and back a few times a week.

Input would be greatly appreciated.

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - No
Is the NIP addressed to you personally? - Yes
Although you are not the Registered Keeper, were you the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England
- Yes

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Sat, 09 Jun 2018 17:44:27 +0000

This post has been edited by coke_zero: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 17:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 74)
Advertisement
post Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 17:44
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 11:03
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,707
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The other issue in my mind is that a court may not be inclined to allow you time to go through the complaint process based on the fact you did nothing for 6 months, it could well take another 3-4 months to resolve the complaint via the ombudsman.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 12:13
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 12:03) *
The other issue in my mind is that a court may not be inclined to allow you time to go through the complaint process based on the fact you did nothing for 6 months, it could well take another 3-4 months to resolve the complaint via the ombudsman.

There is something in this but I don't think it's determinative. A compelling case can be put to the court that insurance is a civil law matter, the most appropriate forum for disputes over the validity of an insurance policy is the ombudsman and not the Magistrates' Court, and the court would be in a better position to do justice if it were to do so with the benefit of an ombudsman's ruling.

But even if all else fails, if the OP is convicted and the ombudsman later rules he was insured after all, it should be obvious that it would be in the interests of justice to reopen the case and overturn the conviction.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 13:38
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,562
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 13:13) *
But even if all else fails, if the OP is convicted and the ombudsman later rules he was insured after all, it should be obvious that it would be in the interests of justice to reopen the case and overturn the conviction.

The problem being that if he is convicted and makes an unsuccessful Exceptional Hardship plea, he will have served a good bit of a six month ban by then.

It's a great pity that the OP did nothing for the six months before the hearing. If he had set matters in motion with his insurer and then possibly the Ombudsman he would have a strong case to seek an adjournment until that process had been concluded. As it is I'm inclined to agree that the court may not be so sympathetic to such a request.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dacouc
post Tue, 26 Jun 2018 - 17:43
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 378
Joined: 26 Feb 2013
Member No.: 60,232



Did you arrange the policy direct with XS direct or through a broker such as One Call?

If so was it the broker that told you that driving other cars was included
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
coke_zero
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 00:08
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 9 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,347



Yeah, I know I should not have left it for 6 months but I really just forgot about the whole situation. I had so much going on with work and personal issues at home. I kept telling myself I'll contact a motoring solicitor then after about 2 weeks I forgot the whole thing even occurred.

I went through a broker called A-Choice. By the way, I did not set up the policy over the phone. I initially found the quote on compare the market. I then called them up in order to try and bargain with them to see if they would reduce the quote further - it was this conversation which I had asked the rep if I was able to drive other vehicles and was told yes. Unfortunately, they also would not barter on the price at all so I said I'll complete the purchase online in order to get the meerkat from compare the market (lol).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 06:01
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,707
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I think that’s you stuffed then, the conversation could for, no part of the contract, I think your wasting your time even trying.

Bad news is if you thought the insurance was expensive before, just wait until you’re declaring an IN10 as well, first year premium can as much as double.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 09:19
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 132
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



QUOTE (coke_zero @ Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 18:44) *
I confirmed with the insurance company over the phone when I took the policy out that I'd be able to drive other vehicles and I was told I would be able to.


No you didn't. You had a chat with a third party, who was not involved in your independent purchase of an insurance policy via the internet.

Your only hope is to plead hardship on the basis of your sick mother...

The only mitigation, I can think of, is that previously your fully comp. insurance always included other vehicles. And it was your assumption that this was always the case.
Obviously wrong, I'm mortified etc.
This could be supported by details of your previous insurance.

You did have comprehensive insurance, didn't you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
disgrunt
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 10:12
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 8 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,778



Is it worth the OP pleading guilty and asking for special reasons not to endorse?

The grounds being the OP spoke to broker A-choice (an FCA regulated company and specialist in insurance)
The OP explained their requirements which included DOV (did A-choice do a factfind?)
A-Choice recommended this policy
The OP then sourced the same policy online where they thought they had got it cheaper
Had the OP completed the purchase with A-choice then they would have been insured because the FOS would have forced A-choice to honour the contract entered into.

In this case the phone call with A-choice could be helpful. A subject access request should be submitted to A-choice immediately.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 11:04
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,562
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (disgrunt @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 11:12) *
Is it worth the OP pleading guilty and asking for special reasons not to endorse?

Don't ask, don't get of course. But my view is that there is no chance that the court will find Special Reasons. Taking advice from a broker and then going on to buy the policy by another means, then compounding that by not examining the policy documents as usually advised (and which should be done even if it was not advised) does not show sufficient diligence. Motor insurance is a serious business and drivers must take no risks with their cover (at least, that's how I believe the court will see it).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 12:31
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,470
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



The issue for me isn't that he got a quote from A-Plan, then later bought it online.

He arranged his own quote, then called A-Plan, then proceeded to got a policy from his original quote anyway.

Maybe if the OP had called the insurer it might be different but I would imagine the ombudsman would expect the OP to be reading the terms of the policy they had created a quote for.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
disgrunt
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 12:49
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 8 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,778



Agree, it’s not looking good for the OP but a lot would hinge on the call he made to the broker. If the OP could get this then it could help their case (or not) regardless of the actual mechanics of buying the policy.

In the OPs position i’d Be trying anything that might help me, however remote
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 15:17
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,916
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 13:31) *
The issue for me isn't that he got a quote from A-Plan, then later bought it online.

He arranged his own quote, then called A-Plan, then proceeded to got a policy from his original quote anyway.

Maybe if the OP had called the insurer it might be different but I would imagine the ombudsman would expect the OP to be reading the terms of the policy they had created a quote for.

The ombudsman has repeatedly ruled that they don't expect consumers to read the small print. Without hearing a recording it's impossible to say anything definitive, but the ombudsman can, and regularly does, over-rule the small print where he or she deems that is the only way to treat the consumer fairly. Whether, giving the timing issues, this is a route that should be pursued, is a different matter.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 17:00
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,562
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 16:17) *
The ombudsman has repeatedly ruled that they don't expect consumers to read the small print.

Who could second-guess what the Ombudsman might rule? But surely, SP, DOVs is not "small print". It is a fundamental provision (or not) of the policy. I've never specifically asked for it but I always check any new policy to see whether or not it has been included.

I believe the OP should have done likewise, especially as he gained his information from a third party via whom he did not buy the policy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 20:38
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,470
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 16:17) *
The ombudsman has repeatedly ruled that they don't expect consumers to read the small print. Without hearing a recording it's impossible to say anything definitive, but the ombudsman can, and regularly does, over-rule the small print where he or she deems that is the only way to treat the consumer fairly. Whether, giving the timing issues, this is a route that should be pursued, is a different matter.

Indeed but I am yet to see the ombudsman rule that a third party called only to find if they could beat a price then had vicarious liability for a transaction carried out with a first party.

Or that the first party should be bound by incorrect advice from a third party.

I would say it is quite normal when comparing insurance to receive different quotes often for the same underwriter with different terms. It is to me fairly widely understood that any terms apply to that policy quote only. In a regulated sector you never know but realistically we are talking flying pigs.

If the OP had completed the transaction with A-Plan it would be an entirely different kettle of fish of course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Churchmouse
post Thu, 28 Jun 2018 - 00:23
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,956
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
From: Landan
Member No.: 20,731



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 21:38) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 27 Jun 2018 - 16:17) *
The ombudsman has repeatedly ruled that they don't expect consumers to read the small print. Without hearing a recording it's impossible to say anything definitive, but the ombudsman can, and regularly does, over-rule the small print where he or she deems that is the only way to treat the consumer fairly. Whether, giving the timing issues, this is a route that should be pursued, is a different matter.

Indeed but I am yet to see the ombudsman rule that a third party called only to find if they could beat a price then had vicarious liability for a transaction carried out with a first party.

Or that the first party should be bound by incorrect advice from a third party.

I would say it is quite normal when comparing insurance to receive different quotes often for the same underwriter with different terms. It is to me fairly widely understood that any terms apply to that policy quote only. In a regulated sector you never know but realistically we are talking flying pigs.

If the OP had completed the transaction with A-Plan it would be an entirely different kettle of fish of course.

It would have been a bit more clear, yes. But, A-Plan wasn't just any 'ol third party, it was acting as an agent of the insurer, attempting to induce the OP to propose a particular policy of insurance. As it happens, the OP completed the purchase of the policy elsewhere, but (it is claimed), based, in part, on the erroneous inducement provided by the insurer's agent concerning the same policy. I don't think this argument will get the OP very far on its own, but it could be helpful--if the call recording can be obtained and it supports the OP's version of events. There will certainly be insurance case law relating to the actions of agents in analogous situations. (The call recording--if any--would therefore be with A-Plan...who was the complaint going to be made to?)

--Churchmouse
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 19th October 2018 - 05:46
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.