No Insurance But Not Stopped Options

[bumbler]

Hi, I bought a car from a garage and ended up driving it the 2 miles home without insurance, on a dual carriageway I passed a police traffic car that was on the opposite side of the road. The car ive bought obviously set his alarm off as his lights came on but he didn't move from where he was parked as there wasn't anywhere for him to turn around onto my side of the carriageway and give pursuit for several miles so I assume he decided he wouldn't have a realistic chance of stopping me.

I know the minimum punishment for no insurance is 6 points and a fine and if it comes to it then ill accept it but what do you think from your experience is likely to happen in this situation? As I see it the outcomes are,

1, the officer decides as he didn't stop the car he can't identify the driver so doesn't follow it up, I get lucky

2, the officer looks up the registered owner details finds it's registered to the garage currently and decides it must have been the trader using it on his trade policy and doesn't follow it any further, again I get lucky

3, as 2 but the officer contacts the garage who let them know when they sold it today and I receive a visit from the police or something in the post

do they issue a nip for no insurance requiring the registered owner to identify the driver as they do for speeding offences?

Hopefully some of you will offer me some advice without just admonishing me for what I've done, it's done now my interest is just in what may happen going forward.

Thanks

[Advertisement]

[Jlc]

If they were to pursue then they could issue a request to name the driver to the registered keeper.

Nothing you can do until you receive such a request. (Failing to comply with that request is also 6 points)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 17:58

[bumbler]

I knew that when a nip for speeding is issued your required to name the driver but I didn't know you could have to identify the driver if requested for other offenses I thought the onus was on the police to prove their point.

thanks

[peterguk]

I knew that when a nip for speeding is issued your required to name the driver but I didn't know you could have to identify the driver if requested for other offenses I thought the onus was on the police to prove their point.

thanks

The police identify the vehicle from VRN. Then issue a S.172 request to the RK to identify the driver. A S.172 request can be issued for any (or certainly most) situation/s where an offence is believed to have been committed.

If you had just bought the vehicle, it could be some weeks before you receive a S.172.

This post has been edited by peterguk: Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 18:23

[The Rookie]

No. an S172 request requiring the driver to be named can be issued for any alleged motoring offence.

The statute predates speed cameras by a long time, speeding isn’t a special case.

[andy_foster]

No. an S172 request requiring the driver to be named can be issued for any alleged motoring offence.

Curiously it doesn't apply to riding without a crash helmet - not that that assists the OP.

172 Duty to give information as to identity of driver etc in certain circumstances.

(1)This section applies—

(a)to any offence under the preceding provisions of this Act except—

(i)an offence under Part V, or

(ii)an offence under section 13, 16, 51(2), 61(4), 67(9), 68(4), 96 or 120,

and to an offence under section 178 of this Act,

(b)to any offence under sections 25, 26 or 27 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,

©to any offence against any other enactment relating to the use of vehicles on roads, F2. . . and

(d)to manslaughter, or in Scotland culpable homicide, by the driver of a motor vehicle.

[cp8759]

I would have thought for this offence a section 171 notice would have been used, either alone or in combination with a s172 notice.

The police do not routinely pursue vehicles that are showing up as no insurance unless they're actually stopped at the time. The simple reason is you get far too many false positives and it's not worth the effort to send out notices when most vehicles will turn out to be insured anyway. Most vehicles that show up as no insurance on the MiB / PNC actually have some sort of cover in place, be it a temporary policy, trade policy or whatever else.

IMO chances are the copper put his lights on for some completely unrelated reason, such as a call coming in but incomplete or contradictory location information coming over the radio.

[Churchmouse]

The police do not routinely pursue vehicles that are showing up as no insurance unless they're actually stopped at the time. The simple reason is you get far too many false positives and it's not worth the effort to send out notices when most vehicles will turn out to be insured anyway. Most vehicles that show up as no insurance on the MiB / PNC actually have some sort of cover in place, be it a temporary policy, trade policy or whatever else.

Someone driving on "DOV" under their own policy would not show up on MIB, either, so would also be a "false positive" as far as that goes.

--Churchmouse

[rosturra]

Someone driving on "DOV" under their own policy would not show up on MIB, either, so would also be a "false positive" as far as that goes.
--Churchmouse

But in an DOV policy - the car needs to be insured in its own right first.

[Steve_999]

Someone driving on "DOV" under their own policy would not show up on MIB, either, so would also be a "false positive" as far as that goes.
--Churchmouse

But in an DOV policy - the car needs to be insured in its own right first.

Not necessarily. I have two policies, one car and one motorhome. One stipulates as you suggest and the other does not.

[The Rookie]

Someone driving on "DOV" under their own policy would not show up on MIB, either, so would also be a "false positive" as far as that goes.
--Churchmouse

But in an DOV policy - the car needs to be insured in its own right first.

As above, nope, some DOV cover requires it is, others do not.

[NewJudge]

Someone driving on "DOV" under their own policy would not show up on MIB, either, so would also be a "false positive" as far as that goes.
--Churchmouse

But in an DOV policy - the car needs to be insured in its own right first.

As above, nope, some DOV cover requires it is, others do not.

Quite true.

But if the vehicle were not insured in its own right the Registered Keeper would (bar the statutory exceptions) be guilty of an offence under the continuous insurance legislation.

[The Rookie]

Well indeed, but there are a reasonable number of exemptions!

[NewJudge]

Well indeed, but there are a reasonable number of exemptions!

None that I could imagine applying here.

[cp8759]

But if the vehicle were not insured in its own right the Registered Keeper would (bar the statutory exceptions) be guilty of an offence under the continuous insurance legislation.

But the police do not pursue that offence: while they technically could, they leave the keeper insurance offences to DVLA (AFAIK the police wouldn't even have the paperwork to deal with it). As has been mentioned, there are numerous exemptions to that legislation. On top of that, while it's not an exemption as such, if you have temporary cover for say 24 hours, it'll never show up on the MiB because it takes longer than that for the database to be updated.

The bottom line is if the police sent a s171 notice every time they got a no insurance ping on ANPR, they would do nothing else, as most "detections" would be false positives.

Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any OP post on here about a s171 notice where they were not stopped at the time.

[NewJudge]

Agreed, cp. Thanks for the additional info. I fear that we (or more specifically I) were veering off-topic anyway!