Mayhem007
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 10:24
A friend to all of us was followed by police into private car park of a care home. The police advised that the car she was driving was not on the insurance database. She immediately phoned her insurance company and was advised that the insurance had not been renewed. She then immediately renewed the insurance over the phone, within 15 minutes of being questioned by police.
The police officer in his infinite wisdom refused to confirm that the car was insured and still had the car impounded. She was given notice of intended prosecution for not having insurance. She followed the towing company and then had to pay £150 for it to be released.
Our friend has her own beauty therapy company and has had insurance for 30 years. All previous policies from different companies automatically renewed her insurance unless she informed them of any changes to the policy. Last years policy was with a new company. I will attach the letter in the next post as soon as I cleared some space. ( appears to have attached the letter
)
The letter states that she should phone to renew her policy, but also says that she needs to phone if any circumstances have changed. She firmly believed that she only needed to phone the company if any details had changed.
Privilege has confirmed that their letter could be misconstrued and are looking at rewording their letters.
She has now been given notice of prosecution and has decided to appear at court either for mitigation or not guilty plea. Mitigation is probably the most likely way forward.
Click to view attachment
Jlc
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 10:53
The 'What to do now' box is quite clear? 'Please call on the Renewal Customer Helpline to renew your policy'
I wouldn't go pleading not guilty. Pleading guilty and trying special reasons not to endorse.
I presume this is recent, so uninsured since November 2014? Would the insurer provide a statement that they would have been insured at the material time? (It's quite a period of time - one would normally expect to account for the cost?)
PASTMYBEST
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 10:53
Your pdf contains some personal info name and dob i would edit it.
Your friend needs to get a letter from her insurance confirming cover at the relevant time.Not sure if this will get the towing fee back but it will stop the fixed penalty
Mayhem007
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 11:24
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 10:53)
Your pdf contains some personal info name and dob i would edit it.
Your friend needs to get a letter from her insurance confirming cover at the relevant time.Not sure if this will get the towing fee back but it will stop the fixed penalty
Thanks for that totally missed it I'll re-attach soon
andy_foster
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 12:05
Whilst there is a power to seize vehicles where a constable has reason to believe that they are or have been driven without insurance, the exercise of such a power must be proportionate.. In this case it clearly was not.
Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence - which means that being unaware that you were uninsured, or even genuinely believing that you were insured is not a defence. It might be possible to argue that there are special reasons not to endorse if she can persuade the court that she was misled (as opposed to merely assuming).
At first blush, whilst the letter is seemingly contradictory, I think she would struggle to make a special reasons argument out of it. However, if the bench have ever found how deeply hidden auto-renew clauses can be, they might be more sympathetic.
Unless her insurance is so cheap that the loading for an IN10 endorsement is negligible, I would generally advise going to court with a slightly weak special reasons argument over taking a fixed penalty.
The Rookie
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 13:43
I'm with Andy, it's hardly proportional to seize a car that was then insured and with the insured driver there, and no uninsured driver likely to drive the car at that time.
Mayhem007
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 19:27
I am in total agreement with everything that has been said. And agree with Andy that given the severity of the potential costs in the future she would be better of appearing in court with a flimsy argument. Nevertheless stating mitigation circumstances and the disproportionate actions of the police officer concerned, one hopes that the reduction in points [would be offered by the magistrates] and a minimal penalty would in some way not have her facing huge premiums in the future. At the end of the day it was an unintentional error and not a deliberate act of financial evasion.
peterguk
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 19:38
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 19:27)
one hopes that the reduction in points [would be offered by the magistrates] and a minimal penalty would in some way not have her facing huge premiums in the future.
Is an IN10 not an IN10 to insurance companies regardless of points and fine level?
andy_foster
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:24
The endorsement for driving without insurance is 6-8 points. The only way to get less than 6 points on conviction is if the court finds special reasons not to endorse - in which case there is no endorsement (no points).
dacouc
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:30
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 19:38)
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 19:27)
one hopes that the reduction in points [would be offered by the magistrates] and a minimal penalty would in some way not have her facing huge premiums in the future.
Is an IN10 not an IN10 to insurance companies regardless of points and fine level?
Yes, an Insurer rates on the offence code eg IN10, it's very very rare for them to take any notice of the penalty points and / or fine.
Remind the friend to declare the IN10 conviction to the Insurers if she receives a conviction for this.
peterguk
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:37
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:24)
The endorsement for driving without insurance is 6-8 points. The only way to get less than 6 points on conviction is if the court finds special reasons not to endorse - in which case there is no endorsement (no points).
Is that no endorsement of DL or endorsement of DL with no points?
If the latter then ins. co. still needs to be aware of conviction. Would they rate differently if convicted but no points?
dacouc
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:45
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:37)
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:24)
The endorsement for driving without insurance is 6-8 points. The only way to get less than 6 points on conviction is if the court finds special reasons not to endorse - in which case there is no endorsement (no points).
Is that no endorsement of DL or endorsement of DL with no points?
If the latter then ins. co. still needs to be aware of conviction. Would they rate differently if convicted but no points?
Very unlikely.
Aretnap
Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:54
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:37)
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 21:24)
The endorsement for driving without insurance is 6-8 points. The only way to get less than 6 points on conviction is if the court finds special reasons not to endorse - in which case there is no endorsement (no points).
Is that no endorsement of DL or endorsement of DL with no points?
If the latter then ins. co. still needs to be aware of conviction. Would they rate differently if convicted but no points?
Legislation seems to say no endorsement full stop - the whole order under 44(1) can be waived.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/5...ing/endorsementIf so then the conviction becomes spent quickly (immediately if accompanied by an absolute discharge, in one year if accompanied by a fine but no endorsement) and once spent need not be disclosed.
Oscar21
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 10:26
I was once successful with a special reasons argument for no insurance, it was a car we were stripping for parts, reversed it off my drive did a 3 point turn and got hit in the side by a van, police turned up. The car had 2 flat tyres and no bonet and this was before the crash, also no MOT and no insurance, it was taxed though.
I ended up getting a £50 fine and no points, the special reasons was I was never intending to use it on the road. The solicitor I had stated they had used it in DD cases in the past, this was in the (relatively) sensible 90s though.
Mayhem007
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 11:23
How does the absolute discharge work in terms of the offence being seen as automatically spent after 1 year.
Speeding endorsements are spent after 3 years, they stay on the license for a further year, but insurance companies ask you of any endorsements in the last five years.
Oscar21
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 11:31
They ask about convictions don't they, not endorsements, I believe its the fine that is the punishment not the points, fines are declarable for 5 years under the rehabilitation of offenders act. I actually thought it was six months that an absolute discharge was declarable for, you get a J000 code I think.
Dont take any of this as gospel though, its just what I have picked up.
Logician
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 11:39
Let us be realistic, that letter states in four separate places that she needs to call to renew the policy. It also tells her to call if any details have changed but to claim it is ambiguous in any way is stretching credibility. She simply forgot to renew it is what I think and what I would expect any court to think. I do not see any mitigation there, let alone special reasons not to endorse. On the other hand, there was no justification for seizing the car once she had renewed the insurance, and as she had insurance but failed to renew it until prompted by the stop, and then did so immediately, she should get 6 points, the lowest level. I would say she should plead guilty and say she simply overlooked the renewal, rather than this far-fetched claim she was confused, and ask for the fact that her car was seized and she had to pay a release fee to be taken into account when setting the fine.
PASTMYBEST
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 12:16
If your friend paid to renew her policy after being stopped. Rather than buying a new policy. then she may be able to persuade her insurance company that the cover should start from the renewal date in Nov and so she was covered. Along shot but have seen it done.
madbasshunter
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 13:23
QUOTE (Mayhem007 @ Sat, 28 Feb 2015 - 10:24)
A friend to all of us was followed by police into private car park of a care home. The police advised that the car she was driving was not on the insurance database. She immediately phoned her insurance company and was advised that the insurance had not been renewed. She then immediately renewed the insurance over the phone, within 15 minutes of being questioned by police.
The police officer in his infinite wisdom refused to confirm that the car was insured and still had the car impounded. She was given notice of intended prosecution for not having insurance. She followed the towing company and then had to pay £150 for it to be released.
This does seem rather excessive if she sorted out insurance whilst the officer was there, as I know people who have been stopped for no insurance and been allowed to ring and take out a policy there and then and nothing done about the fact they werent insured at the time of the stop. Only a few months ago my old manager was stopped having just changed cars and told her car wasn't insured, she argued she had swapped cars and it was but she couldn't access her cover note as her iphone was faulty. The officer let her drive on, she has since ended up in court and received a 6 month ban.
Aretnap
Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 18:09
QUOTE (Oscar21 @ Sun, 1 Mar 2015 - 11:31)
They ask about convictions don't they, not endorsements, I believe its the fine that is the punishment not the points, fines are declarable for 5 years under the rehabilitation of offenders act. I actually thought it was six months that an absolute discharge was declarable for, you get a J000 code I think.
Dont take any of this as gospel though, its just what I have picked up.
The ROA changed last year - a fine now has a rehabilitation period of one year, and an absolute discharge has no rehabilitation period at all (
link).
However as a sop to car insurance companies, driving licence endorsements were excluded from the changes. Under the old version of the Act they got a rehabilitation period of 5 years under a catch-all "any other sentence" clause, and that that's the rehabilitation period they still have - regardless of how long the points take to expire or how long they remain on your licence. Hence the fact that insurers can still ask you about any (endorseable) motoring convictions in the last 5 years.
Of course if you don't get an endorsement that's not relevant, and the rehabilitation period for the offence is defined solely by any fine/discharge/other sentence you get.
That said, I agree with Logician's reading of the letter, and would think that a special reasons argument here is a long shot at best.
Mayhem007
Tue, 3 Mar 2015 - 15:44
Thankds for all the valuable information and advice.
I have attached the insurers response to my friends complaint, however I doubt there is very little more can be said, but any additional advice would be appreciated.
Click to view attachment
The Rookie
Tue, 3 Mar 2015 - 15:53
I'd say that was no help at all and pretty much as expected.
Personally I'd say a guilty and 6 points is inevitable and keeping the bench onside without a spurious SR argument is best.
Jlc
Tue, 3 Mar 2015 - 16:16
The ombudsman is the last resort but I don't think they would find the insurer at fault.
It wasn't clear if a fixed penalty was available but a guilty plea is the only way imho.
Mayhem007
Wed, 4 Mar 2015 - 10:12
QUOTE (Jlc @ Tue, 3 Mar 2015 - 16:16)
The ombudsman is the last resort but I don't think they would find the insurer at fault.
It wasn't clear if a fixed penalty was available but a guilty plea is the only way imho.
She has sent a letter to the ombudsman and agree I can't see any appreciable fault on behalf of the insurer, and I don't even think the insurer's response is of any benefit to mitigation.
Thanks for all the replies. Exceptional thread no controversy or character assinations.
Cheers All
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.