Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Caught Driving With No Licence


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5228 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

On the insurance bit, remember that a comprehensive policy is likely to have at least two sections. Own damage and third party liability. Own damage is damage to the policyholders own vehicles and third party liability is damage to the property of others or injury to other people.

 

There will be plenty of other sections and some of the above may be split into more than one but for these purposes this is sufficient.

 

It is not compulsory in law to insure for own damage. It is for third party liability and this is the basis of the principle for insurers actively avoiding liability under the policy for own damage claims but not third party liability claims.

 

It is a matter of public policy that an insured person cannot recover an indemnity under a policy for their own deliberate acts. This applies as much for deliberately setting fire to your own house as anything else. Speeding, being drunk or other motoring offence does not invalidate a policy unless there is a specific condition saying so. What it may do is entitle the insurer to avoid liability under the policy which is something rather different.

 

The reason this is somewhat wooly is because most motoring offences are strict. It is no defence to say that you had no "bad mind" as is is for most other criminal offences. It is therefore right that there is a different approach to (say) most speeding offences and many drunk driving matters.

 

Hope this helps.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello fellow Caggers,

 

After a bit of advice. My best friend got caught driving his car while not having a full UK driving licence. He holds a provisional and insurance but that was it. I believe the insurance is void anyway because he didn't have anybody sitting with him in the car. He was parked up in Tesco's when the police pulled up and accused him of driving without a licence. He held his hands up and said it was true. They then got the car towed away and left him in the middle of our town. He had to pay a release fee to get the car back the following day and has been waiting for a court date for the offence. All this happened in September/October time and still he has had nothing through. Is there a timescale for these things? Has he gotten away with it (not that I condone what he done)?

 

Any advice would greatly be appreciated.

 

 

If i was the officer the reason why i would have had this vehicle removed is to ensure that noone drives away with it uninsured. I am afraid that whilst he was reported for driving otherwise than in accordance with a licence he would be let go on his merry way as he was reported and not arrested.

I would hope he was contemp'd interview plus 3. (NIP not necessary) .

Because he was let go the vehicle had to be seized to reduce the possibility that he would get back in the driving seat again. The officer who dealt with this would come under heavy scrutiny by his skipper and guv'nor if he had just left the driver with his car.

 

I have been aproached by so many MOPs when i have had vehicles removed saying that their best friend is insured and can drive the vehicle back. My response to that pathetic excuse is "HOW DO I KNOW THAT YOU WON'T SWAP WITH YOUR UNINSURED FRIEND?".

 

If the driver has committed the offence of Driving whilst otherwise in accordance with a licence expect one of two things to happen...

 

1 Report the driver (remove car)

2 Give driver hefty £200 fixed penalty ticket 6 points (remove car)

 

Option two is only applicable if...

 

Driver is not in two year probationary period. 6 points with one hit means that the driver is likely to lose licence in court (muppet if this is the case).

 

or

 

Driver whilst out of proby period does not have 6 points already and that there are no other offences being committed on top of the main offence that would incur a penalty no less than a seperate 60 pound fine ticket.

 

 

Sorry lastly,,, if your friend is being reported for no insurance as well (which i very much doubt) the prosecution time limit for sec143 rta is no longer than 3 years not summary 6 month limit as with most driving offences.

 

I have watched these posts with great interest in relation to whether insurance comes into it. Good arguments on both sides, but if i may ask this question. Would you be happy with a person to be left with his/her vehicle after being stopped by an officer and that person drives away when the officers have gone???

Edited by PCSTAMPER
Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you be happy with a person to be left with his/her vehicle after being stopped by an officer and that person drives away when the officers have gone???

 

No. I am quite happy for forfeiture of vehicle to be the minimum penalty for driving uninsured with maximum penalty of summary execution in the manner of Judge Dredd.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He was parked up in Tesco's when the police pulled up and accused him of driving without a licence. He held his hands up and said it was true.

 

Getting back to the original thread (if anyone can remember back that far ;) ), the OP said he was parked up in a car park. Did the police say they had seen him drive to that location or did they just see him sitting in the car but not moving? I would have thought, if the latter, then there were insufficient grounds for any charge at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to the original thread (if anyone can remember back that far ;) ), the OP said he was parked up in a car park. Did the police say they had seen him drive to that location or did they just see him sitting in the car but not moving? I would have thought, if the latter, then there were insufficient grounds for any charge at all.

 

No,, unless the driver is seen to have driven the vehicle there are no grounds to remove the vehicle. I wouldn't be suprised if the officer then parks up and waits for him to drive away. Then action can be taken

Link to post
Share on other sites

The driver admitted, when questioned, driving the vehicle unaccompanied, since he was alone in the carpark the officer was right to sieze the vehicle because the driver couldn't legally drive the car home and had already demonstrated that he would use the vehicle unsupervised.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

My son been driving here in the UK since 2007 on a foreign licence(USA) which he thought he could use indefinately- aparantly it was only valid till april 2008.in may 2008 he got a car and applied and was given insurance. then in may 2009 it was renewed. In november he finds out the licence isnt valid. FSA says the insurance wasnt valid either- and never has been. He's cancelled the policy payments and the insurance company is keeping all the premiums £2000 for the insurace that never was

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an aside, there is a traffic cop (23 years) in our station at the moment, I asked him to look over this thread, his view is that, you could have someone as drunk as a whisky crazed apache, Provisional licence holder and doing 80 in a 30 zone, but if they had a Policy they would still be insured. They would not charge them with no insurance.

 

Whilst they may not be charged with no insurance, it does not mean they did not commit that offence.

 

Driving unacompanied on a provisional will almost certainly invalidate insurance cover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance policies I have seen and have just checked mine state, that providing the policyholder holds or has held a driving licence, they make no such stipulation as you suggest.

regards

 

So therefore the driver is not insured as he does not hold a driving license he holds a provisional license.

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal Experiences/Mistakes lol...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry he is insured for 3rd party liabilites but as there is none he would not be insured to drive.

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal Experiences/Mistakes lol...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry he is insured for 3rd party liabilites but as there is none he would not be insured to drive.

 

Why?? You just quoted he was not insured because he has NO licence, how does being supervised suddenly give him a licence? His licence is provisional regardless of any supervision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This driver and his insurance company entered into a simple contract.Since he held a provisional licence he agreed he would drive under the terms of that licence- supervised. In return they agreed to insurehim..When he drove alone he broke his side of the contract-which invalidated the policy. so they dont have to pay up. My sons insurance agent said they might have paid third party if he had an accident but didnt have to and if they did would have got the money back from him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This driver and his insurance company entered into a simple contract.Since he held a provisional licence he agreed he would drive under the terms of that licence- supervised. In return they agreed to insurehim..When he drove alone he broke his side of the contract-which invalidated the policy. so they dont have to pay up. My sons insurance agent said they might have paid third party if he had an accident but didnt have to and if they did would have got the money back from him.

 

That was what i was trying to say ! i may have got lost going around the houses lol.

If any of my posts are helpful, please feel free to click my scales. All information is given as my opinion only, based on my own personal Experiences/Mistakes lol...

Link to post
Share on other sites

This driver and his insurance company entered into a simple contract.Since he held a provisional licence he agreed he would drive under the terms of that licence- supervised. In return they agreed to insurehim..When he drove alone he broke his side of the contract-which invalidated the policy. so they dont have to pay up. My sons insurance agent said they might have paid third party if he had an accident but didnt have to and if they did would have got the money back from him.

 

Sorry I didn't realise you had seen the OPs insurance policy. Why would an insurance company pay out if he had no insurance and on what grounds could they get it back?? If he had no insurance they would wash their hands of him if they paid out they are admitting liability. Lets say he gave a kid brain damage and they paid out £1m how do you think they would expect to get it paid back? The insurance broker sounds as about clued up as you do I would change brokers if I were you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst they may not be charged with no insurance, it does not mean they did not commit that offence.

 

Driving unacompanied on a provisional will almost certainly invalidate insurance cover.

Read the rest of the thread, including a post from someone who actually works in the insurance industry, you are wrong, the argument has been done to death.

regards

Edited by letshelp

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't realise you had seen the OPs insurance policy. Why would an insurance company pay out if he had no insurance and on what grounds could they get it back?? If he had no insurance they would wash their hands of him if they paid out they are admitting liability. Lets say he gave a kid brain damage and they paid out £1m how do you think they would expect to get it paid back? The insurance broker sounds as about clued up as you do I would change brokers if I were you

 

This is a forum for people to express their thoughts, Green, sarcasm and personal attacks have no place here! I dont need to see the OPs insurance, it's obvious -the original post said he had a provisional licence so its a small step to assume he insured as a provisional driver. And I really dont know if this mans insurance would have paid if he had an accident. If he wants to tell me who they are I'll be glad to ask them for you. My post seemed clear to me, but obviously not- I was talking about what my son's broker said to him-my son -when he asked the broker what would have happened if he-my son - had an accident during the time the insurance companyinsured him-my son - on an invalid licence. I'd tell you why they pay third party claims but thats fully covered by earlier posting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...