No insurance Court Hearing

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

Hi Folks

1st time up in court regards no insurance on driveing a car.

Small print has Cort me out. Have fully comp insurance allowing me to drive any car.... Providing that car has insurance allso!!

So have court appearance soon. Would like some advice as to wording my mitigating circumstances so as not to get hit hard with fine i know i will get 6 points.

Also as question 2... The prosicution has set there cost at £85. They have worded it as applying for costs. Can this be disputed as to high?? Please advise as i have never attended court before. Thank you

[unclebulgaria67]

Hi Folks

1st time up in court regards no insurance on driveing a car.

Small print has Cort me out. Have fully comp insurance allowing me to drive any car.... Providing that car has insurance allso!!

So have court appearance soon. Would like some advice as to wording my mitigating circumstances so as not to get hit hard with fine i know i will get 6 points.

Also as question 2... The prosicution has set there cost at £85. They have worded it as applying for costs. Can this be disputed as to high?? Please advise as i have never attended court before. Thank you

 

Why are you bothering with court ? You should have just accepted by pleading guilty and apologising for your mistake.

 

You cannot dispute prosecution cost and you will get a large fine, plus at least 6 points. Depending on how long you have held your licence, DVLA may take your licence away.

 

Magistrates won't be intersted in hearing about you not reading your certificate of insurance and checking the other car was insured before driving. That is no excuse.

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

hi thank you for your reply.

I am pleading guilty my question is for help in wording for my mitigating circumstances. Have never delt with courts before so was looking for advice as to what to put down.

[unclebulgaria67]

hi thank you for your reply.

I am pleading guilty my question is for help in wording for my mitigating circumstances. Have never delt with courts before so was looking for advice as to what to put down.

 

Given some of your spelling, it might be advisable to check your spelling, as any bad use of English might not go down well. Best advice is to keep it to the point. Apologise for your mistake in not understanding the technicalities of insurance and believing that the driving other cars extension on your own policy, allowed you to legally drive other cars. If your finances are limited to be able to pay any fine, you should mention this. If you face a ban, explain how not having a car might affect you e.g cannot get to work.

[i hate bailiffs]

That has been always the case with insurance about driving another car as long as it is insured

Unless you have a policy that covers it like a mechanic ect

 

There is no way out of this

6 points,fine and high insurance for several years

[Tony P]

That has been always the case with insurance about driving another car as long as it is insured

Unless you have a policy that covers it like a mechanic ect

 

In case the OP is unaware, there is a lengthy discussion on this topic on this current thread where that OP is in a similar situation as here.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?453436-Driving-No-Insurance

[dacouc]

Jonny who are your Insurers?

 

What is the exact wording on your Certificate of Insurance with regards to Driving Other Cars?

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

Policy states.. drive other vehicles as long as that vehicle has its own insurance.

Thank you for your reply folks. I know am at fault just wanted help with wording my mitigating circumstances to present at court.

[dacouc]

If you answer my questions, I may be able to help you.

 

What does your CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE say regarding driving other cars (Not the policy wording as legally there's a difference between the policy wording and the certificate).

 

How did the police discover the requirement of the policy for the other car to be covered, did they ring your Insurer?

[CrappoMan]

The police usually ring the insurer when presented with a Certificate, ostensibly to check if the policy is still running and valid, especially when handed a Certificate for a different vehicle.

 

A previous certificate of mine stated under "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:"

The Policyholder may also drive a Motor Car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a hire purchase agreement

But buried in the actual policy documents in very small font was the requirement for the other car to already be insured.

[dacouc]

The police usually ring the insurer when presented with a Certificate, ostensibly to check if the policy is still running and valid, especially when handed a Certificate for a different vehicle.

 

A previous certificate of mine stated under "Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive:"

But buried in the actual policy documents in very small font was the requirement for the other car to already be insured.

 

I know the above.

 

There's a major difference between the what the Policy says is covered and what the Certificate says is covered.

 

The Policy tells you what you're contractually covered for.

 

The Certificate is a legal document governed by statute (The RTA) and confirms what cover the policy provides in respect of third party cover (The minimum level of cover required by the RTA). The Certificate is a legal document for the benefit of the police and courts to confirm in the eyes of the law what cover the Insurance provides.

 

The Policy wording is not a legal document in the eyes of the RTA, the inclusion in the policy wording that the other car must hold it's own Insurance is a contractual term allowing the Insurer to recover their outlay to third parties from their own policyholder.

 

It's for this reason that more sensible Insurer who require the other vehicle to be covered include the requirement for the other vehicle to be covered on the actual Certificate of Insurance. The Insurers who include this wording on the Certificate are very few and far between

 

Hence my question to the OP as to what exactly the Certificate of Insurance says.

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

hi

certificate of motor insurance

the policyholder may also drive,with the permission of the owner,any other separately insured private motor car not belonging to or on hire to him/her

[dacouc]

So you have a legal document that confirms you were covered for the legal minimum of third party only to drive other cars and that does not require the other car to hold it's own cover.

 

Unfortunately magistrates do not tend to fully understand the intricacies of the law. They also tend to believe what someone in a position of authority tells them eg a Police Officer or Insurance Employee.

 

Convincing the magistrates you were technically covered in the eyes of the law due to Certificate of Insurance is very difficult.

 

This well know case bears some similarities to your cases and also shows how the lower courts will take what an Insurer and / or Police Officer says as a fact.

 

http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

 

If you produced your "Relevant Certificate" of Insurance to the police officer at the time of the stop eg a hard paper copy or a version you had downloaded to your phone you may be able to refer to the pryor case in your own

[CrappoMan]

So you have a legal document that confirms you were covered for the legal minimum of third party only to drive other cars and that does not require the other car to hold it's own cover.

 

 

No, JOHNNYBOYJO's certificate specifically states that the other car must have it's own insurance:

 

the policyholder may also drive,with the permission of the owner,any other separately insured private motor car not belonging to or on hire to him/her

[dacouc]

No, JOHNNYBOYJO's certificate specifically states that the other car must have it's own insurance:

 

The devil is in the detail and I skim read his reply.

 

You're correct and he's unfortunately with one of the Insurers who have protected themselves by including this wording on the Certificate.

 

I won't edit my reply as the advice it contains is correct for anyone in a similar situation whose Certificate does not contain the wording requiring the other car to hold it's own insurance.

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

Hi

Thank you for your reply however my original question seems to have gone array!

I was asking how i can word my mitigating circumstances to the court. So as to lessen the impact so to speak? I have never been to court before so any wording phrases would be most helpful.

Thanks folks.

[unclebulgaria67]

Has been answered. There is no magic wording that will lessen the impact.

 

Just keep it simple. Mistake in not understanding your own insurance policy and believing it covered you to drive other vehicles on third party cover. Apologise for your mistaken belief that you had insurance to drive and that having insurance for own vehicle is evidence that you do normally ensure you obide by the law.

[JOHNNYBOYJO]

Thank you for your advice folks. Just an up date. After wording an apologize mitigating circumstance plea. The fine received was low. Other court charges were the problem. Who makes them up? Thanks again.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thank you for your advice folks. Just an up date. After wording an apologize mitigating circumstance plea. The fine received was low. Other court charges were the problem. Who makes them up? Thanks again.

 

Did you get 6 points ?

 

Court charges down to Tories austerity. Innocent people are now pleading guilty, to save them having to pay court charges, just in case court hearing did not work out for them.