Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. 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;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
    • 👍   One thing, write "unlawful", not "illegal".   Sorry to be pernickety, but "illegal" = "a crime".   "unlawful" = "not in accordance with the law".    They've lied to the DVLA but that's not actually a crime, it's misuse of your personal data which is a civil matter, and you can sue the idiots once your case is over for breach of GDPR, but it's not a criminal offence.
    • Just added also paragraph 11 stating " Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, VCS should prove that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. 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;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith."
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Being forced to get business insurance for vehicle


trickyricky
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1222 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

My daughter is NOT self-employed but works for a company that requires her to meet clients within the region she works in.

 

Her contract does not state that she had to have a car but she has been told that she must use her car to go meet clients. Fair enough.

 

When she went to claim her fuel expenses they refused because they said she needs business insurance on her vehicle and once she produces a certificate to prove this they will then pay for the fuels at 45p per mile. W

 

Why should she have to pay for business insurance, it is not her business.

She has said she would be happy to get it insured for business and then claim it back from the company but they say they wont pay it.

She likes the job and does not want to leave but as I say this was not written in her contract. Others within the company have forked out for business insurance just to get peace but my daughter is taking a stand on this.

 

Where does she stand legally?

 

Any help or advice is much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because she is travelling to other places and not one permanent place of employment.

Its pretty standard.

 

I have to have business insurance as sometimes my place of work Is not always the main building.

It cost me £15 extra per year.

Just explain to insurance company that its for commuting to clients addresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to motor insurance forum

 

Same as pizza delivery

You are using your vehicle to make you money

Must have business ins

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because she is travelling to other places and not one permanent place of employment.

Its pretty standard.

 

I have to have business insurance as sometimes my place of work Is not always the main building.

It cost me £15 extra per year.

Just explain to insurance company that its for commuting to clients addresses.

 

Ok thank you, I will pass this info on to my daughter. Thanks for the help

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that some domestic insurance policies exclude commuting to work. Hire and reward exclusion is also quite common on most policies, and this would generally prevent anyone using their car for business use unless specifically stated.

 

Always read the small print, and if in doubt, get written conformation from the insurers.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that some domestic insurance policies exclude commuting to work. Hire and reward exclusion is also quite common on most policies, and this would generally prevent anyone using their car for business use unless specifically stated.

 

Always read the small print, and if in doubt, get written conformation from the insurers.

 

Ok will do I will pass this on to my daughter thank you for your valuable input

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be aware that some domestic insurance policies exclude commuting to work. Hire and reward exclusion is also quite common on most policies, and this would generally prevent anyone using their car for business use unless specifically stated.

 

Always read the small print, and if in doubt, get written conformation from the insurers.

 

 

Yes always explain to insurers what you are using the car for so that they give you the correct cover.

Otherwise your daughter could be prosecuted for driving without insurance and all the serious consequences that could result from that.

 

Every insurer has their own wordings but generally what you [OP] describe is what's called personal business use.

It isn't hire and reward though.

 

Hire and reward is use as a taxi or minicab or courier, where someone pays you to take them or their goods somewhere.

It's normal for employers to insist that an employee using their own car on business has the correct insurance before reimbursing them the mileage.

 

Your daughter's argument that it isn't her business will get her nowhere and isn't worth raising.

Firstly it is her business, at least in the sense that she's an employee of the business and paid to do the job and doing the job requires her to drive to visit clients. And the employer would also no doubt argue that the mileage reimbursed includes reimbursement of the cost of buying business insurance.

 

If having your own car wasn't a requirement of the job I wonder what they would have said if your daughter had replied "I don't have a car"? Or "Yes I have a car but my partner uses it for work so it isn't available to me during the day"?

 

Legally she is fully entitled to say 'I didn't know I had to drive my own car and I'm not going to do that'. The, equally legal, result of that is she will be sacked.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Otherwise your daughter could be prosecuted for driving without insurance and all the serious consequences that could result from that.

 

In this scenario, it would not be driving without insurance and the vehicle should not be seized under those circumstances. If it was, there would be grounds for a complaint for wrongful seizure. There is a policy of insurance in place, it would just be the wrong type of cover and that would be a matter between the insurance company and the driver.

 

In the event of an incident while using the vehicle for business use, the insurers would have a statutory obligation to cover/pay out on the 3rd party risks and they can't avoid that (Road Traffic Act sections 143-162) but they'd be falling over themselves to not pay out on any damages to the insured parties vehicle, and most certainly wouldn't be.

 

 

But that's a separate issue to the company requiring that their employees have business use insurance in order to claim expenses. I'd say that that was fairly legitimate, and it doesn't cost a great deal of money. I think the last time I added business cover to my SDP policy, it cost me about £20 extra for the year.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If having your own car wasn't a requirement of the job I wonder what they would have said if your daughter had replied "I don't have a car"? Or "Yes I have a car but my partner uses it for work so it isn't available to me during the day"?

 

I used to work for a company that provided a couple of transit vans. From time to time, I was instructed to take one out to collect something. A task i would always refuse on the grounds that their insurance wouldn't cover me.

 

Although I had a full motorcycle licence, they never thought to ask if I also had a full manual car licence :madgrin:

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In this scenario, it would not be driving without insurance and the vehicle should not be seized under those circumstances. If it was, there would be grounds for a complaint for wrongful seizure. There is a policy of insurance in place, it would just be the wrong type of cover and that would be a matter between the insurance company and the driver.

.

 

Not so I'm afraid. The insurance must cover the use you are making of the vehicle. That's why 'Use' is one of the statutory sections of the Certificate of Motor Insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying (and did not say) that vehicles aren't ever seized under those circumstances. But the seizure would be on shaky ground.

 

The requirements, as set out in Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. (Paraphrasing) say that a vehicle must be insured against third party risks for it to be on the road.

 

Any motor vehicle insurance policy, no matter what the level of cover, must (and this cannot be avoided by the insurance company (RTA Section 148)) indemnify a third party no matter what! Which is why, for instance, insurers have to pay a third party claim against a drink driver, even if they wouldn't insure the said drink driver against their own losses. Otherwise, drink drivers would also be charged with driving with no insurance.

 

 

Therefore... Joe bloggs delivering Pizza on his moped with third party F&T which is insured for SDP only DOES have insurance, but it's the wrong level of cover, so the vehicle should not be seized for no insurance.

 

 

This is what should happen according to MIB. (No, not Will Smith :lol:)

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/october/is-your-motor-insurance-keeping-you-on-the-right-side-of-the-law/

 

Items 2 & 3 on that list.

 

If a vehicle is stopped with the wrong class of insurance, although the vehicle would be insured against third party risks, which is the minimum legal requirement, a report would be submitted to the policyholders insurance company, who will then be after the policyholder for either extra premium to add the correct class(es) of insurance, or they could cancel the policy from inception.

 

It would need to be a serious breach of the insurance terms for a seizure to be legitimately made and to stand up if challenged.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a seizure be on shakey grounds

 

If you are using your car to say deliver a pizza and you get stopped by the police and are found to not have the correct insurance, If they allow you to drive on after the stop, You still have the pizza in the car and so are still driving without the correct cover

 

There are plenty of instances including here on CAG where cars are taken for business use without a business policy

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This is what should happen according to MIB. (No, not Will Smith :lol:)

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/october/is-your-motor-insurance-keeping-you-on-the-right-side-of-the-law/

 

Items 2 & 3 on that list.

 

If a vehicle is stopped with the wrong class of insurance, although the vehicle would be insured against third party risks, which is the minimum legal requirement, a report would be submitted to the policyholders insurance company, who will then be after the policyholder for either extra premium to add the correct class(es) of insurance, or they could cancel the policy from inception.

 

It would need to be a serious breach of the insurance terms for a seizure to be legitimately made and to stand up if challenged.

 

I cannot find that last sentence (highlighted in bold) on the MIB webpage. Where does it appear there?

 

This sentence does appear though (my bold added):

 

"What MIB sees: Approximately 200 calls per month made to the MIB Police Helpline relate to ‘class of use’. In many of these cases, the insurance policy did not include ‘business’ use and
the driver was on the wrong side of the law
."

 

 

MIB confirms what I posted earlier, driving outside the permitted class of use is illegal - "on the wrong side of the law" - so all the consequences of driving without insurance can follow, including seizure of the vehicle, and your conclusion that pizza delivery bikes without business insurance cannot be seized is wrong. OP's daughter likewise could have her car seized. Whether that would actually happen is, as always, at the discretion of the police officer at the time.

 

 

You have confused s148 with s151. When I was my company's motor insurance technical director it was one of areas most commonly confused by insurance trainees. s148 deals with circumstances where the policy holder has breached any of the policy clauses listed in s148 (2) . Driving outside the permitted classes of use is not one of those. A s148 payment is made under the contract of insurance and so would not normally make the insured liable to prosecution for driving without insurance although they could still be liable to reimburse the insurer for claims paid to third parties. s151 deals with payments the insurer has to make to third parties when there is a more fundamental breach of the policy, such as driving outside permitted class of use, which would allow the insurer to avoid the policy. Payments under s151 are not made under the policy (unless the insurer has waived or prejudiced their right to avoid the policy) but under a statutory duty. The making of a s151 payment to third parties does not mean that the insured is thereby covered by a policy of insurance so they are liable to prosecution and vehicle seizure even if the third party has had their judgement satisfied. s151 (and s148 for that matter) are intended to make sure that innocent third parties are compensated not to provide a shield to policyholders against a prosecution for driving without insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct. I did confuse 148 with 151. Both are about avoidance of indemnity though, and I'm a little rusty :lol:

 

As for the sentence you've highlighted. I was paraphrasing. But here it is as it appears on the MIB website.

 

A serious breach of the insurance policy terms could result in the police seizing the vehicle.

 

Note the words "Serious breach" and "could".

 

 

So..

 

Is having the wrong class of insurance a "serious breach"?

 

I'd say that that is subjective and largely depends on the circumstances. Someone with SDP+C that is using their vehicle to get to a work site other than their main one, I'd say not serious at all. So a fine & points issued and a vehicle seizure under those circumstances may not stand if challenged.

 

Someone with SDP only using a vehicle for business... Slightly more serious, depending on the actual use. I'm still not entirely convinced that it's serious enough for a, eFPN and seizure though. At the moment of the stop, they are insured for third party risks after all, which is all that the law requires.

 

 

 

Ultimately, each police officer is going to have their own ideas over what is a correct course of action in any particular circumstance, and each officer has to stand by and, if necessary, justify their actions/thought process. So where some would issue an eFPN and seize the vehicle, others would not.

 

I feel that those that do would be open to challenge as to whether or not the eFPN and seizure was justified. Whether someone would win or lose that challenge would again depend on opinion, this time of a Magistrate.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying (and did not say) that vehicles aren't ever seized under those circumstances. But the seizure would be on shaky ground.

 

The requirements, as set out in Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. (Paraphrasing) say that a vehicle must be insured against third party risks for it to be on the road.

 

Any motor vehicle insurance policy, no matter what the level of cover, must (and this cannot be avoided by the insurance company (RTA Section 148)) indemnify a third party no matter what! Which is why, for instance, insurers have to pay a third party claim against a drink driver, even if they wouldn't insure the said drink driver against their own losses. Otherwise, drink drivers would also be charged with driving with no insurance.

 

 

Therefore... Joe bloggs delivering Pizza on his moped with third party F&T which is insured for SDP only DOES have insurance, but it's the wrong level of cover, so the vehicle should not be seized for no insurance.

 

 

This is what should happen according to MIB. (No, not Will Smith :lol:)

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/media-centre/news/2017/october/is-your-motor-insurance-keeping-you-on-the-right-side-of-the-law/

 

Items 2 & 3 on that list.

 

If a vehicle is stopped with the wrong class of insurance, although the vehicle would be insured against third party risks, which is the minimum legal requirement, a report would be submitted to the policyholders insurance company, who will then be after the policyholder for either extra premium to add the correct class(es) of insurance, or they could cancel the policy from inception.

 

It would need to be a serious breach of the insurance terms for a seizure to be legitimately made and to stand up if challenged.

 

It is incredibly difficult for an Insurer to cancel the policy from inception (For obvious reasons), to be able to do this the Insurer needs to prove serious intent to defraud them. The policy would then be voided "Ab Initio"

 

Voiding a policy in such a way was very very rare in the past, it is even more rare now as thanks to the Insurance Derrgulation Act voiding the policy in such a way (Still) leaves the Insurer potentially liable for claims. The common way since the recent introduction of the Act is to cancel the policy giving seven days notice in writing.

 

This is a complex area and their is a High Court Case setting precident where a Taxi driver appealed against a no insurance conviction by claiming his private use policy provided cover under the RTA even though he did not have taxi cover. The court ruled against him.

 

I can never find this case, but if someone wants to spend time searching the web it is there, the drivers name was Ahmed or along those lines

 

The EU have been trying to ensure that third parties are covered either by the RTA or the MIB eg section 75 Insurer by trying to fill in any gaps. There are fairly recent (European) court cases where the court have ruled that "Any use" makes the Insurer liable under MIB (When not an RTA liability). The court was not ruling on use as in the topic but on another matter but they are trying their best to eleminate any situations where a case may not be covered by the RTA or the MIB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the High Court ruled against the Taxi driver. Driving a Taxi on a 'domestic' policy is extracting the yellow liquid. Taxi insurance costs a lot of money. I've met people that have been paying in excess of £2,000 a year for insurance when you take in to account the public liability aspect of it as well.

 

So trying to claim that your Taxi is covered on your SDP policy is a prime example of a "serious breach" of the insurance.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad the High Court ruled against the Taxi driver. Driving a Taxi on a 'domestic' policy is extracting the yellow liquid. Taxi insurance costs a lot of money. I've met people that have been paying in excess of £2,000 a year for insurance when you take in to account the public liability aspect of it as well.

 

So trying to claim that your Taxi is covered on your SDP policy is a prime example of a "serious breach" of the insurance.

 

Yes indeed, and that case (I don't know its citation either) illustrates what's already been said - the rights to compensation given to innocent third parties under RTA s151 or MIB aren't intended to protect the driver/policyholder against being convicted of driving without insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...