Will be given 6 points on licence + licence revoked due to the fact i was apparently uninsured on my car... help.

[chris19433]

Hi.

 

Im 19 years old from london.

 

My father has 2 vehicles, one a vauxhall corsa and another a nissan qashqai. I drive both of them and have a full UK licence. I was stopped last night by police,they asked me to produce my licence which i did. This is not the first time i have been stopped for no clear reason, i have been a few times before, on BOTH vehicles and they let me go my way once they checked my details etc.

 

However last night as my details were being checked, i was told that i am apparently not insured on it, as my name wasnt listed with my fathers, which left me in complete shock. My father has contacted the insurance company to find out exactly as to why my name is not listed under the nissan, however they are not open until monday.

 

I was given a fine, and my fathers car was seized, which was later retrieved. However i was told i would be given 6 points on my licence, and that if i have had my licence for under 2 years, and it reaches 6 points, it gets revoked.

I have never had any convictions, no criminal record and have never been involved in an accident. I cant understand as to why i should be given this sort of treatment from DVLA. If i were to gain 3 points for 1 certain offence, then another 3 points for another offence, then maybe that would be understandable. However i am being given 6 points at once which has nothing to do with my driving skills, and for me to have my licence revoked and to re-take a theory and practical, makes no sense what so ever. There is no logic behind that.

 

I have 2 disabled people in my family, my father and my younger brother, who rely on me for shopping for them and taking care of them, I cannot cope without my licence, and i am in desperate need for help as my life would be seriously affected by this. I also travel to university in london as im studying Law at the moment.

 

I need some advice on this matter, should i take this matter to court? Should i instruct a solicitor?

 

Help would be appreciated.

Edited January 16, 2010 by chris19433

[crem]

IF you are so sure you were insured on the Nissan then you should be able to prove that on Monday when the insurance company open. If this is the case then the prosecution for "not being insured" will automatically fail and you will not receive the 6 points.

 

On the other hand if your father has made a mistake and you were not in fact insured to drive the Nissan, (or even if the insurance co have made a mistake by not listing you on their computer and they are not prepared to include you retrospectively) then I believe the 6 points are mandatory for a "no insurance" offence, and also the licence revoction is also manatory.

 

I agree it is stupid and heavy handed with no account being taken of individual circumstances but you can thank the government for that. I often teach people to drive who may already have more than 6 points on their licence when they start (eg maybe someone who nicked a car when they were 15 and got 4,6 or even 9 points on their licence before it was even issued at 17yo!) This means that even though they are now "good boys" and have learnt well and drive carefully, they are not even allowed 1 single extra point on their licence and if they do, it is revoked!

[chris19433]

IF you are so sure you were insured on the Nissan then you should be able to prove that on Monday when the insurance company open. If this is the case then the prosecution for "not being insured" will automatically fail and you will not receive the 6 points.

 

On the other hand if your father has made a mistake and you were not in fact insured to drive the Nissan, (or even if the insurance co have made a mistake by not listing you on their computer and they are not prepared to include you retrospectively) then I believe the 6 points are mandatory for a "no insurance" offence, and also the licence revoction is also manatory.

 

I agree it is stupid and heavy handed with no account being taken of individual circumstances but you can thank the government for that. I often teach people to drive who may already have more than 6 points on their licence when they start (eg maybe someone who nicked a car when they were 15 and got 4,6 or even 9 points on their licence before it was even issued at 17yo!) This means that even though they are now "good boys" and have learnt well and drive carefully, they are not even allowed 1 single extra point on their licence and if they do, it is revoked!

 

 

Thanks for your reply. I have been adviced to take this matter to court, and will instruct a solicitor, as this is beyond ridiculous especially considering my circumstances.

Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it alot.

[crem]

Why do the police think you weren't insured but your father (and you) thought you were? This will be the easiest way to resolve it if it turns out that you are correct.

[Helford]

The 'Certificate of Motor Insurance' is the definite article here. 1) Is the policy still valid [askMID is a GUIDE, your father can check this] and 2) Is your name (or a suitable 'phrase' to include you) on the Certificate?

[chris19433]

Why do the police think you weren't insured but your father (and you) thought you were? This will be the easiest way to resolve it if it turns out that you are correct.

 

 

The police said i was not listed under the policy. My father explained to them i was, not only for the vauxhall but for the nissan (which i was driving that night). This is an issue with the insurance company who stated to my father i have been added on as a 3rd driver on the policy.

 

I cannot accept that fact i am being treated this way, as i was under this impression that i was. My father would be contacting the company on monday.

 

I have instructed a solicitor on my behalf, as i have stated above the court must realise my life would be seriously affected by such punishment. Its sad they do not take personal circumstances into consideration. There is absolutely no logic behind this.

[havinastella]

The police said i was not listed under the policy. My father explained to them i was, not only for the vauxhall but for the nissan (which i was driving that night). This is an issue with the insurance company who stated to my father i have been added on as a 3rd driver on the policy.

 

I cannot accept that fact i am being treated this way, as i was under this impression that i was. My father would be contacting the company on monday.

 

I have instructed a solicitor on my behalf, as i have stated above the court must realise my life would be seriously affected by such punishment. Its sad they do not take personal circumstances into consideration. There is absolutely no logic behind this.

 

Why would you be instructing a solicitor now??

 

You wait till Monday, check with the insurance company and see If you are on the Insurance.

 

Also, you must have had some paperwork showing you were insured on both cars.

 

Jogs

[chris19433]

Why would you be instructing a solicitor now??

 

You wait till Monday, check with the insurance company and see If you are on the Insurance.

 

Also, you must have had some paperwork showing you were insured on both cars.

 

Jogs

 

My father was told he would be sent papers to confirm my name being under the list. This has not happened, we have recieved nothing and its been nearly a week. The insurance company on monday need to explain why i am not listed on the nissan.

 

I have my solicitor on stand-by until then.

[MARTIN3030]

My thoughts exactly.

You will only be given 6 points if there are grounds to do that.

Why was the paperwork for the policy not made available ?

You say that you have been stopped on other occs-in my mind that would tell me to have things available.

I know someone who keeps this in the glove box because he too gets lots of pulls-the reason that coppers pull him so much is because in my area young drivers have proved to be the biggest offenders for no insurance no Mot or DD.

Its not discrimination-its the way it is.

Instructing a Solicitor at this stage appears to have been a bit premature.

Whats the first thing they would ask ?

Lets see the policy wording !!

So why could you not produce it ?

[MARTIN3030]

Even with no paperwork-the Insurance company would have done the adjustments and the database should have updated.

A Police check on Insurance should have got that info

Everyone relies on this stuff and usually it works.

Its hard to imagine how in 2010 this could happen.

[Britainsworstdriver]

You are 19. I would doubt if any Uk insurance company would cover a 19 year old driving a Nissan Qashqai or any other 4x4. These type of cars would normally require a minimum age of 25 years to drive unless you are a footballer and are willing to pay £2million a year insurance.

[crem]

Even with no paperwork-the Insurance company would have done the adjustments and the database should have updated.

A Police check on Insurance should have got that info

Everyone relies on this stuff and usually it works.

Its hard to imagine how in 2010 this could happen.

 

Insurances companies have up to 14 days to update MID> As the OP states this change potentially only took place a week ago, I am not in the least surprisd that the police check against MID would not show this change. As long as the insurance company confirm on Monday (and subsequently in writing) that he was insured, the prosecution will be withdrawn.

[crem]

You are 19. I would doubt if any Uk insurance company would cover a 19 year old driving a Nissan Qashqai or any other 4x4. These type of cars would normally require a minimum age of 25 years to drive unless you are a footballer and are willing to pay £2million a year insurance.

 

Without knowing the OPs (and his parents) personal circumstances there is no basis for this assumption.

[Helford]

N.B. The Motor Insurance Database only shows the fact as to whether there is valid insurance in force on a specific vehicle (Identified by it's registration number). It does NOT show who can drive that vehicle. The Police will seek your confirmation that you are an authorised and insured driver by reference to yourself (by reference to the Certificate of Motor Insurance) or by ringing the insurance company or insurance broker direct.

 

You can check whether your vehicle is on the MID by going to

 

ASKMID

[chris19433]

N.B. The Motor Insurance Database only shows the fact as to whether there is valid insurance in force on a specific vehicle (Identified by it's registration number). It does NOT show who can drive that vehicle. The Police will seek your confirmation that you are an authorised and insured driver by reference to yourself (by reference to the Certificate of Motor Insurance) or by ringing the insurance company or insurance broker direct.

 

You can check whether your vehicle is on the MID by going to

 

ASKMID

 

yes it is in MID. just checked

[sneaksms]

You are 19. I would doubt if any Uk insurance company would cover a 19 year old driving a Nissan Qashqai or any other 4x4. These type of cars would normally require a minimum age of 25 years to drive unless you are a footballer and are willing to pay £2million a year insurance.

 

It's really not that much of an issue, especially (as is probable here) if you are a secondary driver on the policy

[noomill060]

If your dad doesnt provide details of valid insurance, he could find himself charged as well.

 

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - The keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle and to ensure they are insured, if a keeper allows a vehicle to be driven without insurance they are guilty of a criminal offence - By stating many people have access to a vehicle and as a result the defendant can not state who had it any one given date/time then they are confirming they did not know who was driving and therefore cannot be certain the vehicle was insured.

 

The exact wording is :

 

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks

 

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

 

(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

 

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

 

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

[patdavies]

There is no requirement whatsoever for the registered keeper to know who is driving a vehicle at any particular time.

 

Consider 2 situations.

 

1) I let my kids borrow my car. Both hold insurance via their own policies to drive it (TP only). I do not know whilst the vehicle is out of my sight which of them is driving - I commit no offence.

 

2) A company car is generally l;eased and usually the leasing company is the RK. They have no idea who the driver is at any time during the lease.

 

In your quote the law refers to 'a person'; no mention of RK at all.

[Raykay]

That's been copied from Perky's CPS website, which is one of his arguments against those who say 'I don't know who was driving'

[noomill060]

Yes, is it crap info?

 

Clearly not relevant to "who was driving" in relation to Perky's tickets, but VERY relevant if the cops accuse you of permitting use of vehicle without insurance.

 

This part made sense:

 

1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

 

(a)A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

 

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

 

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

 

 

 

The "person" bit appears to come from RTA 1988

Edited January 19, 2010 by noomill060

[Raykay]

Under section 143 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 - The keeper should know at all times who is driving a vehicle

 

It's that bit that is wrong, as Patdavies has said, there is nothing in s.143 for someone to know who is driving their vehicle, only that they are insured to drive it.

[noomill060]

Agreed.

 

The reason I posted this, is because the OP's dad isnt helping him out by providing him with evidence to show the cops that the OP was insured, despite the OP's dad permitting him to use the vehicle.

 

If OP gets done for no insurance, his dad may get charged with permiting use by someone without insurance.

 

This information could be used by OP to encourage his dad to supply insurance certificate.

[crem]

I think these situations always create somewhat of a "catch 22" situation in favour of the police always getting 2 successful convictions on this.

 

1) the "driving without insurance" is fairly easy to prove. Once proven they automatically will get a success with 2a or 2b

 

[to RK] "did you allow him to drive with no insurance?

 

[answer] Yes. goto 2a

[answer] No. goto 2b

 

2a) RK charged with allowing a vehicle to be driven with no insurance

 

2b) driver is also now charged with TWOCing

[hev106]

Hi, Time has now passed with no update from the original poster, do we take it then that all is well and he is insured or all it not well and he faces the penalties with or without the RK to? I agree with the earlier comments about a 19yr old being able to drive a big car like the Nissan, I think the insurance on that would hurt me and I have been driving for many many years more than I care to remember at times!

[crem]

OK, seeing as so many people keep going on about a 19yo not even being allowed to drive such a car, I've just done an online quote for a 19yo buying his own Qashqai.

 

"I" as a 19yo can insure it myself for £2,206 TPFT. I don't think that is bad at all compared to any other tyoe of car for someone of that age and "I" certainly don't need to be a footballer to afford the "2million a year insurance" as Britainsworstdriver suggested.

 

Bearing in mind the OP is not the policy holder and is only a named driver on his parents car, I see no reason why his parent's insurance company wouldn't accept him as a named driver for some "reasonable" fee.