Colleague stopped for no Insurance; 6 points Pending

[Man in the middle]

Yes, No Insurance is a "strict liability" offence. That is, you either have it or you haven't. The question of intent is not relevant.

 

There is a statutory defence to the charge which says this:

 

(3)A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

 

(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,

 

(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and

 

(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

 

Of course this does not fit the bill as the vehicle was not being used in the course of his employment. Magistrates do have the discretion to listen to an argument that there are "Special Reasons Not to Endorse" (SRNTE) the defendant's licence. If they accept this argument they do not have to endorse the licence and impose points. However, I would rate the chances of success as quite low. There may be some merit in such an argument if the driver is insured to drive all your other vehicles and had no reason to believe he was not covered to drive this particular one. But it is complicated by the fact that it was not being used for work purposes (in fact if it was he would have a strong defence as I outlined above). Of course there is the possibility that even if he was insured for this particular vehicle for work purposes he may not be covered for private use. So before embarking on a SRNTE argument that would have to be clarified. To strengthen his argument he would be well advised to produce proof that he was covered to drive all your other vehicles and if he wasn't covered for non-work purposes the argument is a complete non-starter.

 

To make his Special Reasons argument he would have to decline the Fixed Penalty offer and take the matter to court. There he would plead guilty but then present his argument. The downside to that is that if he is unsuccessful it will almost certainly cost him more than £300. He will pay a fine of a week's net income (although a kindly court may reduce that a little in the circumstances), a Victim Surcharge of 10% of the fine (minimum £34) and £85 costs. Although the court has the discretion to award between six and eight points (or even impose a disqualification) I would still expect to see the minimum of six imposed.

 

So he would be basically gambling the difference between £300 and the sum which arises from the above calculation against the possibility of avoiding an endorsement.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Man in the middle