Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Apr 19, 2024 06:51

View unanswered posts | View active topics


Board index » Discussion Forums » Help! I'm being prosecuted!

All times are UTC [ DST ]



Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
mattyg
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 11:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
As above guys

A friend of mine was delivering pizza last night he only does it on sat nights as he was coming back to his car two policemen pull up fine him £200 impound his car and give him 6 points oh and the charge for storage is £12 per day. for not having business Ins. However his car is woth about £500 and is insured fully comp and in fairness who would dob him in after an accident for delivering pizza`s

Now whilst i know he should be insured for business, I cant belive on a sat night whilst in the town center its kicking out time for the pubs that they would persue him for this. Community policing at its best.

I dont really know what to suggest to him he cant afford the £200 to get his car back so equally cant afford it to increase by £12 per day.

Whilst i wouldnt condone lying BUT if he was to say it was a favour and it was only one delivery and he didnt get paid for it what are the chances of him getting off.

I`m Asking as a favour for him
any help/ideas
matt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Graeme
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:36 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
Although it might seem a bit harsh, the bottom line is that if he'd smashed up your £10K car and injured you, he would not be insured for it.

The silly thing about it is that most insurers will charge very little extra (if anything) to add business use to a policy.

What was the reason they pulled him over in the first place?

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mattyg
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
For the insurance not to pay out if he had hit my car i would have to be stupid enough to say he was del pizza

Not that i`m condoning it in anyway he was daft whats even worse is that he is fully comp on a £500 car and i told him the other day to junk it for 3rd party and business will prob save him some money

I belive there is some sort of money making inititive going on in southport at the moment and to be honest pizza delivery lads are an easy target how many are likley to have business ins away from major cities

He was walking back to his car after dropping off

whats annoying to me is that a friend ran up the back of someone a couple of years ago who was uninsured but the 3rd party just went to a lawyer and still, was able to sue him. Its daft how these things work
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 13:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I'm thinking that the Police may be out of line here.

He was able to demonstrate motor insurance. The Police cannot say that his motor insurance failed to meet road traffic act requirements because the ultimate determination comes in the resolution of the contractual relationship with the insurers.

It's stupid to drive outwith the conditions of your insurance, but then again, who can say that his insurance failed to meet the minimum legal requirements?

It isn't easy for an insurance company to 'disclaim all responsibility' for an insured driver.

In the first instance, I suggest your friend should contact the insurance company and ask if they were providing 'road traffic act' cover in the circumstances. This approach may be unhelpful when he tries to obtain motor insurance in the future, but I reckon needs must.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mattyg
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 15:08 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
Well after speaking to him again this am i have a little more info. apparently theymust have seen him pull over and get out carrying his bag and thought easy pull. they approached him before he got back in his car. asked him what he was doing and asked him if he was working he said yes they said you dont have the right ins. he told them he does have ins though so they rang his ins at 11:30pm :o .

Ins confirmed he doesnt have business cover.

As he isn`t much of a fighter he will prob just knock it up to experiance

so thanks for your advice

cheers
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 15:25 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
I've cross posted this to Pistonheads at: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 0&t=444582

Perhaps one of the Police Officers there will give us a quick and definitive answer.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Graeme
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 15:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 09:13
Posts: 771
mattyg wrote:
Well after speaking to him again this am i have a little more info. apparently theymust have seen him pull over and get out carrying his bag and thought easy pull. they approached him before he got back in his car. asked him what he was doing and asked him if he was working he said yes they said you dont have the right ins. he told them he does have ins though so they rang his ins at 11:30pm :o .

Ins confirmed he doesnt have business cover.

As he isn`t much of a fighter he will prob just knock it up to experiance

so thanks for your advice

cheers


It certainly does sound they were out for an easy pull. It sounds like when they check on insurance, the type of cover is available, rather that just a yes/no. Legally though they're right, so probably not much he can do about it.

It does make me think though that there must be millions of drivers in this situation who have never even thought of it and that either normal insurance should cover basic business use or that there's a real need for more information (like bold print on insurance policies) pointing out the need for business cover.

_________________
Wake me up when the revolution starts
STOP the Toll Tax http://www.traveltax.org.uk
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Stephen
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 19:03 
Offline
Police Officer
Police Officer

Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 22:37
Posts: 279
Location: Warrington
Tell your to mate to fight it as he is Insured third party even though he has a crash and pizzas are all over th inside of the car,his insurance will pay, however if the police contact the insurance company and tell them that there client is using his car for business then they will contact him and sort it out.

So, I would say tell your mate to contact his insurers and get them to say categorically that he wont be insured,but they wont as I said he is under third party liability.

We have a lad on our unit who used to go out and wait for pizza men and seize there car under business, we spoke to him but wouldnt listen,so, told the Sgt who had a word with him,but he took no notice, then the Sgt ordered him not to take cars unless there was NO INSURANCE on the car.

It pisses me off when all people are doing as trying to make some extra money with a perfectly legal car, and some fuck wit PC tries to get us a bad name.

Stefluc
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 19:19 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Stephen wrote:
Tell your to mate to fight it as he is Insured third party even though he has a crash and pizzas are all over th inside of the car,his insurance will pay, however if the police contact the insurance company and tell them that there client is using his car for business then they will contact him and sort it out.

So, I would say tell your mate to contact his insurers and get them to say categorically that he wont be insured,but they wont as I said he is under third party liability.

We have a lad on our unit who used to go out and wait for pizza men and seize there car under business, we spoke to him but wouldnt listen,so, told the Sgt who had a word with him,but he took no notice, then the Sgt ordered him not to take cars unless there was NO INSURANCE on the car.

It pisses me off when all people are doing as trying to make some extra money with a perfectly legal car, and some fuck wit PC tries to get us a bad name.

Stefluc


Thanks. That feels right to me.

But it's extremely worrying that Police Officers are seizing vehicles in such circumstances, especially when they have been told not to. In fact it's a f****** outrage.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mattyg
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 30, 2007 20:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
Cheers guys for your time and effort

I will be seeing him later on so i have printed him off whats been said (I know in this day an age he hasnt got the net)


All much appreciated I will keep you posted
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ernest Marsh
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 01:28 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Surely he delivers the Pizzas on foot - the car is just transporting him to and from his place of work! :wink:

I dont engrave in my car, but I do have to transport jobs to the Post Office very occasionally - usually on my way home if I missed the collection in the village at 4.55 pm. Am I "working" when I do that? :shock:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Observer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 08:03 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
The policy may be avoidable by the insurer but, until steps are taken to avoid it (when the insurer becomes aware of the misrepresentation) the contract remains in force and the vehicle is, as a matter of law, insured.

Any misrepresentation (wilful or innocent) that may have occurred is a matter between the insurer and the insured. There is no contractual nexus between the insured and the police and the police have no power or authority to second guess what the insurer may or may not do if a misrepresentation came to their notice.

Abuse of power - clear cut and incontestable.

[edit]

In addition, I note from certificates of insurance issued by two separate insurers the statement:

Quote:
ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
(the above language is a bit ambiguous but appears to confirm that insurers will accept a third party claim regardless of breach of use restrictons)
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Observer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 10:15 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
Definitive position:

Wilkinson's Road Traffic Offences, 22nd edition, paragraph 10.52 wrote:
A policy obtained by a false and material representation remains valid so far as the criminal liability under s.143 (RTA 1988) is concerned, unless the insurers have taken steps to avoid it; it makes no difference whether it is void or voidable


It is clear from the above that there is no breach of s.143 even if the policy is void (cf voidable). In this case, we don't know what the extent of the misrepresentation was; there is clearly a difference between a fraudulent misrepresentation made at the time a policy was taken out or renewed and a breach of a continuing representation that a vehicle will only be used for SDP purposes. I'd suspect the insurance contract is no more than voidable if the latter. Possibly, as there has been no claim, insurers would actually give the insured the opportunity to pay increased premium for business cover (backdated if applicable) and not seek to avoid the contract at all.

This is an appalling abuse of police power that should be vigorously challenged.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
anton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 12:32 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
Ok put in another real senario.
Chap insures his cars and flatbed breakdown truck under business motor traders as a small single premises garage. Then he uses a 3.5 ton lorry with "recovery" on the side to run an international boat haulage operation. He is delivering large motor cruisers one on the lorry, one trailed behind.

1. No operators licence (3.5 ton lorry + trailer needs o licence?)
2. Wrong insurance

Would the insurance be able to opt out of “road traffic act “ liability in this gross misrepresentation or the insured risk.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Observer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 13:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
The power to seize an uninsured vehicle comes from here:

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 wrote:
152 Power to seize etc. vehicles driven without licence or insurance
After section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—

“165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance
(1) Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.
<snip>
(3) The second condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.
<snip>
(5) Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;
(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;
(c) use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).
(6) Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—
(a) in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;
(b) in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section.
But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.


The "reasonable grounds" is clearly debatable both ways. It may be hard to show that the officer did not have "reasonable grounds" if he had spoken to the insurer and the insurer had stated the vehicle was not insured for business use (even though the insurer would have been liable in the event of a claim). That means the seizure may have been lawful (or at least make it hard to prove it was unlawful). However, the s.143 charge (driving without insurance) should be defendable by reference to the stipulation that the insurer must take steps to void or avoid the insurance contract.

This all smacks of target-driven policing and is thoroughly objectionable.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mattyg
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 15:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
Hiya folks

I have just recieved a phone call from my friend sayind that he has been to the police station to have a word and he has spoken to his insurance company who said thats a bit harsh and are going to send him out a letter for the police. and they have said that although he has to pay to get the car back etc. he should once he recieves this letter be able to claim the monies back.

It would be nice to find out the exact legality of what has happened As to help anyone else out in the future.


Cheers for all your help and i will update with any new developments

p.s I hope he doesnt let it lie at that

matt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
SafeSpeed
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 16:09 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
mattyg wrote:
Hiya folks

I have just recieved a phone call from my friend sayind that he has been to the police station to have a word and he has spoken to his insurance company who said thats a bit harsh and are going to send him out a letter for the police. and they have said that although he has to pay to get the car back etc. he should once he recieves this letter be able to claim the monies back.

It would be nice to find out the exact legality of what has happened As to help anyone else out in the future.


Cheers for all your help and i will update with any new developments

p.s I hope he doesnt let it lie at that

matt


I have a newspaper interested. PLEASE get him to phone me.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Observer
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 05:08 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 10:47
Posts: 920
Location: South Bucks
Ref the discussion (mostly on PH) on the breach of use restriction, there seems to be a policing pattern emerging where officers target take-away drivers in case (in the hope that) they do not have business use cover. For that purpose, they contact the vehicle insurer, by phone or in writing, and request confirmation that the driver is insured for business use. If not, they seize the car and prosecute/issue FPN under s.143 RTA.

The SIs that require MIIIC/motor insurers to maintain and disclose information is, I believe, here and here.

As you will see, the information insurers are obliged to provide is the key particulars one would expect - there is no requirement to maintain or disclose information on 'use' restrictions. That information is not (or is not required to be) maintained by MIIC (Motor Insureres Information Centre) so can only come from the insurer itself. But the police have no right to require it and it is a breach of ordinary commercial confidentiality for insurers to disclose it (although it is stated on the certificate of insurance which is the usual way in which a driver satisfies the obligation to produce evidence of insurance).

The absence of reference to such information is of course persuasive confirmation of the argument I have been making - that breach of use restriction does not (automatically) invalidate insurance policy and certainly not wrt to the RTA cover element.

Police are way out of order in seizing cars and prosecuting for no insurance in these cases. It's clearly all target driven (again).
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
mattyg
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 17:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 15:19
Posts: 41
From what i believe observer has put on the other forum

The statement from the insurance regarding your third party right to claim. Seems to protect the third party(if there is a claim) and therfore he is still insured regardless of whether he has modified his car got a heart condition or in fact has gone blind and forgot to notify them.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
anton
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 09:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I am begining to wonder if police are going beyond thier duty to ensure that road traffic act insurance is held and have gone beyond to see that commercial interests of the insurance companies is protected.



In the past an insurance company sent a recorded delivery letter if insurance payment had lapsed and Road traffic act cover was being ceased. Is this still the case?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » Discussion Forums » Help! I'm being prosecuted!

All times are UTC [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.024s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]