Safe Speed Forums

Hi All
i have helped a number of people out of speeding tickets, but Lincolnshire nip issuer has sent a request to the named keeper to produce valid insurance at a police sation. this is not for him but for his mate who was driving at the time.
He has fulfilled his obligation under sec 172 because he named the driver so he ( the reg keeper ) cannot now be prosecucted for anything. As far as i am aware there is no legal obligation to provide any of these ins docs as the cops did not stop him and give him an HORTI.
They are threatening to prosecute him if he does not comply but i think this is waffle.
I will update when i see letter and see if they quote what they are going to charge him with.
Anybody any wiser than me on this would be great.

Thanks Dudes

Lee

IANAL, but...

1. If the issuer of the NIP believe that the offence of driving without insurance has been committed, then that is surely between them and the actual driver, who's details they now have.

2. The only way I can see that the keeper can now be obligated, assuming he has told the truth so far, is for the possible offence of causing / permitting the offence of driving without insurance, in allowing another driver to do so. But for this to even become a consideration first they need to prove the offence in the first place (see 1 above) and secondly they need to prove that the keeper knew of such lack of insurance.

Other than that I don't see any means by which Person A can be obliged to demonstrate that Person B has insurance cover, regardless of who the vehicle belongs to.

Sounds to me like a typical bluff'n'bluster intended to rattle the keeper into admitting "hang on I've made a mistake - I was the driver after all".

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

The registered keeper does not even need to have a driving licence, let alone have insurance for the car.

However the text of the relevant law is:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Uk ... tm#mdiv165


The question is whether they have reasonable cause, this is probably one to look up in Wilkinson's.


Finally, if they DO have insurance covering it then it would be safer to produce it and then complain that it was not a lawful request. If they DON'T have insurance then they can only say that they aren't insured for it. If they have been asked to produce the licence etc. then produce these, don't fail to produce just because the car isn't insured for that driver.

Finally (!) note that only a constable can request production of insurance - unless the letter is from a constable he can rightly tell them to "get stuffed", although it will probably only result in a letter straight back from a constable in the same office. (I think quite a few SCP's are making unlawful requests like this)

IF person B is covered by person A's insurance, which is frequently the case, then this is the only way to prove it. If he isn't then tell them that person B has his own insurance.




Sounds to me like an attempt to see if person B was driving while uninsured.

If that were so, surely it would be person B they would be chasing? He's the one committing the offence and they have after all just been given his details.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

There are quite a few possible reasons for the the letter - only one of which is intended to rattle the driver and none of which can accurately be described as bluff and bluster.

They may well have contacted B and been told that he is covered by A's insurance. This is almost always what B does when he has no insurance.

Its a fairly common practice to check with the owner of the vehicle to see if the alleged driver is covered. If not they can chase the alleged driver for the original offence and no insurance.


If they haven't been able to contact B they may suspect that he has been made up. In such cases when A is asked for insurance cover and told he faces 6 points for permitting the use of his car without insurance A will sometimes admit that B does not exist.

In which case the request for insurance info is not really a request for insurance info, but in reality a request for confirmation that the originally supplied information was the truth. It is, you might say, a "bluff".

And furthermore it is made in the form of a demand rather than a request, even though it would seem that in law there is no legal basis for such a demand. They are, you might say, "blustering".

Assuming that A has been perfectly truthful, then in any case it is surely not for him to prove that B is insured to drive his vehicle? Surely that is a matter between B and the investigating authority, and the only way in which A can become implicated is if they successfully prove that B is not insured and that he has caused or permitted that offence.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!