Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Melamili on July 31, 2024, 10:56:35 am
-
@the_rookie
The offense that was removed was more than 4 years from the date of this incident.
So that offence was never going to count for totting (over 3 years old at the time of the offence) and that's off the table.
What do you think about contacting the proescuters office before the hearing to ask them to drop the charges?
Plus I have a message screenshot of her essentially admitting to removing me from the insurance. Also how common is it for police to allow you to do insurance on the spot when they have stopped yourather than impound the car?
They won't drop the charges, not a chance.
That will help (assuming said message post dates the offence!)
Entirely at their discretion, usually only offered where there seems an 'honest' mistake as opposed to planned or 'abject dumbness' cases, but irrelevant to any subsequent court case.
-
@the_rookie
The offense that was removed was more than 4 years from the date of this incident.
@H_C_Andersen
The only things that are conflicting is the officer has confused multi car policy with fleet insurance plus the fact he has not mentioned most of our conversation. My insurance ceased I believe 2nd of February.
@andy_foster
I think I have provided all the information of what has happened. Is there anything you would like to know specifically or in more detail?
What do you think about contacting the proescuters office before the hearing to ask them to drop the charges?
Plus I have a message screenshot of her essentially admitting to removing me from the insurance. Also how common is it for police to allow you to do insurance on the spot when they have stopped yourather than impound the car?
-
In any event, IMO the driver at any time is under a duty to check that the vehicle they're driving is insured. Or has this become somebody else's responsibility?
Twaddle.
There is no duty to check that you are insured. I know that I'm insured and have no need to routinely check, and commit no offence by not checking.
However, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence (apart from the statutory defence for company cars which does not apply to this case). If you are not insured you commit the offence regardless of whether you never checked, or whether you have a copy of the certificate in your hand, not realising that somebody has cancelled the policy. Obviously a bench would be far more likely to find SRNtE in the latter example than the former, all things being equal, but that has not create a duty to check.
From what little the OP has told us, I am not expecting too much sympathy from the bench, but his options seem to be to spend half a day in court and throw himself on the court's mercy or avoid spending half a day in court and have an IN10 endorsement to declare for the following 5 years, as well as being 1 slip-up from a totting ban until the other 3 points expire (unless as seems to have been suggested he could hypothetically be facing a totting ban already if the points that have already come off his licence aren't 4 years old for another 6 months).
If the OP wants to give us the details, we can potentially guide him in presenting them in such a way as to not unnecessarily aggravate the bench, although beyond the criteria for SRNtE already posted, there's not a lot that can be "shaped" in a fact specific submission which is sworn to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - other than advise the OP to have answers for any obvious questions that the bench would be likely to ask.
-
OP, I don't know why your evidence conflicts with the constable's, but it does.
In any event, IMO the driver at any time is under a duty to check that the vehicle they're driving is insured. Or has this become somebody else's responsibility? What insurance documents were you carrying in the car?
When did you cease to be insured on this car/this car cease to be insured?
-
My point stands, if they had 6 points when the insurance offence was committed, and they fail to convince the court not to award another 6 points, totting will occur.
actually it’s not whether they ‘had’ 6 points it’s whether 6 points counted for totting, as AF has pointed out you can ‘have’ points that are between 3 and 4 years old on your licence, but being over 3 years old (at the date of the offence) they wouldn’t count for totting.
Using ‘have/had’ is thus fraught with the danger of that mistake.
OP, perhaps you can clarify if they were more than 3 years prior to the offence date of not.
-
My point stands, if they had 6 points when the insurance offence was committed, and they fail to convince the court not to award another 6 points, totting will occur.
-
Considering that the current offence was committed less than 6 months ago, and assuming that the 3 points that the OP no longer has are now no longer showing on the DVLA site due to being more than 4 years old (from date of offence), and/or that the OP has given no other indication of the date of that offence of age of the points, I would suggest that it would require a very "special" type of intellect to determine unequivocally that the OP is liable to tot.
-
Having just checked my license 3 points have been removed as they have expired so I currently have 3 points for speeding.
That doesn't affect anything regarding totting up, if the court awards you 6 points for the insurance offence, then at the point the offence occurred you would have had 6 points. Therefore totting up comes into play. The fact that 3 points dropped off before conviction occurred is irrelevant.
-
I appreciate your feedback H C, my arguments may be wishy washy or I am not the best communicator or if I was to write every single detail it may be very long. On the form I pled guilty and asked to attend court. There was a space for adding more info which I stated I wanted to raise SRNTE. It said that I can provide full information when I attend. I read somewhere it may be worth writing separately to the prosecuters office and ask them to dismiss, what do you think?
I am not sure why he mentions fleet policy he may have confused that with multi car policy. He fails to mention all the details I gave him regarding it appearing to be a deliberate act by my wife. We had a long chat and most of it doesn't appear in his statement.
" One of the couple- in this case your wife- takes responsibility for these hands-on admin. tasks. You have separated since the last time the insurance on your car was renewed and she received an autorenew notice and responded by positively cancelling the insurance without giving you notice as some form of retribution"
This is basically sums up what happened and hopefully can prove this once I receive subject access report from the insurers.
There is still only one main policy holder on a multicar policy. All correspondence was addressed to her. Even as a named driver on the policy the insurance company wouldn't discuss with me over the phone.
Having just checked my license 3 points have been removed as they have expired so I currently have 3 points for speeding.
-
Whilst you're technically correct I think as far as this question goes you are splitting hairs. If, when driving my wife's car, I have an accident which causes damage or injury to a third party, it is me who the TP will come after for recompense, not my wife. So I am an "insured party" as far as I am concerned because her insurance policy indemnifies me against such claims.
The OP has an interest (in fact, a vital interest) in the vehicle being insured because he drives it. Whether or not he is the policyholder isn't really material. What is material is that he is not living with his wife, who takes care of these things. As a result he did not get the renewal notice.
So, yes, he's guilty and will plead that way. The issue really is whether there are grounds to argue "Special Reasons". That's where the circumstances of the administrative arrangements he and his wife have (or had) to deal with policy renewals will need o be examined.
-
As I understand it...
An insured party is any person or entity that is legally qualified to receive insurance payments after a loss occurs.
Nothing to do with who may drive.
-
If you are/were the insured party then an autorenew notice would be addressed to you.
Not if he wasn't the policyholder, it wouldn't. I am not the policyholder of a policy covering my wife's car - she is and all the policy renewal documents are addressed to her. But I am an "insured party" (i.e. I can drive the car) because I am a named driver on her policy.
-
Having just come off an 'Awareness Course' which thankfully avoided me getting points on my licence, OP (and again this is not without some sympathy and empathy, based upon your posts*) I think your arguments so far are wishy-washy, lack hard facts and are unlikely to melt the heart of a Magistrate who probably thought that sitting on the Bench was going to be more intellectually challenging than 'Oh dear, not another plea not to be endorsed'.
So when you appear, having I presume pleaded guilty(it is after all a strict liability offence) what would you say? I read the SJP notice that you can plead guilty but still request to attend court regarding which subsequent procedures and paperwork would follow i.e. you only have to decide whether to plead guilty or not by 5 Aug, not to have your 'not to be endorsed' argument set out in detail. Or is this not correct?
So, to plead guilty or not?
*- your posts appear to be at odds with Constable Sutton's witness statement where he says you claimed that the car was insured on a 'fleet' policy. I can't reconcile this with your posts here. IMO 'fleet policy' implies a company insuring vehicles and not, as here, a couple having two or more cars in the family, jointly owned but each with one of the couple as the insured party.
Two possible scenarios: two cars jointly owned but for practical purposes one is considered to be hers and one yours. One of the couple- in this case your wife- takes responsibility for these hands-on admin. tasks. You have separated since the last time the insurance on your car was renewed and she received an autorenew notice and responded by positively cancelling the insurance without giving you notice as some form of retribution, all of which happened a matter of days before you were stopped, possibly following a recent meeting to discuss relief and custody, or
The car's been uninsured for months and she told you about it ages ago because you had agreed between you, but not finalised that the car was to be yours.
I don't want to pry, but as has been posted earlier these issues are very fact specific. And I'm still not quite certain about the insured parties here. If you are/were the insured party then an autorenew notice would be addressed to you. From which must follow that you were not the insured party. So you were driving the only family car or perhaps 'her' car and she had cancelled the insurance before handing to you..or perhaps this is to do with 'fleet insurance'??
And by the way, what were your 6 points awarded for?
-
OP, your first priority should be to address Special Reasons not to Endorse, as explained by Andy above. Only if that fails will Exceptional Hardship come into play, so you should also be prepared for that.
I would suggest you plead guilty, but in the mitigation section simply flag up that you intend to raise SRNtE.
Different and/or better advice may be incoming!
-
Impact on your daughter is important, possibly also impact on grandparents. That can carry more impact.
-
I appreciate your feedback and know you are not being unsympathetic.
It is not just simply using taxis or public transport. Its the costs involved because I know pretty sure I am going to be skint by the time all the proceedings are done, so will not he able to afford the extra costs involved.
With regards to reducing time with my daughter I take your point if I am staying in the area she is being picked up, but normally I take her back to my area to see her grandparents and her other cousins and she always insists she wants to see her bedroom.
Okay I shall get on with doing the subject access request and prepare some sort of mitigation, as from what I have gathered due to strictl liability, I will have to plead guilty and offer my circumstances.
-
In response to whether it would cause exceptional hardship, I think it definitely would.
I travel between different sites for work. Losing my ability to drive would increase commute times considerable and would definitely mean spending more money which I don't have at the moment with child custody / divorce proceedings. I am having to pay about 80 pound an hour at the moment to see my child twice a week. I would need the car also to transport my child to her mother and we live more than an hours drive away. Public transport may add an extra hour to the journey each way this would again be more expensive financially and reduce the amount of time I have with my child. Would you consider this excessive hardship?
The question is not whether it is "excessive", but "exceptional".
NewJudge has posted the guidelines above, which make it clear that loss of one's job is not exceptional, and that would seem to include the job becoming impossible.
Similarly, having to use public transport or taxis is far from exceptional.
It's not clear why a longer journey would reduce the time with your daughter, rather than just meaning an earlier start and later finish for yourself.
BTW I am not unsympathetic, but it's better to have these points raised here than by the magistrates.
-
With regards to subject access request my data should be on there as a named driver so on whst basis could they refuse?
Make it clear that you regard it as your personal data, and in the event of a refusal because they disagree make it clear that you will go to the ICO - and do it.
In my limited experience one well known purveyor of multi car policies seemed to take the view that by releasing data about me to me they would be violating the policyholders data rights. (An initial response was, in effect: "not your data. Won't tell you anything").
-
In response to whether it would cause exceptional hardship, I think it definitely would.
I travel between different sites for work. Losing my ability to drive would increase commute times considerable and would definitely mean spending more money which I don't have at the moment with child custody / divorce proceedings. I am having to pay about 80 pound an hour at the moment to see my child twice a week. I would need the car also to transport my child to her mother and we live more than an hours drive away. Public transport may add an extra hour to the journey each way this would again be more expensive financially and reduce the amount of time I have with my child. Would you consider this excessive hardship?
With regards to subject access request my data should be on there as a named driver so on whst basis could they refuse?
Thanks for all your help.
-
I don't if doing a subject access request would help
You may have some difficulty with that. Be as clear as you can in what you are asking for. They may refuse on the (questionable) grounds it is not your personal data.
-
I don't if doing a subject access request would help
That would seem to be your best bet, the answer certainly can’t harm your case but may well help it.
-
I already have 6 points so I am potentially at risk of losing my license but I need my car for work as I commute long distances.
Whatever else you do regarding mitigating the offence itself, you should prepare an "Exceptional Hardship" (EH) argument. As you realise, if your attempt to avoid six points is unsuccessful, you will face a six month ban for "totting up". Magistrates have this guidance which they use when considering an EH argument:
When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:
It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.
Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence;
Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.
If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.
Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable;
Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.
Noting my emphasis, that loss of employment would not in itself normally make an EH argument successful, would you or others suffer EH if you were banned?
-
Depending on the facts, she may or may not be guilty of some inchoate offence.
-
Can I make a criminal complaint against my wife's actions?
No. Well technically you can but the police will not be interested.
-
Thank you for your reply.
It was my wife that would normally renew our insurance policy plus it would have been on autorenew if that helps my case I'm not sure.
I am in the process of obtaining information from the insurer to try and prove she actively removed my car from the policy but im having trouble as the policy is in her name. I don't if doing a subject access request would help or if they are obliged to hand over information if ifs regarding a criminal case.
Regardless of how I wish to present my extenuating circumstances I am assuming u should just plead guilty and then try to explain the situation to the judge. I already have 6 points so I am potentially at risk of losing my license but I need my car for work as I commute long distances.
Can I make a criminal complaint against my wife's actions?
-
Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence - whether or not you believed you were insured is irrelevant to guilt.
On conviction, the court a re required to order your licence to be endorsed (6 - 8 points or a ban) unless they find that there are special reasons not to endorse.
SRNtE is not a defence (you are still technically guilty), but is mitigation concerning the commission of the offence (why you done it) that is so compelling that the court ought not to order your licence to be endorsed.
I would suggest the bench are more likely to find SRNtE if the circumstances are such that they themselves would likely have done the same.
Merely innocently forgetting to insure or simply assuming that you were insured is not in itself sufficient.
If your estranged wife maliciously cancelled "your" policy without telling you, then that would seem to be something that could potentially form the basis of SRnTE - although the obvious counter-argument is whether you should have assumed that your estranged wife would continue to pay for "your" insurance. If it was cancelled mid-policy, that would probably be a stronger argument than if it was simply not renewed. If it was simply not renewed, I would strongly suggest avoiding arguing in court that to avoid committing the offence you would have needed to check every day.
SRNtE is very "fact specific" and dependent on the disposition of the bench - it is not paint by numbers.
As regards facts, you would need some. Mere supposition that she must have removed you from the policy is unlikely to ingratiate you to the bench or persuade them to find SRNtE.
-
https://imgur.com/a/9ekwPLJ
These ones for clarification
-
It may be of no consequence, but by "actual letter", which one do you mean?
-
Good Morning All,
I am in a bit of a situation and a friend has recommended your good forum to get advice.
Summary of the situation:
On 16/2/24 I was stopped by police not sure of the exact reason of the stop but I am assuming my vehicle was flagged up on their ANPR as having no insurance.
I was driving my own vehicle registered under my name with my young daughter as a passenger.
The police officer asked me if I had insurance and I said yes of course. After checking on their systems they informed me there was no insurance on the vehicle to my shock and I thought there must have been some sort of mistake.
My (soon to be ex) wife and I have a multicar policy and she is the one that normally renews every year. We are currently going through a break up with court proceedings under way to decide things like child custody etc. During the incident I attempted to contact her to see if she had renewed but could not get hold of her. I then messaged her to which she replied and it became apparent that she had not renewed the policy on my vehicle. As it is a joint policy I am assuming she would have had to actively remove my vehicle from the insurance without my knowledge and without letting me know.
I contacted a relative in the car industry who spoke with the police and I am not sure what they discussed but after speaking with them and explaining my situation the police were sympathetic in allowing me to do any insurance policy there and then to allow me to drive the vehicle again rather than get it towed away which is what I think happens under normal circumstances.
I have already received the letter of offer for fine and points which I did not respond to as I wanted to explain the circumstances of this in court. I now have the single justice procedure notice and would like to know your thoughts. I have until 5th of August to reply to this.
Link to documents: Apologies if they are all over the place, did not know how to sort.
https://imgur.com/a/Q9jQ8SW
https://imgur.com/a/vGmQf1d
Questions -
1)Is there any defence where I can argue that I had sufficient reason to believe I had car insurance as it was a joint policy. If not does that mean people in such multi car policies would have to check daily if they have insurance in case the named policy holder has decided to cancel the insurance? Is that realistic?
2)Is there any criminal complaint I can put against my wife with regards to cancelling / removing my car from the multicar policy and not informing me of this? In the knowledge I was driving our daughter around and that I could face serious consequences where I to be stopped by the police (which I was) and potentially affect my employment and professional registration. I just dont know how she could have done this and also allowed her daughter to be driven in an uninsured vehicle.
3)Some of the officers statements are not accurate such as me saying no comment which was not the case, I was in full conversation with them trying to explain what had happened but none of this appears in the witness statements.
4)Probably a moot point - on the actual letter it is addressed without stating my first name (only has my middle name and surname), but my name appears in full on other parts of the documents sent by the police.