Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Speeding and other criminal offences => Topic started by: Jack_Pirate on May 03, 2025, 05:45:01 pm
-
Sure.
As per your example the correct VRM "RM1" its on v5c, insurance, road tax. The correct VRM is on all the letters and the slip that I received from the police.
The incorrect VRM that was on the vehicle when I got stopped "RW1". Due to the nature of the plate the police officer got confused between two varieties and put the correct VRM on the case. That is how I see it.
-
Thank you Andy, for the detailed response. I will draft an email to the police first requesting to review and to cancel the proceedings by stating that the VRM on the letter is correct and I will provide the documents from the insurer stating that I was covered on the day I got pulled.
I will update how things will evolve.
-
Are you questioning the meaning of the OP's statement, or his belief that it was not important?
-
I did not think that it was important/ relevant to mention that the VRM stated in the above letters are the correct one that corresponds to v5c and insurance and so on.
What does it change in my circumstances? If it an important bit if information.
Sorry but can you clarify please?
Let's assume the correct VRM for your car is RM1 and that that is the VRM the DVLA have on your V5C and it is the number that it is insured number.
But for whatever reason the VRM on your car at the time you were stopped was actually RW1
Which of the two VRMs is on the offers you have receoved from the police? T
-
As has already been explained, the original issue is that the plates you put on your vehicle did not correspond to the VRM on your insurance policy - so on the face of it (on the assumption that the VRM on the plates was correct) the vehicle was not insured (or more precisely not insured for you to drive it).
You have not been charged with any offence yet and cannot be charged until the expiration of the 28 days you were given to accept the COFP.
However, if you were to be charged with driving some vehicle identified by the erroneous VRM, a letter from your insurer stating that you were insured to drive that vehicle would be very helpful as evidence that you were insured to drive that vehicle.
As the redacted COFP (with pretty much the only relevant detail - the VRM - having been redacted) apparently refers to the correct VRM, and the one which is stated on your insurance certificate, if any subsequent charge of driving without insurance identifies the vehicle by that VRM - in other words if you are accused of driving without insurance in what is identified by the charge as the vehicle that you have a policy insuring you to drive, then such a letter is irrelevant.
There is no "correct" way to contact the police, phone them, write to them, send a carrier pigeon. If you can't get any sense out of the reporting officer, try speaking to his sergeant or inspector to review the matter.
-
Thanks for all the comments.
I spoke toy insurance company and requested a indemnity document. They have emailed me with the policy schedule. When questioned if this is sufficient for the purposes of providing that I was insured to drive the stated vehicle during the incident. I was told "Yes"
Can somebody advise if that is correct and what is the correct way to notify the police to review the matter?
-
The above letters that I received actually state the correct VRM that corresponds with the insurance and dvla.
So, let me get this straight - you were stopped and reported for driving without insurance, and had your car seized dor driving with no insurance because the VRM being displayed at the time was incorrect (and presumably no insurance policy was in effect in respect of that VRM, and you have now decided to mention that the COFPs (with VRMs redacted) for both the no insurance and wrong VRM allegations specify the VRM that should have been displayed?
If you wish to continue drip feeding relevant information, I will be more than happy to delete this thread.
I did not think that it was important/ relevant to mention that the VRM stated in the above letters are the correct one that corresponds to v5c and insurance and so on.
What does it change in my circumstances? If it an important bit if information.
-
Would the matter still go to court were I would have to defend my case?
That would be up to the Police if they want to prosecute.
However, if you provide them proof to them that the vehicle was insured as required then they are likely to drop the CoFP and not proceed...
Heed Andy's comments...
-
As has been said, you are insuring the vehicle not the registration, the registration is just a very easy way of identifying the vehicle.
This commonly comes up in the context of police/driving without insurance and you just need to get your insurers to issue a letter of indemnity. Most report no problems getting one, a few it takes a bit more effort but eventually they get what they need to avoid the charge/points.
I suspect you may find a charge of driving a vehicle with incorrect plates harder to avoid. You could be fined up to £1,000, get points on your licence and your vehicle will fail its MOT test if you drive with incorrectly displayed number plates.
Thanks for the input. So once I have the letter of indemnity from the insurance company. Would the matter still go to court were I would have to defend my case?
As in regards to wrong VRM that was displayed on the vehicle it was a genuine error on my end for which I accept the liability and in relation to it I received 2 fines.
-
As has been said, you are insuring the vehicle not the registration, the registration is just a very easy way of identifying the vehicle.
This commonly comes up in the context of police/driving without insurance and you just need to get your insurers to issue a letter of indemnity. Most report no problems getting one, a few it takes a bit more effort but eventually they get what they need to avoid the charge/points.
I suspect you may find a charge of driving a vehicle with incorrect plates harder to avoid. You could be fined up to £1,000, get points on your licence and your vehicle will fail its MOT test if you drive with incorrectly displayed number plates.
-
The above letters that I received actually state the correct VRM that corresponds with the insurance and dvla.
So, let me get this straight - you were stopped and reported for driving without insurance, and had your car seized dor driving with no insurance because the VRM being displayed at the time was incorrect (and presumably no insurance policy was in effect in respect of that VRM, and you have now decided to mention that the COFPs (with VRMs redacted) for both the no insurance and wrong VRM allegations specify the VRM that should have been displayed?
If you wish to continue drip feeding relevant information, I will be more than happy to delete this thread.
-
For day to day purposes, the vehicle is identified by its VRM - so on the face of it there was no insurance in force for the vehicle you appeared to be driving. Insurance is not recorded against a VIN number, it is recorded against a VRM. That does not mean that it is the VRM rather than the vehicle is insured, but f**kwittery (on your part) aside, the two are assumed to coincide.
As regards the police apparently pursuing a no-insurance offence (you have not yet been charged with such an offence, merely offered a fixed penalty in order to discharge liability for such an offence) - the police are not generally legally qualified, and some aren't even members of MENSA, but the bottom line is that no insurance is a reverse burden offence - if charged, it is up to you to prove that you were insured, and if you let it get that far, that will be the second count of f**kwittery on your part.
I do accept that I did mess up by making the error with the plates. It was not intensional. Clearly there was no gain for me. Due to the nature of the VRM it could be considered confusing. When I was collecting my vehicle from the police compound they have made errors with VRM on their system.
The above letters that I received actually state the correct VRM that corresponds with the insurance and dvla.
-
But why is there a need to speak to the insurance? I have motor insurance certificate at hand and I did show it to the office and also I have used the same certificate to collect my vehicle from police compound yard.
Were the plates changed to the correct format for the collection?
Yes, I had correct plates made up before collecting the vehicle.
-
But why is there a need to speak to the insurance? I have motor insurance certificate at hand and I did show it to the office and also I have used the same certificate to collect my vehicle from police compound yard.
Were the plates changed to the correct format for the collection?
-
For day to day purposes, the vehicle is identified by its VRM - so on the face of it there was no insurance in force for the vehicle you appeared to be driving. Insurance is not recorded against a VIN number, it is recorded against a VRM. That does not mean that it is the VRM rather than the vehicle is insured, but f**kwittery (on your part) aside, the two are assumed to coincide.
As regards the police apparently pursuing a no-insurance offence (you have not yet been charged with such an offence, merely offered a fixed penalty in order to discharge liability for such an offence) - the police are not generally legally qualified, and some aren't even members of MENSA, but the bottom line is that no insurance is a reverse burden offence - if charged, it is up to you to prove that you were insured, and if you let it get that far, that will be the second count of f**kwittery on your part.
-
Thanks for the input. I am not reluctant at all and will do what ever is required to get me out of this situation. Prior to your explanation it did not make any scene to speak to the insurance. As the certificate of policy is in place. It was sufficient to get my car back.
I will speak to the insurer to confirm that I was insured for the vehicle I got stopped.
I fail to understand why I got done for uninsured driving if the issue was with the VRM being incorrect.
-
But why is there a need to speak to the insurance? I have motor insurance certificate at hand and I did show it to the office and also I have used the same certificate to collect my vehicle from police compound yard.
An insurance certificate doesn't prove that the vehicle concerned had valid cover at the time you were stopped. All it proves is that a policy was in place at the time the certificate was issued and that policy could have been cancelled or suspended at a later time.
There is also the possibility of the certificate being a forgery.
Speaking to your insurers and getting them to confirm in writing that your vehicle was insured when stopped will be the quickest and easiest way to resolve the matter.
Why are you so reluctant to do this?
-
But why is there a need to speak to the insurance? I have motor insurance certificate at hand and I did show it to the office and also I have used the same certificate to collect my vehicle from police compound yard.
-
I have not spoken to my insurance
Then do so and get them to provide proof of insurance of that vehicle at the time of the incident. That's the only way you'll escape the no insurance charge. They may still pursue lesser offences regarding the VRM.
-
I have not spoken to my insurance nor did the police officer.
I have full cover in place for the vehicle.
-
What did your insurer say when you asked them to provide proof of 3rd party for insurance when displaying the incorrect vrm?
-
I would be really grateful if I could get some advice.
I was pulled over by a police car just after leaving the Heathrow car park. I was told they were unable to run my number plate through the database. Initially, they thought it might be due to a spacing issue after the 4th character. Then I was questioned about when I transferred the private plate to this vehicle and where I had purchased the plates.
When I checked the DVLA confirmation email, I realised I had made a mistake when ordering the physical plates—one letter was wrong: I used a "W" instead of an "M."
Due to the issue with the registration plate, the officers weren’t sure how to proceed, and as a result, they seized my car and recorded it as being driven without insurance. However, I have full insurance cover under the correct registration, which matches the V5C and the VIN.
In addition, I received two identical penalties regarding the non-conformity of the number plate, each with a different reference number.
I fully understand that the error with the physical plates was my fault, but I don’t understand why I’m being charged with driving without insurance when the vehicle is, and always has been, correctly insured.
I’m keen to defend my case and resolve this properly.
(https://i.ibb.co/pjZpVvpr/IMG-20250503-154932.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YB8Gn7GT)
(https://i.ibb.co/wZqVZBmy/IMG-20250503-155011.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0pLTpmbq)
(https://i.ibb.co/tPJH13kV/IMG-20250503-155059.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yBQNxVGH)