Free Traffic Legal Advice

You need to think outside the box here - surely you log jobs on specific vehicles - and you'll be logged into the system.

This way you can see who was on the vehicle, if not even who was driving.

When was your call on the 27th December?

Big (poorly designed) corporate computer systems normally have a flaw where one piece won't talk to another quickly - systems sending letters and emails sometimes being one of them. So it is possible that perhaps your auto-renewal has been cancelled, and the policy has not been put back in place for some reason (or a computer error has occurred At this point). The renewal email was already going to wing its way to you. Have you actually paid anything for Jan's cover?

Have you, at any point, had sight of an insurance schedule or certificate? For instance, attached in the renewal email?


IMO you should send a SAR to Saga NOW including a request for call audio recordings, transcripts, or both if held, along with policy inception/expiry dates etc. I would also lodge a complaint with them regarding your renewal email.

None of this solves the current legal issue of holding no insurance at this point, but if Saga were to admit they made an error, they can confirm cover was actually in place at the time, giving you a defence.

The officer alleges 47 mph from a front-on handheld, but my raw Google Takeout logs (the JSON telemetry) show a  speedMetersPerSecond  of 12.96m/s at peak, which works out to about 28.99 mph. The log also shows a high accuracy rating of 3 meters.

Were you actively using Google Maps at the time? What is the time interval between the data? If you're not using Google maps, is there a possibility that the data is averaged?

Does your vehicle/the towed equipment, have any reflective surfaces or long, flat surfaces? If it can generate 7mph per 1m of slip (per andy), then you're looking at 2 and a bit metres to get to 18mph difference.

Is it actually possible for your vehicle (towing said trailer) to reach the speeds allegedly reached? And if it did reach these speeds, could you have made your turn into the junction?

ManxTom: I read it as the pass cannot be used to park up to shop, but in OPs case they have returned with the service user and are likely going to go inside with them to prepare food/etc then the pass is being used to support them in their own home.

Obviously the council may have different views, and then I dare say that the council may have the final say as it's quite wishy washy on their site!

They felt that by raising the £100 fee that this would add to road safety as cars parking irresponsibly on roads would use car parks.This would prevent cars blocking the Ambulances, Fire engines etc attending emergencies.

Increasing the possible charge for mis-reading/mis-understanding/parking totally as per signage but ANPR says otherwise will reduce road parking?

Is this person nuts?

Wait...

The data block on both images make them from the same episode, and the third image would appear to just be a zoomed cropped version of the 2nd image.

The plate may well not be visible on a standard camera just based upon the angle, or if it is a cloned plate, perhaps some kind of coating/reflective treatment on it to make it more difficult to read?

Thanks for the reply
Can they backdate it though? Even though it was only in the garage for less than a week? Also when the officers checked my record it showed no business insurance on my licence so aren't I technically banged to rights because at the time, I didnt have proper coverage?

Yes, the insurer can say "We would have insured you on this date". Some business policies do not specifically cover individual vehicles but may cover "any vehicle owned by or used in the course of business" (more likely for very large corps). If there is any kind of stipulation like that in the businesses policy then it may well cover you for delivering.

They might also say no, but at the end of the day, what choice do you have? Explore every option open to you.

Insurance is separate to your driving licence, the police checked your car insurance and found it to not have "for hire and reward" cover.

The obvious (to me) question, assuming that the other driver was indeed at fault in (or for) the collision, is why give so much detail to paint the other driver in a bad light, but omit any detail of the collision itself. What is the OP trying to hide?

Just annoyed that someone cannot reverse a van?

From the OPs account I presumed that their car was parked, and they've, after the fact, obtained the CCTV footage of it being damaged.