Author Topic: SJPN - No insurance 6 points will lose licence (special reasons case)  (Read 714 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hi All, A few of you saw my case on pepipoo 5 months back so reposting here.

I was stopped by police driving my missus car while she was in the passenger - we was at the doctors as she gave birth 2 weeks before and she was unwell so requested I drive and she purchased temp car insurance on a website it took less than 2 mins. I get pulled by police so apparently driving a bit fast. they run my insurance checks and say I have no insurance.

Time of observation as quoted on the SJPN:12:15pm , I then get the insurance docs and my missus selected 12:30pm instead of 12:15pm. However I explained and copper thought I purchased the insurance while I was standing infant of him, regardless he didn't tow and let me leave. I have an email with the companies customer service confirming it was purchased at 12:08pm. regardless I have 6 points (3 dropping off in September) and I will loose my licence given based on the law I am guilty. Clearly I had no intention of committing any sort of crime and the window is so small.


How to I reply to the SJPN? just plead guilty or ?
Do I have a chance to present this case as special reasons? how do I go about this?
Any other general thoughts and help are needed - I have 10 days to reply either by letter or online and I am quite stressed.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2024, 12:11:26 am by joefroggs »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


sparxy

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Karma: +1/-0
  • [ib90xi8p]
    • View Profile
Have you contacted the insurer and asked if they would have covered you from the time of purchase? Whilst there is no guarantee, it is something which has helped others (say, with an auto-renew that failed, or an reg plate swapped for a personalised plate).

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
No, sorry just to clarify it was a temp insurance we purchased. Insurance company flat out refused saying despite buying at 12:08 itís illegal to backdate insurance by 15m.


NewJudge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile
You should respond to he SJPN pleading guilty, but requesting an appearance in court (I think that's usually the second of the three options on the SJPN). You can then present your "Special Reasons" argument in court.

Bear in mind that the "Special Reasons" must be associated with he offence itself and not your personal circumstances. So the argument would be about the error in timing of the temporary policy and the short time involved between then and you driving.

If the court rejects your SR argument and yo consequently face a "totting up" ban, you can go on to present an "Exceptional Hardship" plea. The court can reduce the mandatory six month ban (and if they do, it's usually to impose no ban at all) if you can show that you or others will face Exceptional Hardship if you are banned. he hardship has to be as it says - exceptional. That is over and above that which anyone might face when they are disqualified. Magistrates have this guidance to help them when considering such a plea:

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.

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
You should respond to he SJPN pleading guilty, but requesting an appearance in court (I think that's usually the second of the three options on the SJPN). You can then present your "Special Reasons" argument in court.

Bear in mind that the "Special Reasons" must be associated with he offence itself and not your personal circumstances. So the argument would be about the error in timing of the temporary policy and the short time involved between then and you driving.

If the court rejects your SR argument and yo consequently face a "totting up" ban, you can go on to present an "Exceptional Hardship" plea. The court can reduce the mandatory six month ban (and if they do, it's usually to impose no ban at all) if you can show that you or others will face Exceptional Hardship if you are banned. he hardship has to be as it says - exceptional. That is over and above that which anyone might face when they are disqualified. Magistrates have this guidance to help them when considering such a plea:

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.


Okay thanks! - on the SJPN Response (when I tick plead guilty but want to attend court- it has an optional text text with the question - what do I want the court to consider along with my guilty plea) should I fill out my special reasons argument there?

For me my SR Argument I will introduce myself and then provide documentation that show me and my missus has the exact same car / model car - she was insured on my car at the time, whilst her car was also fully insured under her own name, I will then show proof I purchased temp insurance prior to the offence and the time window was so small etc.

for the Exeptional circumstance I have a disabled mother who I am solely respnsible to take to hospital appointments 2/3 times a month she needs both physical assistance going in and out the car + someone to assist during the day pushing her around + toilet facilities - so without the car this will be impossible and her health will deteriorate. (will they take my word for this? or shall I provide proof of letters from doctors / appointments).


andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
My recollection of your somewhat briefer account on PePiPoo 5 months ago differs slightly from the corresponding parts of your current account, assuming this is the case I have in mind.

Whilst it is entirely possible that my recollection of reading something 5 months ago might be erroneous, or indeed it might have been a different case with temp insurance purchased near the time of the stop, I consider it prudent to remind you of two points -
-the court might be sceptical of any claims that you are not able to evidence beyond your own testimony, and
-if you were minded to "reboot" the saga to create a prettier picture, giving materially false evidence in court can result in spending time in an adult sized playpen.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
My recollection of your somewhat briefer account on PePiPoo 5 months ago differs slightly from the corresponding parts of your current account, assuming this is the case I have in mind.

Whilst it is entirely possible that my recollection of reading something 5 months ago might be erroneous, or indeed it might have been a different case with temp insurance purchased near the time of the stop, I consider it prudent to remind you of two points -
-the court might be sceptical of any claims that you are not able to evidence beyond your own testimony, and
-if you were minded to "reboot" the saga to create a prettier picture, giving materially false evidence in court can result in spending time in an adult sized playpen.

Pretty much the same case, but I have shortened and only included relevant info.

In terms of claims (I have email correspondence from insurance company confirming insurance was purchased prior to 12:15pm). And I also have evidence of the insurance certificate.

slapdash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 234
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Hazy memory, but what is the time on the certificate provided by the insurer ? I recall it was 12:15 timed the same as the stop.

Have you checked your own policy and whether it offers "driving other vehicles" cover. Many policies offer third party DOV as standard.

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Hazy memory, but what is the time on the certificate provided by the insurer ? I recall it was 12:15 timed the same as the stop.

Have you checked your own policy and whether it offers "driving other vehicles" cover. Many policies offer third party DOV as standard.

12:30 was the certificate provided insurance, time of stop was 12:15.

worth going with special reasons? and yes I have checked my other policy and it doesn't cover other vehicles.

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 345
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
What special reason is there?

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Presumably variously that the OP's wife believed that she had purchased immediate cover and/or that she innocently misled the OP into believing that he was insured.

Considering that the OP will get 6 shiny new points which will take him up to 12 if he does not ask the court to find special reasons, I am slightly confused by his question as to whether such a request/argument is worthwhile - however, he also asked if it was worth defending when (to the best of my recollection - and slapdash's too) he told us that the policy showed him as covered at the time of the stop when he posted a variation of this case on PePiPoo.

Broadly speaking the rules regarding SRNtE are fairly nebulous as regards the strength of the argument - the key point being that it must concern the commission of the offence. Driving without insurance because you were misled into believing that you were insured would seem to firmly tick that box. Whether the court would take the view that the OP ought to have personally checked

I have heard it said that being misled is not in itself sufficient. I have also heard it said that it can be. My personal opinion on SRNtE is that they are likely to be considered subjectively by the bench depending on whether the bench take the view that it could happen to them. If they are of the opinion that anyone who has passed a driving test ought to be able to quote the 7th paragraph of page 28 of the Highway Code backwards, then not so much, but if they have slightly ditzy spouses, maybe moreso.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
What special reason is there?

Insurance purchased @ 12:08pm which was meant to begin immediately at the next interval (every 15mins on the hour) so at 12:15pm I would of been insured however it seems like my partner selected 12:30pm in error.

I was driving clearly with insurance purchased before I was stopped by police - and I was fully under the impression I was insured at the time.

joefroggs

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Presumably variously that the OP's wife believed that she had purchased immediate cover and/or that she innocently misled the OP into believing that he was insured.

Considering that the OP will get 6 shiny new points which will take him up to 12 if he does not ask the court to find special reasons, I am slightly confused by his question as to whether such a request/argument is worthwhile - however, he also asked if it was worth defending when (to the best of my recollection - and slapdash's too) he told us that the policy showed him as covered at the time of the stop when he posted a variation of this case on PePiPoo.

Broadly speaking the rules regarding SRNtE are fairly nebulous as regards the strength of the argument - the key point being that it must concern the commission of the offence. Driving without insurance because you were misled into believing that you were insured would seem to firmly tick that box. Whether the court would take the view that the OP ought to have personally checked

I have heard it said that being misled is not in itself sufficient. I have also heard it said that it can be. My personal opinion on SRNtE is that they are likely to be considered subjectively by the bench depending on whether the bench take the view that it could happen to them. If they are of the opinion that anyone who has passed a driving test ought to be able to quote the 7th paragraph of page 28 of the Highway Code backwards, then not so much, but if they have slightly ditzy spouses, maybe moreso.

Okay makes sense to me, in terms of handing documentation such as insurance policy / email copies to the bench how does one go about this? just print and hand over or is there something more official. Seems like based on your understandings its a case by case situation that's purely subjective based on the bench on the day.

In terms of how I approach this case would I begin my case as accepting guilt then asking for a SR hearing ? and when this begins I request that the 6 points are withheld in my case due to XYZ.

NewJudge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
  • Karma: +6/-0
    • View Profile
Quote
Okay makes sense to me, in terms of handing documentation such as insurance policy / email copies to the bench how does one go about this? just print and hand over or is there something more official.

Just take copies. Five if you can - one for each of the three magistrates, one for the court's legal advisor and one for the prosecutor.

Quote
Seems like based on your understandings its a case by case situation that's purely subjective based on the bench on the day.
Yes it is. You could present an identical argument to two benches; one might find in your favour, the other against you.

Quote
In terms of how I approach this case would I begin my case as accepting guilt then asking for a SR hearing ? and when this begins I request that the 6 points are withheld in my case due to XYZ.

Yes. See my earlier post. You must request your hearing when you respond to the SJPN.
 

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 392
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
As a general rule, it is at least "good form" to serve a copy of any evidence you intend to rely on on both the court and the prosecution at least 14 days before the trial.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.