Please help

[Onlyme]

Hi everyone,

im in a bit of a pickle at the moment and here's the story so far...

just over we two years ago I was caught for drink driving and blew 128.
they sent me to court and told me that I was banned for 28 months and given a fine. If I went on a drink drive awareness course it would be reduced to 21 months, so I did and I got my licence back in September last year.
i bought myself a cheap van and got fully comp insurance.
yesterday I was driving my partners vehicle and turned the corner at some speed because there was heavy traffic up ahead. The car slid and hit the curb and apparently another parked vehicle. At the time I was not aware of me hitting another vehicle and I carried on with my journey.
1 hour later I get a knock on the door from the police regarding the incident.
the officer was very helpful and didn't take my partners car, or arrest me for leaving the scene of an rtc but done me for driving with no insurance, even though I'm fully comp on my van.
anyway, I'm going to have a letter soon to say I've got to go to court for having no insurance to drive her vehicle as my insurance doesn't cover me to do so.

so my questions are....

when I go to court will they look at the fact that I've been banned in the past ?
will they get the information that I was supposed to have hit another vehicle ?
what will be the likely outcome as I genuinely thought I was covered ?

all help will be appreciated.
thanks

 

[price1367]

The court will be told about any unspent motoring convictions, which will include the drink driving from 2013.
The prosecutor will read out a "statement of Facts" which I am pretty sure will include saying that you were visited at home because of an alleged collision, If, however, there had indeed been contact with another vehicle, I would have expected you to have also been prosecuted for failing to stop after a RTC.
you can expect 6 points and a fine for no insurance, and the conviction will bump up your own insurance. No insurance is an "absolute offence", in other words if there was no cover, you are guilty. "Thinking you had cover is not taken into cocsideration at all, it is up to you to check. Your partner is lucky she is not being prosecuted for 'permitting ' no insurance as well.
Are you sure you are not covered under basic Road Traffic Act cover to drive her car? A fully comp policy for an over 25 year old will often cover basic cover for another vehicle, providing it is insured separately by the owner as well. Even if it does not specify this on the policy, it could be worth asking your insurance if they would provide cover in these circumstances.....

 

[Mclanelli]

There is a defence available to this charge if an employee drives in the course of their employment having been led to believe by his/her employer (and owner of the vehicle in question) that insurance was in place. This is a statutory defence which means that it is for the accused person to prove that it applies on the balance of probabilities.

So in legal terms driving without insurance is not an absolute offence.

Even where no defence is available it is also possible for the court to decide that ‘Special Reasons’ apply, and to refrain from the imposition of penalty points for this offence; even though an accused person is technically guilty. Such a situation may arise where a person has driven in the mistaken belief that insurance was in place only to find that, due to circumstances beyond their control, it has not been put in place or has been unexpectedly cancelled.

It is therefore very much in an accused person’s interests to seek legal advice; and produce a statement for the courts in mitigation.


M

 

[price1367]

In practical terms, however, the use of this posters vehicle is an absolute offence as Section 143 (3) RTA is not available to him as an employee driving his employers vehicle in good faith. He has his own van and was using his girlfriends car on the presumption he was covered. He should have taken reasonable steps to verify if he was covered. He took out the policy and should have satisfied himself he was covered to drive another vehicle. Similarly his girlfriend should have satisfied herself that he was covered before lending him her car, it is not enough to just ask.
i still think the best approach is for the poster to contact his own insurance company to see if cover would have been provided and get written confirmation if this is the case.
i agree that a solicitor might be required to put forward a case of no insurance through 'circumstances beyond a drivers control' for special reasons to not impose points, but in this case it appears to be through presumptions being made and a failure to make basic checks, and the best solicitor is highly unlikely to persuade a court to not impose points in those circumstances. Better to save your money towards the fine that would still be imposed.

 

[Mclanelli]

In practical terms, however, the use of this posters vehicle is an absolute offence as Section 143 (3) RTA is not available to him as an employee driving his employers vehicle in good faith. He has his own van and was using his girlfriends car on the presumption he was covered. He should have taken reasonable steps to verify if he was covered. He took out the policy and should have satisfied himself he was covered to drive another vehicle. Similarly his girlfriend should have satisfied herself that he was covered before lending him her car, it is not enough to just ask.
i still think the best approach is for the poster to contact his own insurance company to see if cover would have been provided and get written confirmation if this is the case.
i agree that a solicitor might be required to put forward a case of no insurance through 'circumstances beyond a drivers control' for special reasons to not impose points, but in this case it appears to be through presumptions being made and a failure to make basic checks, and the best solicitor is highly unlikely to persuade a court to not impose points in those circumstances. Better to save your money towards the fine that would still be imposed.

I was simply highlighting the fact that driving without insurance was not an absolute offence as claimed, as it could be misleading to other readers.

There are many drivers of company vehicles up and down the UK, who have been prosecuted for driving without insurance when they could have been acquitted if they had been aware of the statutory defence. So for everyone's benefit, I thought I would highlight the facts.

I didn't say he would need a solicitor in court, but some legal advice pre court with a prepared statement might help with regards to special reasons; if such reasons apply.

That is all. This is not a measuring contest.

M