# Stopped for driving with no insurance?



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

Hi dont know if anyone can help me out but here goes, I got stopped yesterday for apparently drving without insurance, 6 points and a Â£200 fine :x heres the dilema im fully comp on my TT and ive got 3rd party fire and theft on driving other cars. 
I was driving a friends car when i got stopped and when the copper first said to me was is it your car i said yes (for the obvious reasons), but we only purchased the car on Sunday so its not registered to any one yet but me friend has put his name to the new keeper supplement, now heres the dilema i rang insurance company and they sent me a letter to basically state if the car does not belong to me or registered in my name then im allowed to drive it. At the time i got pulled i did say it was mine though even though it isn't, 
I rang the central ticket bureau and they stated to put it in writing and do not surrender my counter-part driving license when producing at the cop shop.
What are the chances of getting it dropped do you guys reckon?
Any comments are welcome.

Thanks Kev


----------



## mw22 (Aug 15, 2005)

K3v-hM said:


> I was driving a friends car when i got stopped and when the copper first said to me was is it your car i said yes (for the obvious reasons)


Sorry if I'm being thick, but what are the "obvious reasons"??

Mike


----------



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

mw22 said:


> K3v-hM said:
> 
> 
> > I was driving a friends car when i got stopped and when the copper first said to me was is it your car i said yes (for the obvious reasons)
> ...


Well me being a good boy and never being pulled by the fuzz b4 panicked a little and said Yes.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Ok - saying yes to owning the car renders you uninsured and therefore liable to prosecution - you cannot drive a car owned by you under the 3rd party rule. I tried that recently with our two cars - was slapped down quickly by insurers 

If you had just bought the car but had said no to owning it & your friend still had it insured, and had not completed ownership docs ie: no date etc, then you'd be insured to drive the vehicle (with a bit of a fiddle). If your friend had cancelled the insurance, iirc this is right, you'd not be insured even if he'd still owned it.

Your biggest problem was admitting to owning the car! You can certainly plead ignorance - however you now can't lie.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

mw22 said:


> K3v-hM said:
> 
> 
> > I was driving a friends car when i got stopped and when the copper first said to me was is it your car i said yes (for the obvious reasons)
> ...


He'd just bought the car :roll: ie: "is this your car, sir?"......"yes"

Equally a "no" answer esp if docs dated & insurance cancelled by friend = hotwater too.


----------



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

saint said:


> Ok - saying yes to owning the car renders you uninsured and therefore liable to prosecution - you cannot drive a car owned by you under the 3rd party rule. I tried that recently with our two cars - was slapped down quickly by insurers
> 
> If you had just bought the car but had said no to owning it & your friend still had it insured, and had not completed ownership docs ie: no date etc, then you'd be insured to drive the vehicle (with a bit of a fiddle). If your friend had cancelled the insurance, iirc this is right, you'd not be insured even if he'd still owned it.
> 
> Your biggest problem was admitting to owning the car! You can certainly plead ignorance - however you now can't lie.


Thanks for the useful info, am i rite in saying I can still drive the car even though my friend was not insured on it? I'm saying this because on the letter they sent me my insurers states 
'Driving other car benefit that I have included in my insurance doe's not apply to driving a vehicle owned registered or that belongs to me'. 
It doe's not state about my friend having to be insured on the vehicle or not?

Thanks


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

PS - I was stopped without insurance in 1992!

Circumstances - stopped, random check, @ 00:25 Novemeber 21st.
Eagle Star insurance had changed their billing cycle and had failed to notify me that my insurance expires on the 20th instead of 30th. They failed to send renewal notice too correct address. Only found this out when checking documents for handing into police station.

Outcome - explanation from me & insurer re circumstances. Fine Â£175 and 3 points instead of 6.

Unfortunately your circumstances don't mirror this.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

Not sure I've followed this, but if I have...

The actual situation (as opposed to what you said at the time) is that you _don't_ own the car, and so _are _insured? So no basis for the points and fine for being uninsured.

So I would have thought it's simply a matter of swallowing any embrassment and explaining, as you have here, that you said the wrong thing in panic - first time stopped, thought the police were asking if you'd nicked it, or whatever reason. You'd probably then need evidence that your friend does in fact own it and that you have insurance elsewhere that covers you 3rd party.

I expect they may give you a bit of a hard time for wasting theirs etc., and may require grovelling apologies, but sounds better than the fine, points, record etc?


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

K3v-hM said:


> saint said:
> 
> 
> > Ok - saying yes to owning the car renders you uninsured and therefore liable to prosecution - you cannot drive a car owned by you under the 3rd party rule. I tried that recently with our two cars - was slapped down quickly by insurers
> ...


There is an assumption in there which would lie with your friend - he owns a vehicle which is being used on the highway therefore by law that vehicle must be insured - if it's not it should be off the road & SORNed and therefore not driven.
I not sure as to what the process would be if, in this case, an accident happened.... does your 3rd party cover your friend as 3rd or your 3rd party.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

drjam said:


> Not sure I've followed this, but if I have...
> 
> The actual situation (as opposed to what you said at the time) is that you _don't_ own the car, and so _are _insured? So no basis for the points and fine for being uninsured.
> 
> ...


That's all ok ofc if no ownership documents were signed & dated AND the m8 had not cancelled his insurance. Even if docs not sent away it's not going to be a case of getting out the tippex :?

If any of the above does not stand - the vehicle was not insured = prosecution.


----------



## drjam (Apr 7, 2006)

K3v-hM said:


> Thanks for the useful info, am i rite in saying I can still drive the car even though my friend was not insured on it?


Ah... I typed before seeing this bit. 
The car has to be insured in _somebody's_ name for you to be able to drive it (even 3rd party). So you may be in "poop" after all, even with grovelling...

Anyway, I give up at this point... probably needs someone with more legal nous.


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

Either:

a. You admit to fraudulently using the 3rd party rule to insure your own vehicle.

b. You admit to not being insured.

c. Both of the above. (I lied, you can't have a. without b.)

I'd go for b. A solicitor may help you mitigate any losses although Â£200 and six points is nothing in comparison with your next insurance premium at renewal time. The insurers really, really don't like people who attempt to defraud them!

The car was your, you were driving it without insurance. If you had hit someone you would not have been insured and nor would they. Go to your room, think about what you have done and learn from it.


----------



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

Thanks for the reply's and more are welcome i'll now go get some professional advise on this.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

All wrong as usual. :wink:

Under your comp TT policy, you are also insured to drive "any car not owned or hired by the insured" with Third Party Road Traffic act Cover.

You do not own the car you were driving when stopped. Therefore you are insured to drive that car. Meeting all necessary legal requirements.

It is not an offence to claim to own a car that you do not. Neither is lying to the police an offence in itself, since you were not under caution or oath at that time.

They are charging you as it appears you do not have cover for that car, since you got confused on the ownership question. :roll: Mistake, but not a criminal offence in itself. But of course you do have cover since it is not your vehicle and never has been. All you have to do is prove that.

I reckon will need to dispute the ticket/NPI and ask to go to court where you will plead not guilty to driving without insurance. You can prove to the bench that you are insured to drive with your TT comp policy as proof with exact policy wording "any car not owned or hired by the insured". Any confusion of ownership is irrelevant can be easily dismissed as roadside confusion. Unless of course you do actually own the car, in which case you were driving without insurance and you fully deserve the punishment.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> All wrong as usual. :wink:
> 
> Under your comp TT policy, you are also insured to drive "any car not owned or hired by the insured" with Third Party Road Traffic act Cover.
> 
> ...


What he said


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> All wrong as usual. :wink:
> 
> Under your comp TT policy, you are also insured to drive "any car not owned or hired by the insured" with Third Party Road Traffic act Cover.
> 
> ...


He does own that vehicle... or does "bought it on Sunday" not mean what it says? Unless ofc he's referring to his own car, which he bought on Sunday, not the one driving at the time - if this is the case (which ain't very clear and never refuted in the following posts) he's in the clear... however am sure the car still has to be insured by his m8 (again something he's not argued)


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Not how it read......


K3v-hM said:


> but *we* only purchased the car on Sunday so its not registered to any one yet but me friend has put his name to the new keeper supplement,


I was assuming that to mean 'they' went to buy the car; his mate actually bought it ie is the owner; but our man actually drove it. Then got stopped.

A little ambiguous.


----------



## Wondermikie (Apr 14, 2006)

drjam said:


> K3v-hM said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the useful info, am i rite in saying I can still drive the car even though my friend was not insured on it?
> ...


This is right, the third party issue doesn't apply if no-one has actually insured the car, it's a privilege that comes only once someone else has already insured the car. Maybe knock for knock between insurance companies has something to do with this.

Otherwise what's to stop a youth from buying a Â£100 Fiesta, getting fully comp on it, and then also buying say, a Mitsu Evo, registering it in his parents name and address, and then driving it around FOC under the third party rule.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Wondermikie said:


> drjam said:
> 
> 
> > K3v-hM said:
> ...


I have yet to see any policy that clearly and absolutely states the third party coverage extension for non-owned cars is only valid with the proviso that any car which is driven ALSO has to have a separate valid insurance policy taken out on it by another person.

Look at your policies and post up the wording if I am incorrect.

On second point, the only thing stopping such young herberts insuring one then driving another 3rd party, is the main driver clause. Ins cos have been wise to that ploy for a very long time and will simply invalidate cover if they smell a rat. They are very good at that.


----------



## was (Mar 24, 2003)

Kev

count yourself lucky you were no involved in an accident :!: I would expect 6 points and a big fine :?


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

When is ownership of a vehicle legally transferred - once the V5 new keeper bits are signed by both parties? Or when the DVLA have received and processed it?

If I understand correctly, one person bought the car and will be using it as a main driver (I assume), but it will be registered in the name of a friend. Unless you are insured as the main driver, I feel the police / insurers will take a dim view of that.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

So Kev, what you are really saying here is you bought the car and got caught driving it before you'd arranged any insurance for it and you're wanting to know if you're likely to get away with it if you lie about whose car it is and now register it in your friend's name instead of your own?

If you want to go with that line you'd better make damn sure there's not a shred of evidence to suggest you paid for the car. And you'd better actually give him the car aswell, because if I was the cop dealing with it I'd be calling round your house regularly gathering evidence about how often the car is there and I'd be making sure the reg was flagged so that you got pulled in it regularly. All this will show a court who really owns the car (the registered keeper does not denote ownership) - cops and jury's aren't as thick as you might hope they would be.

Most forces now have a specialist office whose job it is to look at cases where people have lied in order to avoid conviction for what are simply traffic offences and not criminal matters. They have been very succesful and recently there have been high profile cases in which professional people have ended up serving custodial sentences due to their efforts to avoid speeding fines.

You can get 6 points and a Â£200 fine for no insurance or you can go to prison for 2 years for perjury. Your choice.


----------



## Lock_Stock (May 22, 2007)

Wondermikie said:


> drjam said:
> 
> 
> > K3v-hM said:
> ...


I asked an insurance company about this some time ago, 'jeez must be 6 years now!!' The response was that you can drive the car under the third party rule but as soon as you step out the car, if the car is on the road you are breaking the law as un-insured. Based on this, if you only drive from private driveway to private driveway you are probably ok...

I read his post as meaning he was driving the car that his friend had just purchased, meaning surely no offence has been commited?


----------



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

Thanks for evryone advise some good info you all provided cheers guys, esp garys's anyway got sum professional motoring legal advise and he said to me im covered to drive the car even if they car DID NOT have insurance or HAS insurance..it clearly states I can drive another motor vehicle 3rd party fire and theft that is not owned by me or registered in my name. 
A also got talking to a well known insurance broker and insurance consultant who said the same thing if it doe's go to court I will go and challenge it without a shadow of a doubt. I'm not being funny but yes i's take 6 points 200 quid fine but why should I when I'm not in the wrong in theory, my insurance will go up quite bit next year too.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

saint said:


> PS - I was stopped without insurance in 1992!
> 
> Circumstances - stopped, random check, @ 00:25 Novemeber 21st.
> Eagle Star insurance had changed their billing cycle and had failed to notify me that my insurance expires on the 20th instead of 30th. They failed to send renewal notice too correct address. Only found this out when checking documents for handing into police station.
> ...


Good Lord, I occasionally go drinking with a criminal! <faints>


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

GB pcm Mr C?


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

K3v-hM said:


> I'm not being funny but yes i's take 6 points 200 quid fine but why should I when I'm not in the wrong in *theory*, my insurance will go up quite bit next year too.


What do you mean by 'in theory'?

In your first post you said;



K3v-hM said:


> . . . but *we* only purchased the car on Sunday so its not registered to any one yet . . .


What do you mean by 'we'? Who paid for the car? You are quite clearly skirting around the issue of whose car this really is.

Once again, you need to understand that whoever is the registered keeper has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership. Ownership is determined by who paid for it and who has title in it. No amount of pissing about after the fact is going to change that. At the time you were stopped was there any shred of evidence at all that the car belonged to anybody else except you? Nobody else had registered it and no-one had insured it.

Rest assured, if you'd told me at first it was your car and then later when it turns out you're in the shit for having no insurance you claimed it was someone else's, registering it in their name *after* the event, I'd not be happy with that at all. I'd be going to the previous keeper and making enquiries about the sale; how it was paid for and by whom, who came to look at it, who did he give the keys to and who drove it away, was there a sales invoice and who was it made out to, was there anybody else there? I'd be taking a statement about all that. I'd also be doing the enquiries I suggested earlier.

Now maybe I've got it wrong and this car really does belong to your mate, but my instinct suggests otherwise. Only you know the truth of it, but you've got to ask yourself that when the police go asking those sort of questions what answers are they going to come up with? If it all comes back to you being involved with the purchase of that car you are taking a major risk trying to wriggle your way out of this bit of a mess and instead of getting a bit of shit on the sole of your shoe you're going to be right up to your neck in it.

I'm not intending to be arsey about it - this is in fact well meant advice. I've seen far too many people get themselves into relatively minor trouble and then end up in very serious shit simply by trying to wriggle out of a bit of hassle by telling lies - rather than just accepting they cocked-up.

Attempting to pervert the course of justice is a serious offence, of which the courts take a very dim view, because at the end of the day you are f*cking with them personally. People convicted of it *always* go to prison. Have a good, long think about it - before it's too late.


----------



## TuTTiFruTTi (Jun 24, 2005)

I assume that what you said to the police is actually this...


> i said yes , but we only purchased the car on Sunday so its not registered to any one yet but me friend has put his name to the new keeper supplement


...I removed your addition in parenthisis of "obvious reasons". If so , then yes , you lied to the police but as a twonk , not as someone attempting to pervert , as what you actually did was make yourself liable to a charge you are in fact not guilty of.

Your 3rd Party cover under your own FC policy allows you to drive this vehicle as it does not belong to you. There is no technical requirement to have a vehicle insured unless it is kept on a public highway, it is the driver who must be insured at all times.

If the vehicle registration does not appear on an insurance policy 2 things can happen - the first is that you will be pulled over by police when their automated system flags the vehicle as being uninsured ( a lot of cops seem to be unaware of the fact that as long as the driver is insured the car does'nt need to be) and secondly if you leave it parked on the street you can be charged with using it without insurance.

Don't leave it till it gets to court , write to whichever office of the CPS deals with your area , enclosing copies of your insurance and the V5 showing it is your friends car and this should just go away , they will want documentary proof and once they have it they will be happy to kick it into touch.

And by the way , of the many,many people I've represented who have been charged with APCJ , very few have gone to prison :wink:


----------



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

^^Thanks to everyone who replied to this thread^^ 
I have wrote into the CTB and we'll have to wait ans see from there :roll:

Cheers Kev


----------



## forzaf1 (Nov 14, 2004)

When an officer conducts a PNC check on the car it will come back with the registered keeper aswell as who is insured to it.

Your name won't be down on the insurance.

Did the officer question why your name is not on the insurance? What was your reply?


----------



## K3v-hM (Jun 4, 2007)

forzaf1 said:


> When an officer conducts a PNC check on the car it will come back with the registered keeper aswell as who is insured to it.
> 
> Your name won't be down on the insurance.
> 
> Did the officer question why your name is not on the insurance? What was your reply?


No the officer did not question why my name wont on the insurance, he was fairly clued up on insurance etc, he was pretty sorted he actually said if I didnt say it was my car in the 1st instance I wud of been ok


----------



## forzaf1 (Nov 14, 2004)

Well I guess he could go down the line of perverting the course of justice but if he has gone down the line of driving without insurance then I doub't there will be much to go on because you can simply bring your insurance certificate dated before the incident to show that you did have insurance to drive the vehicle.

Take it to court and when its presented to you that you were driving without insurance you just produce that and it should get thrown out.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

Still depends on who owns the car, doesn't it, which still hasn't been made clear, AFAIK?


----------

