Uninsured keeper of a motor vehicle

[LukeC91]

Hi

My wife purchased a private plate, as a birthday present.

The necessary fee was paid and Insurers notified of the change of plate.

Approx. 6 months later, a letter from the DVLA was received stating that we were the uninsured keeper of a motor vehicle (on the old plate).

I attempted to call DVLA but the number said it was out of service(?!)

Worried it was a scam, I called our Insurer who confirmed that the vehicle was insured and sent me a copy of the certificate.

Thinking this was the end of the matter, I booked the vehicle in for an MOT, at which point I found out the new plate hadn’t been registered with the DVLA (this was a genuine error, as my wife thought she’d done everything correctly).

I immediately updated DVLA and received a new V11.

Fast forward and we’ve received a single justice procedure notice.

The vehicle has always been insured although I realise the DVLA hadn’t been correctly updated when the plate was changed although the vehicle has always been insured.

Is it easier to plead guilty and pay the fine or plead not guilty?

[islandgirl]

no insurance is not only a fine but carries minimum 6 points. Can you prove you filled in the paperwork etc and that the error is with the DVLA or have they admitted it? If it was your error there will likely be no defence.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk...-revised-2017/

[LukeC91]

Thank you for your reply although I’m not sure you’ve understood the question - the vehicle was always insured, the error was in updating the DVLA of the number plate change although this was done with the motor insurer.

[islandgirl]

so what are you charged with?

[HandyAndy]

no insurance is not only a fine but carries minimum 6 points.

Quite so. If she'd been accused of using a vehicle, without insurance (s143 RTA), that is. But...

Approx. 6 months later, a letter from the DVLA was received stating that we were the uninsured keeper of a motor vehicle (on the old plate).

The DVLA do not lay accusations of using an uninsured vehicle (not least because they are rarely in a position, from an office in Swansea, to know whether a vehicle is being used or not). Instead they make allegations of keeping an uninsured vehicle (s144A RTA). Offences under that section do not carry an endorsement and penalty points.

I would return the SJPN with a Not Guilty plea and attach a letter explaining what has happened and confirmation from the insurers that the vehicle was covered. It is the vehicle which needs insurance, not the registration plate and the offence is keeping an uninsured vehicle. If, after seeing the response to the SJPN, the DVLA proceed with the prosecution (for what is essentially an administrate error either on their part or your wife's) your wife should maintain her NG plea. I have in mind a similar case which went either to the Crown Court on appeal or to the High Court as a "case stated". I'll try to find it.

[islandgirl]

Fair enough. So the penalty is apparently:

"if you're suspected of being the registered keeper of a vehicle without insurance or SORN you'll first get an official reminder – an 'Insurance Advisory Letter'.

If you ignore the letter and take no further action then you can expect:

• A £100 fixed penalty (reduced to £50 if paid within 21 days).
• A fine of up to £1000 if the case goes to court.
• The vehicle being clamped, seized or destroyed.

still not ideal.

[HandyAndy]

Certainly not ideal, particularly as the vehicle was insured.

[LukeC91]

Handy Andy - thank you very much for your reply. Would you
Be able to post details of the case you refer to?

[HandyAndy]

Unfortunately I cannot find it as yet.

The best thing you can do is to get a letter of indemnity from your insurers along the lines:

"We can confirm that the vehicle [Make & Model] previously identified under VRM [Old VRM] and now identified under [New VRM] was continuously provided with insurance cover as required by the RTA from [policy start date] until [policy end date]."

That should do the job. The issue is whether the vehicle was insured, not what registration mark it carried. The DVLA system runs registration marks against the MIB database of insured vehicles. If VRM ABC 123 is not shown as insured on the MIB database, then an action letter such as your wife has received is produced. So it is not surprising she has received one. However, Section 144A of the Road Traffic Act (which provides for these penalties) says this:

144AOffence of keeping vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements

(1)If a motor vehicle registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 does not meet the insurance requirements, the person in whose name the vehicle is registered is guilty of an offence.

(2)For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—

(a)it is covered by a such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b)either of the following conditions is satisfied.

(3) [irrelevant]

(4)The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy because—

(a)the policy covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or in the certificate of insurance which relates to it, and

(b)the vehicle is owned by that person.

Your wife has a vehicle of a particular description (e.g. a Ford Fiesta 1.0 GT, or whatever) which is covered by the policy (as confirmed by the insurers in their letter of indemnity that you will get from them). The DVLA's penalty system is designed to penalise those people who have simply failed to insure the vehicle they are keeping. It is not designed for the circumstances your wife is in and a human being must intervene to override it. If the DVLA do not intervene by preventing a prosecution, your wife must do so to explain to the court that the vehicle was insured and so no offence was committed.

.

[LukeC91]

HandyAndy - thank you again for the advice, it’s much appreciated.