Driving without insurance - technical issue as I did have insurance.

[jaypatel1963]

My car was changed in October 2025 to a new model. I requested at the time of car change to assign my cherised number plate from the old car to the new purchased car. Unfortunately I completely forgot to do the transfer. No other material change was done to this vehicle. In December 2025 my wife was stopped by the police and told that the registraion did not match the insurance. During the stop, we updated the insurance data to reflect the current expected registration, but the police still impounded the vehicle until we showed the physical paper work at the local station. We did this a few days later. All seemed to be OK, but to our suprise we recieved a penalty letter from the police saying that the car was being driven without insurance.

I spoke with the Insurance company and they said that as the vehicle had no material change and the car is essentially the same then the car would be insured. This information was relayed to the police but the police have stated that they need a letter of indemnity from the Insurance company to void the penalty. The insurance company state they cannot provide this as the issue was a mistake by mysefl and not them.

What is my position on this - is my wife to be penalized for driving without insurance which is technically not correct. Your assitance is appreicated.

[echat11]

Hi JAYPATEL1963

Welcome to LB

Does the Insurance company's Terms and Conditions state what the insurance company is saying?
If it's not stated in there, then go back to them

[PallasAthena]

Tagging islandgirl and HandyAndy if either are around. I'd be interested in their view on whether the offence of driving without insurance would actually succeed if it went to court. s143 Road Traffic Act 1988 doesn't specify that the insurance in force must relate to the vehicle's registration number but to the vehicle. A vehicle can also be identified by its VIN and the V5Cs issued by the DVLA would presumably show that both registration numbers were the same vehicle VIN.

[des8]

The insurance company state they cannot provide this [letter of indemnity] as the issue was a mistake by mysefl and not them.

.

That is a most unusual reaction.
It was common practice when I was a broker for insurers to issue letters of indemnity if the insured could provide a statement saying they, the insured, were unaware of any circumstances giving rise to a claim.

Who did you speak to?
You probably need to get through to the actual underwriter.

[wales01man]

Was the new reg on the DVLA database for the insures to see?

[islandgirl]

Was the car actually insured at the time is obviously the question. There must be case law from higher courts - I am sure HandyAndy will know about it! It is an unusual situation which I have not seen in court. I did find this:

Section 145 RTA 1988 sets out what must be covered by the insurance policy for it to satisfy s143. This is a very wordy section, however the practical consequence is that any third party or comprehensive insurance policy obtained from a reputable insurance company will be sufficient.

It is vital to note that the offence is committed regardless of the driver’s knowledge: the driver can still be convicted even if he honestly believed he possessed a valid insurance policy at the relevant time.[1]

When proving this offence in court, once the prosecution has accused the driver of using the vehicle without insurance, it is for the driver to prove that he had a valid policy of insurance at the relevant time.[2] This is usually done by the production of an insurance certificate. Once this has been done, the burden then shifts to the prosecution who have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the policy was invalid.

Interestingly, a policy is valid for the purposes of s143 even if it was obtained by fraud (or non-disclosure of material facts) unless the insurer has given notice that the policy has been avoided.[3] However, a policy may be invalid for the purposes of s143 if its terms are breached (this will depend on the individual policy), or if the driver uses the vehicle beyond the scope of the policy. Using a vehicle for business use when it is only insured for social domestic and pleasure use is a classic example of using a vehicle beyond the scope of the policy.[4]

S144A relates to keeping a vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements and the registration mark is mentioned
"The first condition is that the policy F3... , or the certificate of insurance F3... which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy"

It would seem to me to be down to the driver to prove they were ACTUALLY insured. Only the insurance company can provide this evidence in my opinion.

[echat11]

You need to speak / email a manager at the insurance company, they often know more then customer advisors.
You also have a formal complaints route, that will be on their website.

[HandyAndy]

I’m not sure what has actually happened here. You said “I requested at the time of car change to assign my cherised number plate from the old car to the new purchased car.” Who did you make this request to? But you go on to say “Unfortunately I completely forgot to do the transfer.” What transfer did you forget to do?

Could you also clarify:

• When you began driving it did it bear your cherished registration mark or one that had been assigned by the DVLA?
• What registration mark did your certificate of insurance state?
• Did you inform your insurers that you had bought a new car and that it would bear the same registration mark as the old one?

Whatever the answers to all those questions, if your new vehicle, identified by the registration mark it bore at them time your wife was stopped, did not appear on the MIB database, the police are entitled to suspect it was not insured. As islandgirl explains, because of this justified suspicion, the burden is yours (or rather your wife’s) to show that she was insured. She can only do this by obtaining confirmation from the insurers.

One important aspect to bear in mind is that you must provide confirmation that the car was insured at the material time, not that it would have been insured had the insurers been aware of all the facts. This is a subtle but crucial difference. Another thing to bear in mind is that insurers cover vehicles, not registration plates. The registration mark is simply a convenient way to identify them.

In summary, your insurers are the only people who can provide you with the necessary documentation. Having been issued with a conditional offer of a fixed penalty, your wife has 28 days to accept it. After that time the offer will lapse and police will begin court proceedings (they have six months from the date of the offence to do so).

If, in he is intervening period, she obtains proof that she was insured you should contact the police and they may discontinue proceedings. If hey won’t, she will have to defend the matter in court.

[jaypatel1963]

Hi - THANKYOU ALL for your inputs.

Latest is that I have to accept the fine. It was clearly my mistake and having further clarified with the right people in the Insurance company they have stated that an Insurance to be valid against claims, the car must be exactly as specified in the policy.

To be honest I thought I could make a case by going to court but believe it would have been futile

[PallasAthena]

Your choice of course, but the Penalty Notice fine (if you have been offered that) is the cheap bit. Have you taken into account the 6 Points your wife will get on her licence and the difficulty and higher cost it will create in getting insurance in the future?

[des8]

Could you please name your insurers? I want to ensure I never use them!

[HandyAndy]

Yes, your choice of course.

However, if the only difference between the two cars was the registration number it carried, I would be inclined to take the matter further with your insurers and, depending on their response, to the insurance ombudsman.

As I said, insurers cover vehicles, not number plates. If the only difference was that it carried "JP63" instead of "ABC123" their risk and (presumably) he premium are identical.

As above, the £300 fixed penalty is just the beginning. You will face considerably increased insurance premiums and the endorsement must be declared for five years.

Here are some ombudsman decisions which may interest you:

This one involves a driver in a similar position to you, but it was Motability (the lease company) who were at fault:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....DRN7053447.pdf

It is not the same as yours in that his claim was for compensation for having to hire a car whilst the problem was resolved. However, the adjudicator said this:

I find that at all times Mr W was insured to drive the car he was leasing from MO. I reject the suggestion that because the age-related registration number didn’t match the number displayed on the vehicle this invalidated MO’s fleet insurance policy.

This case was similar to yours, but this time it was the insurers’ fault that the wrong number plate was involved:

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....RN-3225561.pdf

But again, this is the important point from the adjudicator:

I note Miss M has said she’s concerned wouldn’t have settled any claim she would have needed to make. But she ultimately didn’t need to make a claim. And Admiral would have had to cover any valid claim because it was insuring the car – not the registration plate.

The key points here are that there was no intention at deception and the difference altered neither the insurers' risk nor their premium. You should not suffer what will be a severe financial penalty for what amounts to a minor administrative oversight.