DVLA demanding a plea from me under the road traffic act 1988

[greencider]

Hello I have just been given a letter by the DVLA stating that on the 3rd April 2025 I was in possession (and the registered keeper) of a small mini bus that was uninsured. because of this under Section 144A(1) of the road traffic act 1988 I am being threatened with prosecution. yes I own the vehicle and it wasnt insured but the bus was parked in a public car park and had not been driven for well over 8 months. The vehicle was taxed and could do so as it was MOT exempt under V112G and section 15 (public service vehicles). So the day of the alleged offense the bus was not been driven whatsoever. How is this exactly breaking the law? Its my understanding that I am only guilty of a criminal offense if I am infact actively driving any vehicle without insurance

[atticus]

I suspect that the vehicle being in a public car park will not help you. See the exact wording of s143 RTA 1988

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured


(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act

(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(words highlighted in bold by me)


NB Offence is spelt "offence".

[islandgirl]

Depends on the definition of use but I would agree with Atticus that just being parked there would make this an offence. There may be case law?

[PallasAthena]

How is this exactly breaking the law? Its my understanding that I am only guilty of a criminal offense if I am infact actively driving any vehicle without insurance

I'm sorry to say that your understanding is incorrect. It has always been the case that insurance is compulsory not only when a vehicle is being driven but also when it is parked. A vehicle is being "used" not only when it is being driven but also, for example, if it is parked or stationary on a road or other public place even if it is broken down.

For the reason atticus has highlighted a public car park is likely to be a place where a vehicle must be insured under s143 Road Traffic Act 1988.

islandgirl there is a lot of case law on both the meaning of "use" and what counts as a "public place". It's some years since I studied this when I was a motor insurance underwriter and I can't recall the details now. Case law has established that a 'public place' is a place to which the public, or part thereof, have access. It doesn't have to be publicly owned nor a place where the public have a legal right of way. I remember one of the early cases decided that a Tesco car park is a public place where insurance is required, even though it is privately owned.

[HandyAndy]

Its my understanding that I am only guilty of a criminal offense if I am infact actively driving any vehicle without insurance

Your understanding is wrong.

Section 144a refers to keeping a vehicle uninsured. You do not have to be using it.

All vehicles must be either taxed and insured or declared - by way of a SORN - and kept off road.

The Registered Keeper has the responsibility for doing one or the other of these two and is liable to prosecution if not complied with. Since the vehicle was not declared off road (it couldn't have been because it was taxed) it must be insured.

Section 144A was introduced in 2011. If you have been offered a fixed penalty I would accept it. I would also either get the vehicle insured or get it (and declare it) off road asap.