Court summons

[Chudley101]

Hi,


Very new to this and would appreciate all the help I can get.


So, I currently have a court summons for the end of Nov, it is due to an uninsured vehicle however the vehicle was left on private property, it still had valid tax and MOT and once the tax ran out I declared it SORN and received an email confirming that. The time between no insurance and SORN was about 3 months but surly that shouldn't matter?


What I want to know is have the DVLA got a case or am I now in a position where I will have to pay £1000+


Thanks in advance.

[Inca]

Re: Court summons

According to DVLA..it''s an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you've surrendered the tax disc to make a SORN.
I don't think 'private land' makes any difference..it has to be insured if it's taxed (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).

[bluebottle]

Re: Court summons

The rule with Continuous Insurance is that once SORN is declared, it is not required to be insured, PROVIDED the vehicle is not kept on a public highway. If you kept it on private land, taxed and MOTed, but not insured, I'm afraid an offence of "No Insurance" is committed up to the point SORN is declared. In your case, sorry to say, DVLA have you bang to rights.

[Inca]

Re: Court summons

.............and I had to google my answer msl:

[Chudley101]

Re: Court summons

Well that sucks! So there is no way out of this.....

Where does it mention this, I would like to scan through it and see if there is anyway out of it. I mean I would love to take the DVLA's word on this law if it wasn't going to cost me my arm or leg.


Thanks.

[enquirer]

Re: Court summons

The time between no insurance and SORN was about 3 months but surly that shouldn't matter?

Bluebottle is right.

Had it been three days, rather than three months, you might have been able to kick up a fuss.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Court summons

Under which law does a motor-car have to be insured?

[wales01man]

Re: Court summons

The rules on taxed and SORN vehicles and insurance are on the DVLA website

[CleverClogs]

Re: Court summons

I did not ask on which website might one find "the rules".

I asked which statute introduced compulsory insurance in the UK for motor vehicles rather than for drivers thereof.

I'd Googled this question and, although the AA seems to suppose the law is the Road "Safety" Act 2006 - which introduced the scam of Road "Safety" cameras - and even the official, explanatory notes to that statute make that assertion (link) but, try as I might, I've not seen the actual statute.

[wales01man]

Re: Court summons

Well maybe the DVLA are wrong case dismissed then
Would the summons sent to the OP state the offence and the statute

[Amethyst]

Re: Court summons

The Continuous Insurance Enforcement regulations 2011 (apparently - I haven't found them on opsi yet though)

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance)
the motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143
143 of road traffic act 1988

Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.
E+W+S
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this
Act—

(a)a
person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public
place] unless there is in force in
relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or
such a security in respect of third party risks 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 [F2or 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 or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with
the requirements of this Part of this Act.

[bluebottle]

Re: Court summons

The Continuous Insurance Enforcement regulations 2011 (apparently - I haven't found them on opsi yet though)

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance)

Try www.legislation.gov.uk, Amethyst. That's where legislation moved to a while back.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court summons

thanks bb, that's where I was looking just still in habit of saying opsi.

think I found it anyway xx http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143


sorry for rubbish postings btw, still learning how to drive my new pooter xx

[CleverClogs]

Re: Court summons

The Continuous Insurance Enforcement regulations 2011 (apparently - I haven't found them on opsi yet though)

The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance)
the motor Vehicles (Insurance Requirements) Regulations 2011

I've found those - link - which are "explained" as:

These Regulations make provision in relation to the coming into force of sections 144A, 144B, 144C and 159A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which introduce the offence of being the registered keeper of a vehicle which does not have insurance cover (“the section 144A offence”), provide for exceptions to that offence, provide that liability to conviction for the offence may be discharged by paying a fixed penalty of £100 and provide for the disclosure of information in connection with enforcement.

Which is OK as far as it goes, apart from not actually making perfect sense.

Section 144A of the RTA states:

144A Offence 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 or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) either of the following conditions is satisfied.
(3) The first condition is that the policy or security, or the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, identifies the vehicle by its registration mark as a vehicle which is covered by the policy or security.
(4) The second condition is that the vehicle is covered by the policy or security because—
(a) the policy or security covers any vehicle, or any vehicle of a particular description, the owner of which is a person named in the policy or security or in the certificate of insurance or security which relates to it, and
(b) the vehicle is owned by that person.
(5) For the purposes of this section a vehicle is covered by a policy of insurance or security if the policy of insurance or security is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle.

Do you see the problems? There is no requirement in section 143 (link and quoted below) for a motor vehicle as such to be insured against third party risks, probably because few motor vehicles drive themselves without human intervention - the infamous DAF Variomatic being perhaps the only known example of a self-acting motor car ever to be mass produced. (The Continuously Variable Transmission had no "neutral" position and tended to creep forwards or backwards if the handbrake had not been applied. As a result, that make of motor car performed the socially useful task of killing several DAF drivers.)

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.

(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 or such a security in respect of third party risks 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 or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.
(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
(4) This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.

Indeed, s. 144A would seem to exempt any driver of a motor vehicle if his policy provided cover for at least third party risks regardless of the vehicle being driven.

[Amethyst]

Re: Court summons

144 seems to be saying (to me) that either an insurance policy specific to that vehicles registration mark is in place, or, the registered keeper of that vehicles registration mark has an 'all vehicles' type policy ... so either way that vehicle is covered.