Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

[ostell]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

I think that your defence would be:
* Letter that you have from the DVLA stating that the car was transferred to another before the offence and the papers for any offence should be returned.
* The letter asking for clarification of the requirement in law to query no response form the DVLA, and the DVLA's lack of response. You can't produce the requirement because there is not any.
* A copy of the dated V5 you sent off
* A precise of the relevant portion of the interpretation act.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

I haven't used any defence yet, all they said in the court is the statement from the dvla prosecutor that I was the registered keeper on the date of no insurance. Then the legal advisor asked if I plead guilty or not guilty. So I replied not guilty. She then said that because I hadn't responded to a confirmation letter that the vehicle was still my responsibility on the date of offence and from what she's heard I will most likely be found guilty and that I should seek legal advice which could cost a lot.

Updated - the prosecution did cite it correctly

s.144A, RTA 1988:

"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.]"

Jaimie, about your facts, tell me how this relates to insurance.

[R0b]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

[MENTION=82125]jamieb22222[/MENTION]

Your Letter looks fine, I would also explain to that you intend to rely on the cases in the thread i linked to DVLA v Peck, Duncan etc. which has no obligation to contact the DVLA and your obligations go as far as s.7 of the Act. Might be worth pointing out that the in DVLA v Kennedy, the defendant appealed and for some odd reason, the DVLA withdrew their case offering no evidence. The judge in that case I'm sure would have gave them a rollocking for wasting court time.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

Hi I'm looking for some help please!?

I received a requisition to appear in court on 25/02/2016 to answer to the charge that on 05/08/2015 i was the registered keeper of vehicle registration mark WU03LUJ which did not meet the requirements contrary to section 144A(1) of the road traffic act 1988.

I sold this vehicle on 19/03/2015 and sent the V5C/3 to DVLA the day after sale via 1st class post. I have a photocopy of the V5C/3 but no record of sending it

To cut a long story short, I went to court yesterday and pleaded NOT GUILTY they basically said that because i had not contacted DVLA after 4 weeks of not receiving a confirmation letter that i was responsible of the vehicle and will most likely be found guilty.

The case has been adjourned until 14/04/2016.

I have been offered by dvla to pay a fine of £100 to settle it out of court but i feel that i am not guilty.

Any help on what i should do?

Thanks Jamie

Jamie you have statutory (legal defence) under s.144B (4a & b), RTA 1988 if you were not the owner at the time. This should be your defence as to why you're pleading not guilty. You have to prove it on your evidence: s.144B (9), TRA 1988. If can do this the prosecution must prove that your evidence is not solid, basically: s.144B (9). Can you do this?

[jamieb22222]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

How do i prove myself on s.144B (9) ?

[R0b]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

Because you sent the V5C in accordancw with your obligations

[Openlaw15]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

How do i prove myself on s.144B (9) ?

Look, apparently lawyer's advice is plead guilty and accept whatever they give you, or risk up to a £1000 fine. They're saying that just say it's 'not in the public interest.' The prosecution, according to their code, should demonstrate it's 'in the public interest', ie prosecute for safety reasons as a deterrent. I think the lawyer's are not right myself but they're the experts. What do you think? Section 22, Road Safety Act 2005 amended section 144A, RTA 1988.

"This is a fairly new offence brought in by the Road Safety Act 2005. You will find it here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...2/section/144A

and unfortunately your account doesn't give you a defence. Come what may, you were the registered keeper.

There are two options. The first is to make representations to CPS that its not in the public interest to prosecute you. I think probably if they accepted your account as a truthful one they would take the view its not in the public interest. Whether they would accept it as truthful depends on what evidence you have. It would have been better to send it recorded delivery. Failing that, you could try asking the DVLA to confirm date of receipt of the letter. They must have received the letter or they could not ultimately have removed it from your name.

Failing that, the second is to pay the fine imposed and seek compensation from the DVLA. Your problem there is that this is really just negligence on their part and that unfortunately doesn't make them liable for pure economic loss - e.g the fine.

I'm sorry this isn't the answer you wanted but it is the position that you face and I have a duty to inform you truthfully."

[Openlaw15]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

Because you sent the V5C in accordancw with your obligations

How can he prove it though Rob, that's what am trying to think around.

[R0b]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

There's no physical proof as he has no proof of postage, obviously next time he will make sure to get a proof of postage but in this case there re two things he can argue.

1. A copy of the V5C, presumable signed and dated, without that its just about useless to use as your defence.
2. The DVLA have accepted and retrospectively backdated it, therefore why are they pursuing this?
3. S7 of the Interpretation Act only requires to notify by first class post, there is no legal obligation to contact the DVLA - Use the County Court cases against them.
4. Ball is therefore in the court of the DVLA to prove that they did not receive it - quite difficult considering they have sent a letter saying it has been backdated, they cannot simply backdate and then say well i'm still taking you to court, its one or the other.
5. Failing all of the above, get a conviction, then appeal it if you can afford it.

I suspect the DVLA will be offering to settle right up to the door of the court, if you go in there with intention of defending and appealing if convicted and tell the DVLA prosecutor this, they may not wish to continue and drop it. Send a letter in the meantime outlining your defence and what you will be relying upon and this could get them to drop it as may be worth more hassle than it is worth

That's all about you can do in this matter. Just remember next time to get proof of postage and you wont have this trouble again.

[Openlaw15]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

There's no physical proof as he has no proof of postage, obviously next time he will make sure to get a proof of postage but in this case there re two things he can argue.

1. A copy of the V5C, presumable signed and dated, without that its just about useless to use as your defence.
2. The DVLA have accepted and retrospectively backdated it, therefore why are they pursuing this?
3. S7 of the Interpretation Act only requires to notify by first class post, there is no legal obligation to contact the DVLA - Use the County Court cases against them.
4. Ball is therefore in the court of the DVLA to prove that they did not receive it - quite difficult considering they have sent a letter saying it has been backdated, they cannot simply backdate and then say well i'm still taking you to court, its one or the other.
5. Failing all of the above, get a conviction, then appeal it if you can afford it.

I suspect the DVLA will be offering to settle right up to the door of the court, if you go in there with intention of defending and appealing if convicted and tell the DVLA prosecutor this, they may not wish to continue and drop it. Send a letter in the meantime outlining your defence and what you will be relying upon and this could get them to drop it as may be worth more hassle than it is worth

That's all about you can do in this matter. Just remember next time to get proof of postage and you wont have this trouble again.

This is saying it will not be an offence if the following applies: s.144A (2), RTA 1988:

"(2) For the purposes of this section a vehicle meets the insurance requirements if—(a) it is covered by a such apolicy of insurance or such asecurity 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."

Update

If the prosecution prove there is a case to answer, then you'll have to see whether a section 144B TRA 1988 defence applies. The lawyers seemingly suggest that a defence will fail unless you can prove you notified DLVA once you sold the car. The lawyers' view is seemingly that any applicable defences is based on evidence from DLVA database systems. For example if DVLA did not receive your change of ownership details, there is no defence. There is a problem with this approach as the offence is based on a statute RTA 1988, main law, but their view of evidence will likely be based on a power from a statutory instruments (Regulations/ secondary law). Now normally the UK Courts should only interpret statute which comes from Parliament (ie statute that has passed through Commons, Lord, and has Royal Assent (from the Queen). The further problem is that any criminal law defences that am aware are based on criminal statute or common law (ie criminal case law). The Magistrate is not a legal expert so he will be reliant on his legal advisor, who'll no doubt say nothing about statutory instruments as an authority. So technically, you could argue this on point of law basis to an appeal court, in theory anyway.

Reading this law on an every-day interpretation of the words (Interpretation Act), it says it either must require 1) 'a policy of insurance' or 'a security of third party risks' (so an indemnity would be sufficient), and 2) the registration number plate showing to identify the vehicle: s.144A (2) (3), RTA 1988. JamieB could request a copy of the new owner's insurance certificate, if the owner will do that, I don't know, as the law does not distinguish between new or former owner. In my view, JamieB's'copy of his previous insurance certificate could be submitted in evidence which will show the car's registration number plate (to identify it) and it'll show the date his insurance ends, which implies he no longer held ownership of that vehicle from that period. Does JamieB have a car presently, if so when did his insurance start? The overlap will prove that he only ever held one car on his insurance at any one time. He can also submit his V5C (registration documents) which proves that the car was transferred to its new owner and its date.

[jamieb22222]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

I kept paying the insurance after I sold the car to keep the no-claims discount and brought my new car about a month later so i just transferred the insurance over and got tax on the new car

[Openlaw15]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

I kept paying the insurance after I sold the car to keep the no-claims discount and brought my new car about a month later so i just transferred the insurance over and got tax on the new car

Jamie which Act (ie Parliament Act) for application of the Interpretation Act 1978 states post to DVLA?

[jamieb22222]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

Sorry openlaw15 I don't understand your question?

[R0b]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

He means the legislation, which is the Vehicle Excise Registration Act 1994 and the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regs 2002. I believe Regulation 22 requires to "deliver" to the DVLA the document of notice of change of registered keeper.

[jamieb22222]

Re: Court for no insurance on a vehicle i sold 5 months before charge. Please help

Oh I see, thankyou for clarifying rob. I sent dvla the yellow V5 slip the day after I sold the vehicle via a Royal mail postbox. Is that not classed as delivered according to the interpretation act?