Page 2 of 2
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:15 pm
by r44flyer
Friend of mine was up for driving a works vehicle that pinged an anpr for no insurance. He argued that as the vehicle was provided for his use by his employer, who handles all aspects of documentation for said vehicle, he believed it was insured for his use. Not guilty.
Boss got done for allowing him to drive the vehicle uninsured. It was a simple admin error but it was on the road for some time without insurance.
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:52 pm
by enigmaenigma
Friend of mine was up for driving a works vehicle that pinged an anpr for no insurance. He argued that as the vehicle was provided for his use by his employer, who handles all aspects of documentation for said vehicle, he believed it was insured for his use. Not guilty.
Boss got done for allowing him to drive the vehicle uninsured. It was a simple admin error but it was on the road for some time without insurance.
Then your friend is very lucky or, and at the risk of sounding like a total you know what, not telling you the full story or might be unaware of the full story
Failure to have third party insurance is an absolute offence, and all the mitigation in the world will amount in general to a hill of beans…so whilst the mitigation might help reduce the points to the lower level that’s available, it will not undermine the offence and the conviction for that offence
However, that doesn’t mean your friend has fibbed and secretly been punished for no insurance
There is a legal concept called vicarious liability, and although not specific to insurance per se, the principals within that could create a master & servant type relationship…where it would be expected that insurance via the employer would exist, and or the employer liable for their servant / agent
An example being a bus driver, who would expect that via the company procedures & polices etc, that they are insured to drive their bus…as opposed to them having to personally satisfy themselves that insurance is in place at the start of every shift and before they drive the bus every day
But as to whether you could argue the same in regards a builder and their casual use of a van…well, that would be a matter for the legal beagles to consider, based upon what facts could support the inference that insurance would or should exist by virtue of the usage / relationship involved
In addition to that there also exists s.151 of the Road Traffic Act, which in general stops an insurance company renege upon third party cover
In the most general terms...let's say they insured a driver / provided a certificate of cover for to a driver that has fibbed about bans / points etc that would or could invalidate the insurance
That doesn’t mean the third party that has suffered loss at the hand / wheels of this driver and is up a creek, as they are legally bound to honour the third party liability…the driver that fibbed would be up the creek, but the third party obligations to others aren’t
As to how or why this might apply to a situation where there hasn’t been an accident and or ambiguity about insurance, it’s due to the legal minimum requirement being third party cover…so whilst a driver might have an insurance company revoking / attempting to pull the rug on cover for them and their losses, they still de facto have third party cover that could satisfy the legal requirements needed for a court etc
It is, or was, a very narrow Schrödinger’s Cat moment, where for the purpose of one thing there is no cover but for the purpose of another there could be…a paper exercise
However, and the changes in regards continuous insurance have sort of stopped that, or stopped the general abuse of that that could happen, along with other vehicles with owners permission for vehicles that have no insurance upon them
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 8:59 pm
by r44flyer
Then your friend is very lucky or, and at the risk of sounding like a total you know what, not telling you the full story or might be unaware of the full story
Either is possible, he's usually a straight arrow.
But as to whether you could argue the same in regards a builder and their casual use of a van…well, that would be a matter for the legal beagles to consider, based upon what facts could support the inference that insurance would or should exist by virtue of the usage / relationship involved
That is a critical point and I expect only a court could deduce the answer on an individual case. I realise my friend's case differs slightly in that there was no insurance running at the time for that vehicle because, I believe, it wasn't added to the fleet policy, not just that he wasn't insured as a named driver. There may be parallels there, but maybe not. Comes down to evidence or inference as you suggest.
Posted: Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:36 pm
by enigmaenigma
r44flyer,
It looks as though your mate was able to argue special reasons or similar, and demonstrate how, although guilty of the offence, the punishment shouldn’t be administered
What Are Special Reasons?
In the normal course of events, when a Defendant is guilty of an offence their licence will be endorsed. Special reasons occur when the Court concludes that there are particular circumstances that relate to the offence (ie not the implications of a punishment) that are sufficient not to order an endorsement or disqualification. If the Court finds that there are Special Reasons, although the Defendant will be found guilty, no penalty points will be endorsed. Special Reasons cannot be used to reduce the number of points, if the Court finds Special Reasons, there must be no endorsement at all. Accordingly, a person could admit that an offence has been committed, but argue that there are special reasons as to why there should be no endorsement. Special Reasons do not amount to a "defence" as otherwise the Defendant could not admit or would be found not guilty of the offence.
Its another Schrödinger's cat type affair…where its alive and dead at the same time 
Because the offence is absolute your mate is / was actually found guilty, but in regards actual punishment, or lack thereof, they don’t feel the affects of that guilt
Similar in a way to duress / duress of circumstances, where you aren’t defending your innocence of doing the offence, but arguing as to why you shouldn’t be punished in the usual manner for what you did
As an aside, I wonder how that plays out in regards your friends future insurance and declaration of any motoring offences…although they haven’t suffered points / sanctions per se, they will have been found guilty of the offence even if only a paper / administrative exercise of sorts
Thought for food, in case it creates issues for them
And there are no prizes in guessing that along with questions of facts / circumstances etc, that we have already discussed in regards assisting / supporting an honest belief that you are insured as an employee…there’s no end of suits offering, for a Kings ransom, to help wade through the clear as mud / how longs a piece of string criteria that accompany those questions of facts & the law
And each one undermines the other with whether you need to be misled by the existence of insurance, and what amounts to an honest belief etc, etc, etc…it looks as though the foundations for all these expensive shenanigans are found in the following authority Rennison v Knowler (1947)
As a parting thought, it’s amazing how many solicitors have changed from the classic bread & butter criminal / legal aid work and specialise in private fee based areas such as traffic law instead…in fact ‘amazing’ is probably the wrong phrase and scary is far more apt, as access to justice and any form of defence seems to slowly being returned towards the select few with the means to fund it
Any how, time to get off my them & us, vive la revolution class war type bolshie soap box
Best of luck with it DNgroundworks…fingers crossed it all turns out okay
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:20 pm
by r44flyer
As an aside, I wonder how that plays out in regards your friends future insurance and declaration of any motoring offences…although they haven’t suffered points / sanctions per se, they will have been found guilty of the offence even if only a paper / administrative exercise of sorts
That's interesting. If you tick that box I doubt there's an option for any of the above!
Anyway, yes, best of luck DN.
Posted: Fri Oct 25, 2013 8:56 pm
by DNgroundworks
Thanks for the comments, not heard anything yet, hes put my name on the ticket so i assume ill get summat in the post, but its been a week and ive not heard anything, shall report back.