DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31804--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: Melamili
Date: August 1, 2024, 3:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In response to whether it would cause exceptional hardship, I
think it definitely would.
I travel between different sites for work. Losing my ability to
drive would increase commute times considerable and would
definitely mean spending more money which I don't have at the
moment with child custody / divorce proceedings. I am having to
pay about 80 pound an hour at the moment to see my child twice a
week. I would need the car also to transport my child to her
mother and we live more than an hours drive away. Public
transport may add an extra hour to the journey each way this
would again be more expensive financially and reduce the amount
of time I have with my child. Would you consider this excessive
hardship?
With regards to subject access request my data should be on
there as a named driver so on whst basis could they refuse?
Thanks for all your help.
#Post#: 31810--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 1, 2024, 4:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Melamili link ---
> With regards to subject access request my data should be on
there as a named driver so on whst basis could they refuse?
>
--- End Quote ---
Make it clear that you regard it as your personal data, and in
the event of a refusal because they disagree make it clear that
you will go to the ICO - and do it.
In my limited experience one well known purveyor of multi car
policies seemed to take the view that by releasing data about me
to me they would be violating the policyholders data rights. (An
initial response was, in effect: "not your data. Won't tell you
anything").
#Post#: 31814--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: 666
Date: August 1, 2024, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Melamili link ---
>
> In response to whether it would cause exceptional hardship, I
think it definitely would.
>
> I travel between different sites for work. Losing my ability
to drive would increase commute times considerable and would
definitely mean spending more money which I don't have at the
moment with child custody / divorce proceedings. I am having to
pay about 80 pound an hour at the moment to see my child twice a
week. I would need the car also to transport my child to her
mother and we live more than an hours drive away. Public
transport may add an extra hour to the journey each way this
would again be more expensive financially and reduce the amount
of time I have with my child. Would you consider this excessive
hardship?
>
>
>
--- End Quote ---
The question is not whether it is "excessive", but
"exceptional".
NewJudge has posted the guidelines above, which make it clear
that loss of one's job is not exceptional, and that would seem
to include the job becoming impossible.
Similarly, having to use public transport or taxis is far from
exceptional.
It's not clear why a longer journey would reduce the time with
your daughter, rather than just meaning an earlier start and
later finish for yourself.
BTW I am not unsympathetic, but it's better to have these points
raised here than by the magistrates.
#Post#: 31818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: Melamili
Date: August 1, 2024, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I appreciate your feedback and know you are not being
unsympathetic.
It is not just simply using taxis or public transport. Its the
costs involved because I know pretty sure I am going to be skint
by the time all the proceedings are done, so will not he able to
afford the extra costs involved.
With regards to reducing time with my daughter I take your point
if I am staying in the area she is being picked up, but normally
I take her back to my area to see her grandparents and her other
cousins and she always insists she wants to see her bedroom.
Okay I shall get on with doing the subject access request and
prepare some sort of mitigation, as from what I have gathered
due to strictl liability, I will have to plead guilty and offer
my circumstances.
#Post#: 31820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 1, 2024, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Impact on your daughter is important, possibly also impact on
grandparents. That can carry more impact.
#Post#: 31826--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: 666
Date: August 1, 2024, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, your first priority should be to address Special Reasons not
to Endorse, as explained by Andy above. Only if that fails will
Exceptional Hardship come into play, so you should also be
prepared for that.
I would suggest you plead guilty, but in the mitigation section
simply flag up that you intend to raise SRNtE.
Different and/or better advice may be incoming!
#Post#: 32121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 3, 2024, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having just come off an 'Awareness Course' which thankfully
avoided me getting points on my licence, OP (and again this is
not without some sympathy and empathy, based upon your posts*) I
think your arguments so far are wishy-washy, lack hard facts and
are unlikely to melt the heart of a Magistrate who probably
thought that sitting on the Bench was going to be more
intellectually challenging than 'Oh dear, not another plea not
to be endorsed'.
So when you appear, having I presume pleaded guilty(it is after
all a strict liability offence) what would you say? I read the
SJP notice that you can plead guilty but still request to attend
court regarding which subsequent procedures and paperwork would
follow i.e. you only have to decide whether to plead guilty or
not by 5 Aug, not to have your 'not to be endorsed' argument set
out in detail. Or is this not correct?
So, to plead guilty or not?
*- your posts appear to be at odds with Constable Sutton's
witness statement where he says you claimed that the car was
insured on a 'fleet' policy. I can't reconcile this with your
posts here. IMO 'fleet policy' implies a company insuring
vehicles and not, as here, a couple having two or more cars in
the family, jointly owned but each with one of the couple as the
insured party.
Two possible scenarios: two cars jointly owned but for practical
purposes one is considered to be hers and one yours. One of the
couple- in this case your wife- takes responsibility for these
hands-on admin. tasks. You have separated since the last time
the insurance on your car was renewed and she received an
autorenew notice and responded by positively cancelling the
insurance without giving you notice as some form of retribution,
all of which happened a matter of days before you were stopped,
possibly following a recent meeting to discuss relief and
custody, or
The car's been uninsured for months and she told you about it
ages ago because you had agreed between you, but not finalised
that the car was to be yours.
I don't want to pry, but as has been posted earlier these issues
are very fact specific. And I'm still not quite certain about
the insured parties here. If you are/were the insured party then
an autorenew notice would be addressed to you. From which must
follow that you were not the insured party. So you were driving
the only family car or perhaps 'her' car and she had cancelled
the insurance before handing to you..or perhaps this is to do
with 'fleet insurance'??
And by the way, what were your 6 points awarded for?
#Post#: 32143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: August 3, 2024, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> If you are/were the insured party then an autorenew notice
would be addressed to you.
--- End Quote ---
Not if he wasn't the policyholder, it wouldn't. I am not the
policyholder of a policy covering my wife's car - she is and all
the policy renewal documents are addressed to her. But I am an
"insured party" (i.e. I can drive the car) because I am a named
driver on her policy.
#Post#: 32215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 4, 2024, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As I understand it...
An insured party is any person or entity that is legally
qualified to receive insurance payments after a loss occurs.
Nothing to do with who may drive.
#Post#: 32220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Driving without insurance single justice procedure notice
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: August 4, 2024, 3:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whilst you're technically correct I think as far as this
question goes you are splitting hairs. If, when driving my
wife's car, I have an accident which causes damage or injury to
a third party, it is me who the TP will come after for
recompense, not my wife. So I am an "insured party" as far as I
am concerned because her insurance policy indemnifies me against
such claims.
The OP has an interest (in fact, a vital interest) in the
vehicle being insured because he drives it. Whether or not he is
the policyholder isn't really material. What is material is that
he is not living with his wife, who takes care of these things.
As a result he did not get the renewal notice.
So, yes, he's guilty and will plead that way. The issue really
is whether there are grounds to argue "Special Reasons". That's
where the circumstances of the administrative arrangements he
and his wife have (or had) to deal with policy renewals will
need o be examined.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page