DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: Jack_Pirate
Date: May 5, 2025, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> For day to day purposes, the vehicle is identified by its VRM
- so on the face of it there was no insurance in force for the
vehicle you appeared to be driving. Insurance is not recorded
against a VIN number, it is recorded against a VRM. That does
not mean that it is the VRM rather than the vehicle is insured,
but f**kwittery (on your part) aside, the two are assumed to
coincide.
>
> As regards the police apparently pursuing a no-insurance
offence (you have not yet been charged with such an offence,
merely offered a fixed penalty in order to discharge liability
for such an offence) - the police are not generally legally
qualified, and some aren't even members of MENSA, but the bottom
line is that no insurance is a reverse burden offence - if
charged, it is up to you to prove that you were insured, and if
you let it get that far, that will be the second count of
f**kwittery on your part.
>
--- End Quote ---
I do accept that I did mess up by making the error with the
plates. It was not intensional. Clearly there was no gain for
me. Due to the nature of the VRM it could be considered
confusing. When I was collecting my vehicle from the police
compound they have made errors with VRM on their system.
The above letters that I received actually state the correct VRM
that corresponds with the insurance and dvla.
#Post#: 70116--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 5, 2025, 4:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jack_Pirate link ---
>
> The above letters that I received actually state the correct
VRM that corresponds with the insurance and dvla.
>
--- End Quote ---
So, let me get this straight - you were stopped and reported for
driving without insurance, and had your car seized dor driving
with no insurance because the VRM being displayed at the time
was incorrect (and presumably no insurance policy was in effect
in respect of that VRM, and you have now decided to mention that
the COFPs (with VRMs redacted) for both the no insurance and
wrong VRM allegations specify the VRM that should have been
displayed?
If you wish to continue drip feeding relevant information, I
will be more than happy to delete this thread.
#Post#: 70119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: coffee pot
Date: May 5, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As has been said, you are insuring the vehicle not the
registration, the registration is just a very easy way of
identifying the vehicle.
This commonly comes up in the context of police/driving without
insurance and you just need to get your insurers to issue a
letter of indemnity. Most report no problems getting one, a few
it takes a bit more effort but eventually they get what they
need to avoid the charge/points.
I suspect you may find a charge of driving a vehicle with
incorrect plates harder to avoid. You could be fined up to
£1,000, get points on your licence and your vehicle will fail
its MOT test if you drive with incorrectly displayed number
plates.
#Post#: 70152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: Jack_Pirate
Date: May 6, 2025, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: coffee pot link ---
>
> As has been said, you are insuring the vehicle not the
registration, the registration is just a very easy way of
identifying the vehicle.
>
> This commonly comes up in the context of police/driving
without insurance and you just need to get your insurers to
issue a letter of indemnity. Most report no problems getting
one, a few it takes a bit more effort but eventually they get
what they need to avoid the charge/points.
>
> I suspect you may find a charge of driving a vehicle with
incorrect plates harder to avoid. You could be fined up to
£1,000, get points on your licence and your vehicle will fail
its MOT test if you drive with incorrectly displayed number
plates.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the input. So once I have the letter of indemnity
from the insurance company. Would the matter still go to court
were I would have to defend my case?
As in regards to wrong VRM that was displayed on the vehicle it
was a genuine error on my end for which I accept the liability
and in relation to it I received 2 fines.
#Post#: 70153--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: JustLoveCars
Date: May 6, 2025, 4:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jack_Pirate link ---
>
> Would the matter still go to court were I would have to defend
my case?
>
--- End Quote ---
That would be up to the Police if they want to prosecute.
However, if you provide them proof to them that the vehicle was
insured as required then they are likely to drop the CoFP and
not proceed...
Heed Andy's comments...
#Post#: 70154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: Jack_Pirate
Date: May 6, 2025, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> [quote author=Jack_Pirate link=topic=6184.msg70113#msg70113
date=1746479873]
> The above letters that I received actually state the correct
VRM that corresponds with the insurance and dvla.
>
--- End Quote ---
So, let me get this straight - you were stopped and reported for
driving without insurance, and had your car seized dor driving
with no insurance because the VRM being displayed at the time
was incorrect (and presumably no insurance policy was in effect
in respect of that VRM, and you have now decided to mention that
the COFPs (with VRMs redacted) for both the no insurance and
wrong VRM allegations specify the VRM that should have been
displayed?
If you wish to continue drip feeding relevant information, I
will be more than happy to delete this thread.
[/quote]
I did not think that it was important/ relevant to mention that
the VRM stated in the above letters are the correct one that
corresponds to v5c and insurance and so on.
What does it change in my circumstances? If it an important bit
if information.
#Post#: 70665--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: Jack_Pirate
Date: May 9, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the comments.
I spoke toy insurance company and requested a indemnity
document. They have emailed me with the policy schedule. When
questioned if this is sufficient for the purposes of providing
that I was insured to drive the stated vehicle during the
incident. I was told "Yes"
Can somebody advise if that is correct and what is the correct
way to notify the police to review the matter?
#Post#: 70672--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 9, 2025, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As has already been explained, the original issue is that the
plates you put on your vehicle did not correspond to the VRM on
your insurance policy - so on the face of it (on the assumption
that the VRM on the plates was correct) the vehicle was not
insured (or more precisely not insured for you to drive it).
You have not been charged with any offence yet and cannot be
charged until the expiration of the 28 days you were given to
accept the COFP.
However, if you were to be charged with driving some vehicle
identified by the erroneous VRM, a letter from your insurer
stating that you were insured to drive that vehicle would be
very helpful as evidence that you were insured to drive that
vehicle.
As the redacted COFP (with pretty much the only relevant detail
- the VRM - having been redacted) apparently refers to the
correct VRM, and the one which is stated on your insurance
certificate, if any subsequent charge of driving without
insurance identifies the vehicle by that VRM - in other words if
you are accused of driving without insurance in what is
identified by the charge as the vehicle that you have a policy
insuring you to drive, then such a letter is irrelevant.
There is no "correct" way to contact the police, phone them,
write to them, send a carrier pigeon. If you can't get any sense
out of the reporting officer, try speaking to his sergeant or
inspector to review the matter.
#Post#: 70708--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: ManxTom
Date: May 9, 2025, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jack_Pirate link ---
>
>
>
> I did not think that it was important/ relevant to mention
that the VRM stated in the above letters are the correct one
that corresponds to v5c and insurance and so on.
>
> What does it change in my circumstances? If it an important
bit if information.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry but can you clarify please?
Let's assume the correct VRM for your car is RM1 and that that
is the VRM the DVLA have on your V5C and it is the number that
it is insured number.
But for whatever reason the VRM on your car at the time you were
stopped was actually RW1
Which of the two VRMs is on the offers you have receoved from
the police? T
#Post#: 70711--------------------------------------------------
Re: Use of motor vehicle without insurance
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: May 9, 2025, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you questioning the meaning of the OP's statement, or his
belief that it was not important?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page