From: SteveH on
Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)> wrote:

> Then they need to pursue the driver, not the car owner!

The owner is responsible for making sure the driver has adequate
insurance..... unless the owner is going to claim the car was taken
without his consent.
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo' - Honda VFR800 - Hongdou GY200 - Alfa 75 TSpark
Alfa 156 TSpark - B6 Passat 2.0TDI SE - COSOC KOTL
BOTAFOT #87 - BOTAFOF #18 - MRO # - UKRMSBC #7 - Apostle #2 - YTC #
From: Clive George on
"Alan Holmes" <alan_holmes(a)> wrote in message

> Then they need to pursue the driver, not the car owner!

You do realise the car owner has also committed an offence by not ensuring
the person he lent it to was insured, don't you? It's been mentioned several
times in this thread already...


From: Steve Firth on
Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)> wrote:

> > Steve Firth wrote:
> >> Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> As you can see...playing the law......and those that know it well
> >>>> have the upper hand, in this case the police...and it just seems
> >>>> like they can play it well because they also have the strong
> >>>> ability to threaten you with legal action, even though they might
> >>>> not actually have a strong case.
> >>>>
> >>>> it's just frustration...that's all...not worry.
> >>>
> >>> Did you ask to see the 'evidence', this is vital.
> >>
> >> He's already said that someone else was driving at the time. So by
> >> what stretch of the imagination do you come to the conclusion that he
> >> has the right to see the evidence that may be used in the prosecution
> >> of someone else?
> >>
> >> Do you regularly write to courts asking to see the evidence of any
> >> prosecutions that your neighbours may be facing, for example?
> No, only those where I have been accused of an offence.

Which offence has the OP been accused of, in this instance?
From: Steve Firth on
Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)> wrote:

> > Suggest the OP maintains his silence and seeks proper legal advice.
> And, asks to see the 'evidence'!

What evidence?
From: Steve Firth on
NM <nik.morgan(a)> wrote:

> Steve Firth wrote:
> > NM <nik.morgan(a)> wrote:
> >
> >> Adrian wrote:
> >>> PM (pm(a) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >>> saying :
> >>>
> >>>> I don't see where the onus is on the OP to have to prove that his
> >>>> friend was insured.
> >>> The Road Traffic Act, AIUI.
> >>>
> >>> There's no explicit requirement for the OP to prove the insurance himself.
> >>> He could quite legitimately ask his Canadian friend to do so. However, if
> >>> the friend is found to have been uninsured, then the OP himself will be
> >>> liable for prosecution, and will end up with an IN14 on his licence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> squalifications/DG_10022425
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, we all assume that the friend (if there was one) was not
> >>>> insured. But isn't this the sort of loophole that the OP could use?
> >>> No.
> >> Assuming there is no accident if the cops want details of insurance they
> >> must demand at the time the offence was thought to be committed or as
> >> soon as practicable after (this does not mean as an afterthough much
> >> later on) or in the event of proof not being available on demand they,
> >> as a concession, can issue a produce notice, they cannot at a later
> >> point demand proof, there is nothing to stop them requesting the
> >> information then prosecuting on that information but if their request is
> >> denied then there is little they can do.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> So what would be the charge, He wasn't driving the car and he's not
> required to keep records of the other persons insurance?

The charge would be permitting someone to drive his car while not

> >> Speed cameras proceedings are not a valid reason to demand proof of
> >> insurance, especially retrospectively.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> Where in the regulation does it say that they are?

Where does it say they are not? A police officer has a duty to
investigate crime that comes to his attention and to pass the details to
the CPS for them to consider prosecution or to offer a fixed penalty if
it falls within the fixed penalty guidelines.

The OP informed the police that he had given the car to someone else
that day. If they discovered that he did not have "any driver" insurance
then they have a duty to check the status of the driver's insurance.

They can start by asking the owner to confirm his insurance status. If
it turns out he is insured "any driver" and the insurers have made a
mistake entering data into the database, that's an end to it as far as
the owner is concerned. If the owner does not carry appropriate
insurance then they have to ask the driver. If the driver was uninsured
then the owner also faces charges.

> >> It's a squeeze to freak a 'confession' then payment, tell them to
> >> foxtrot oscar. I can't see a prosecution succeeding unless you open your
> >> mouth and put your foot in it.
> >
> > Bullshit.
> It was not bullshit when they applied it to me on both occasions, I
> fronted them out and heard no more. even asked the cop in the gatso
> office why he couldn't get a proper job, and how did he like being a
> proxy tax collector, he was foaming at the mouth so if there was any
> chance of a prosecution following it would have happened.

It's not as if it's a difficult thing to prove, absence of insurance.