From: NM on
Steve Firth wrote:
> NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Firth wrote:
>>> NM <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adrian wrote:
>>>>> PM (pm(a)m_.com.invalid) 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDi
>>>>> 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
> insured.
>
>>>> 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.

Thats the point it is difficult to prove lack of insurance when you are
dealing with people outside the UK data base and the prosecution needs
to do the proving, the accused need do nothing and the third party can
just keep his mouth shut if he so chooses.
From: Ian on
On 20 Apr, 21:22, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote:
> Alan Holmes wrote:

> > So he has absolutely no reason to be worried or communicate with the police
> > force any more?
>
> Or any requirement to do so.

Except to assist them with their enquiries into a possible offence of
allowing a car to be used without valid insurance, of course.

Ian

From: NM on
Ian wrote:
> On 20 Apr, 21:22, NM <nik.mor...(a)mac.com> wrote:
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>>> So he has absolutely no reason to be worried or communicate with the police
>>> force any more?
>> Or any requirement to do so.
>
> Except to assist them with their enquiries into a possible offence of
> allowing a car to be used without valid insurance, of course.

The option to say nothing also is valid, remember 'You have the right to
remain silent blah blah blah'.
From: cupra on
Alan Holmes wrote:
> " cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:58rjfrF2i3mj3U1(a)mid.individual.net...
>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>> " cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:58r4laF2hqnvaU1(a)mid.individual.net...
>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:1177002495.685498.72370(a)o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, i'm not worried...just frustrated that I'm pretty sure i have
>>>>>> the law on my side, to some extent, yet i don't know it THAT well
>>>>>> to argue my points to the police, and they'll just run over me
>>>>>> just like they do to other people who just decide to accept the
>>>>>> fine and move on. I didn't make up the canadian story. It's
>>>>>> true, and I think i still
>>>>>> can specify a different person because i got "form B" which is
>>>>>> basically a duplicate of the original form where i need to fill
>>>>>> in details of the driver at the time the offence and "should the
>>>>>> particulars entered relate to the driver previously named..." to
>>>>>> provide the insurance details for them. So looking at that, I
>>>>>> think they're just giving me another chance to give a british
>>>>>> driver name so they can fine that person instead of having the
>>>>>> hassle to contact the canadian guy (which they probably wouldn't
>>>>>> bother). 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.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Because he's not the driver.
>
> So he has absolutely no reason to be worried or communicate with the
> police force any more?

If he wasn't the driver and the car was being used legally, then no he
doesn't have any reason to be worried.


From: Nick Finnigan on
cupra wrote:
>
> If he wasn't the driver and the car was being used legally, then no he
> doesn't have any reason to be worried.

There is reasonable cause to believe the car was being used illegally,
that is why a NIP was sent out.