NIP - speeding ticket when driver is not from UK
in [UK Drivers]
|
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Apr 2007 06:54 PC Paul wrote: > > Just to try and move this on a little, *if* the OP says the Canadian said he > had valid insurance and he trusted him, and if that is a valid defence, then > what can the Police do if the Canadian turns round and says he didn't (or > even says that he did but refuses to prove it?) It may not be a valid defence, but they can not prove lack of insurance in any case, it would need an admission from the driver. *If* the 'reasonable cause' applies against the owner, the owner can be prosecuted for failure to produce evidence of insurance.
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Apr 2007 07:02 Steve Firth wrote: > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >>Steve Firth wrote: >>>Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>Steve Firth wrote: >>>>>PM <pm(a)m_.com.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Yes, but where's the legal requirement to produce the insurance >>>>>>documentation? >>>>> >>>>>RTA 143(1b) >>>> >>>> No requirement to produce. >>> >>>The owner has a duty to ensure that drivers have adequate insurance. >> >> Yes, but no duty to produce. > > > Not until police have reason to suspect an offence has been comitted. Not until they have reasonable cause to suspect the owner has committed an offence involving use of a motor vehicle. > The owner in this case has given police reason to suspect that an > offence has been committed. No, he hasn't. >>>>>RTA 165(1c) >>>> >>>>No reasonable cause to believe the owner committed an offence, but >>>>they may ask the driver to produce. >>> >>> >>>There could well be reasonable cause. The owner has identified that >>>someone else was the driver. Insurance records show that the owner does >>>not have "any driver" cover >> >> Even if the police could obtain that information, it would still not >>give reasonable cause > > > It gives reasonable cause, when combined with a statement from the owner > to believe that an insurance related offence has been committed. No, it doesn't. They have no reasonable cause to believe that my wife is committing an insurance offence when driving my car.
From: cupra on 21 Apr 2007 08:48 Nick Finnigan wrote: > 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. Yes, and that contradicts me how?
From: Steve Firth on 21 Apr 2007 11:03 Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > Not until police have reason to suspect an offence has been comitted. > > Not until they have reasonable cause to suspect the owner has > committed an offence involving use of a motor vehicle. Permitting someone to use the vehicle without insurance is an offence involving use of a motor vehicle. > > The owner in this case has given police reason to suspect that an > > offence has been committed. > > No, he hasn't. Yes he has. > >>>>>RTA 165(1c) > >>>> > >>>>No reasonable cause to believe the owner committed an offence, but > >>>>they may ask the driver to produce. > >>> > >>> > >>>There could well be reasonable cause. The owner has identified that > >>>someone else was the driver. Insurance records show that the owner does > >>>not have "any driver" cover > >> > >> Even if the police could obtain that information, it would still not > >>give reasonable cause > > > > > > It gives reasonable cause, when combined with a statement from the owner > > to believe that an insurance related offence has been committed. > > No, it doesn't. They have no reasonable cause to believe that my wife > is committing an insurance offence when driving my car. If she is not a named driver on a policy tied to that car then they have cause to ask ask to see insurance details. If there is no applicable insurnace cover then...
From: Nick Finnigan on 21 Apr 2007 11:48
Steve Firth wrote: > Nick Finnigan <nix(a)genie.co.uk> wrote: > > >>>Not until police have reason to suspect an offence has been comitted. >> >> Not until they have reasonable cause to suspect the owner has >>committed an offence involving use of a motor vehicle. > > Permitting someone to use the vehicle without insurance is an offence > involving use of a motor vehicle. Yes. >>>The owner in this case has given police reason to suspect that an >>>offence has been committed. >> >> No, he hasn't. > > Yes he has. No, he hasn't. > >>>>>>>RTA 165(1c) >>>>>> >>>>>>No reasonable cause to believe the owner committed an offence, but >>>>>>they may ask the driver to produce. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>There could well be reasonable cause. The owner has identified that >>>>>someone else was the driver. Insurance records show that the owner does >>>>>not have "any driver" cover >>>> >>>> Even if the police could obtain that information, it would still not >>>>give reasonable cause >>> >>> >>>It gives reasonable cause, when combined with a statement from the owner >>>to believe that an insurance related offence has been committed. >> >> No, it doesn't. They have no reasonable cause to believe that my wife >>is committing an insurance offence when driving my car. > > > If she is not a named driver on a policy tied to that car then they have > cause to ask to see insurance details. Even if they managed to convince themselves that is the case, they do not have reasonable cause to believe that she is committing an insurance offence when driving my car. |