From: Roger Mills on 20 Apr 2007 06:17
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
But IN14 isn't listed in the reference, the only IN one being IN10. Where is
Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly
monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks.
PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP!
From: Nick Finnigan on 20 Apr 2007 06:25
Steve Firth wrote:
> PM <pm(a)m_.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Yes, but where's the legal requirement to produce the insurance
> RTA 143(1b)
No requirement to produce.
> RTA 165(1c)
No reasonable cause to believe the owner committed an offence, but
they may ask the driver to produce.
> RTA 165(2a)
From: SteveH on 20 Apr 2007 06:22
Roger Mills <watt.tyler(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqual
> > ifications/DG_10022425
> But IN14 isn't listed in the reference, the only IN one being IN10. Where is
> IN14 described?
Read the bottom of the page. The 4 replaces the 0 on the end of the
offence if you are found guilty of allowing someone else to commit the
SteveH 'You're not a real petrolhead unless you've owned an Alfa Romeo'
www.italiancar.co.uk - 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: Steve Firth on 20 Apr 2007 06:19
Alan Holmes <alan_holmes(a)nowhere.com> 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
Do you regularly write to courts asking to see the evidence of any
prosecutions that your neighbours may be facing, for example?
From: Alan Holmes on 20 Apr 2007 06:33
" cupra" <NOcupra.sSPAM(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> <dotmoc(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> 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
>>> 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.