From: Steve Firth on 20 Apr 2007 07:39
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
> >>>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.
The owner in this case has given police reason to suspect that an
offence has been committed.
> >>>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 beleive than an insurance related offence has been committed. The
Acts makes no reference to types of offence that can give rise to a
request to produce documentation.
> - it applies in most cases when someone other than the owner is driving
> the vehicle in a basically law-abiding fashion.
Or suspected of doing so, which the owner has given the police cause to
suspect in this case.
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 07:57
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.
>>>> 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?
>> 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.
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?
>> Speed cameras proceedings are not a valid reason to demand proof of
>> insurance, especially retrospectively.
Where in the regulation does it say that they are?
>> 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.
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.
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 08:04
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
>>> RTA 143(1b)
>> No requirement to produce.
> The owner has a duty to ensure that drivers have adequate insurance.
>>> 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.
>>> RTA 165(2a)
An arguable point, the records don't show because they are not
comprehensive enough and it's hardly the onus of the car owner to update
the police records with canadians, if they want this info there are ways
they can get it without putting pressure on the car owner.
From: NM on 20 Apr 2007 08:07
> In article <1177003066.699470.292420(a)p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> My arguments are partially based on this statement off a website that
>> seems to know enough to give drivers some support in situations like
> OH for the love of God...
>> "My car was being driven by someone else at the time." You should
>> provide the police with the details of the driver and they will then
>> pursue them for the speeding offence. If the driver was visiting from
>> outside of the UK and especially outside of the EU, then experience
>> shows that they will not pursue the case outside of the UK.They may
>> write to you and try and get you to prove that this other person was
>> driving, but you only need to give them the name and address and don't
>> need to supply any more info.
>> Looking at that, i dont see why i need to go any further in providing
>> information. If this was an insurance case where there was a traffic
>> accident, it would make sense for me to provide the insurance cover
>> information. But in this case insurance is off the table...it's about
>> speeding, and since they have the name and address of the driver at
>> the time, they can contact them and pursue the issue that way.
> THAT ARTICLE WAS FOR A SPEEDING FINE. THEY'RE AFTER INSURANCE.
INFORMATION THAT HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO GIVE.
From: PM on 20 Apr 2007 08:08
"Steve Firth" <%email@example.com> wrote in message
> PM <pm(a)m_.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Yes, but where's the legal requirement to produce the insurance
> > documentation?
> RTA 143(1b)
> RTA 165(1c)
> RTA 165(2a)
Yep, S165 is clear on that. Methinks the OP is in trouble!