judge didn't accept fleet insurance policy

aggreived

Hi All, have read alot of the threads and to be honest there is a huge pattern of being treated like a pleb in the courts. I was summonsed due to non production of my licence and insurance. hands up.. i forgot. summons was delivered to a friend of mines house, as it was for an offence 2 years previously and had since sold house and bought new one didnt get it on time, maybe if the the cop had rang the doorbell instead of just shoving it throu the letterbox, (the occupant who at the time was neither blood relative or landlord as is apparently required when delivering a summons, was at home) could have told him i wouldnt be there for 2 weeks thus got disqualified for 1 year...unreal. no problem, to make a long story short i ended up appealing to the circuit court and on the day my barrister explained the situation, apologised for me not producing and proceeded to have an open debate with state solicitor on why my name was not on the fleet insurance cert. Newsflash, fleet insurance is open driving for anyone over the age of 27 who is either employed by or has the permission of the owner to drive any vehicle. This is stated on the certificate. Have produced this same insurance many times over the years to local cop shop and no problem accepting them, however the state solicitor in limerick decided that it was not sufficient evidence that i was insured and hense was disqualified for 12 months, no mention of the fact that i also did hold a full driving licence, of course i was given option to appeal yet again but in the meantime im off the road. I have no problem takin punishment for my own wrongdoing but i do have a problem when the state solicitor representing police doesnt accept a fleet insurance certificate which is issued by insurance company to hundreds of courier companies accross the land. Maybe it should come with a warning.. your insured but the court wont accept it, but the police station will. I sat in court and heard people getting points on licence etc for speeding etc, one individual was disqualified for 6 months for not having a licence. I had a licence and insurance but still got 12 months off the road, after the police has told me they would not object to my appeal after i explained the mix up on the delivery of the summons. Ill be buying a bike!

Tigger

tltr

if you had insurance get a letter from you insurance saying you had

Drummerboy08

Did the State write all their letters with paragraphs though, thats the question.

SV

You're either insured or you aren't..

there's no 'accepted by police but not by the court' craic..

thebiglad

aggreived wrote: »

Hi All, have read alot of the threads and to be honest there is a huge pattern of being treated like a pleb in the courts. I was summonsed due to non production of my licence and insurance. hands up.. i forgot. summons was delivered to a friend of mines house, as it was for an offence 2 years previously and had since sold house and bought new one didnt get it on time, maybe if the the cop had rang the doorbell instead of just shoving it throu the letterbox, (the occupant who at the time was neither blood relative or landlord as is apparently required when delivering a summons, was at home) could have told him i wouldnt be there for 2 weeks thus got disqualified for 1 year...unreal. no problem, to make a long story short i ended up appealing to the circuit court and on the day my barrister explained the situation, apologised for me not producing and proceeded to have an open debate with state solicitor on why my name was not on the fleet insurance cert. Newsflash, fleet insurance is open driving for anyone over the age of 27 who is either employed by or has the permission of the owner to drive any vehicle. This is stated on the certificate. Have produced this same insurance many times over the years to local cop shop and no problem accepting them, however the state solicitor in limerick decided that it was not sufficient evidence that i was insured and hense was disqualified for 12 months, no mention of the fact that i also did hold a full driving licence, of course i was given option to appeal yet again but in the meantime im off the road. I have no problem takin punishment for my own wrongdoing but i do have a problem when the state solicitor representing police doesnt accept a fleet insurance certificate which is issued by insurance company to hundreds of courier companies accross the land. Maybe it should come with a warning.. your insured but the court wont accept it, but the police station will. I sat in court and heard people getting points on licence etc for speeding etc, one individual was disqualified for 6 months for not having a licence. I had a licence and insurance but still got 12 months off the road, after the police has told me they would not object to my appeal after i explained the mix up on the delivery of the summons. Ill be buying a bike!

A fleet policy does cover any vehicle which is owned by the company to which the insurance is issued.

Was the vehicle registered to the company at time of being stopped?

Also, with most open fleet policies, in order for the insurer to charge an appropriate premium there are declarations made as to what vehicles were on cover when and for how long - with that exact information you can show that the specific vehicle was covered on date in question and not just show an open cert to the court.

I stand to be corrected by any fleet insurance experts but this is certainly my understanding based on experiences from a few years ago.

mickdw

Id say this was more to do with you not producing and also not responding to sommons etc. Also seeing as this was for an offence from 2 years previous, did you have any proof to show that you were covered 2 years ago or did you just turn up with a current cert from the company.
Surely if you showed up with proof of ownership of the van by the company in question relating to the date of the offence & then a letter from the insurers stating that cover was in place for that van by your company and finally a letter from your company stating that you had permisson to use the van on the said date, you would have to be fine.

There must be something you are not telling us like maybe you well using the van out of hours & the company were not happy about this.
Maybe it was open driven but you werent covered for some reason?

aggreived

I agree. And under the fleet, there were 17 vehicles listed, but barrister had copy of my insurance for 2 weeks before case and assured me that it was sufficient. I am a director of the company that holds the insurance, when state sol started to question this i actually went up to the barrister and explained this, but my argument is that why is it ok for the normal cert to be produced to cop shop but the court wont accept same cert. why 2 different sets of rules. In my line of work, i drive 14 hours a day and on average would meet a checkpoint of routine stop at least 1 time a month. Never had a problem producing, but there should be a set rule. If i had known i needed a letter to accomany cert i would have gotten one but never had problem before.

aggreived

I understand it looks odd, but i got the proper years cert for which the offence applied from the insurance company, and all the summons said was to produce licene and insurance, never heard of anyone having to produce log book. Would have been as easy to do this as they are all in the office. My point is that when any of me or the drivers are stopped and asked to produce, we just bring the master cert in and bingo, job done, so i presumed the court would be the same. Have the letter from the insurance stating that i was covered under fleet but at the time i was not under the impression that i needed it as if that is the case i should need it if i ever get stopped and asked to produce. Even the insurance broker was shocked that it wasnt accepted. but in the meantime im off the road for producing what i took as my legal insurance cert. Its my company car and have it 24 hours a day.

cormie

You were insured, so appeal it and good luck!

ytareh

Seems to be a few of these stories of people being shafted in court on motoring offences lately ...It sounds as if OP here was treated shabbily for sure.And even if his appeal works its not like he can get back his time 'off the road'...no right to sue for damages?

thebiglad

If OP is 100% on his postings then the issue lies with his Barrister and not the judge.

Clearly insufficient proof was put before the judge and it is Barrister's role to advise OP on what is required.

Clearly indisputable proof that the van was insured on the relevant date (forget presenting a cert, your licence is on the line - get a letter from the insurer and that person from the insurer to stand over it as genuine).

As I said IF we are 100% informed I think the Barrister failed to prepare his case correctly - this is just so straight forward to defend.

Make a complaint to the relevant body - and stick in your appeal - wouldn't be paying the Barrister either

thebiglad

ytareh wrote: »

Seems to be a few of these stories of people being shafted in court on motoring offences lately ...It sounds as if OP here was treated shabbily for sure.And even if his appeal works its not like he can get back his time 'off the road'...no right to sue for damages?

We are getting 1 side of a story in all cases though...

aggreived

Thanks for all comments. Spoke with legal today and they are not taking responsibility for it as they presumed it would have been accepted. I do agree that i should have been told what to expect and its not like they didn't have sufficient time to prepare the case as i had to wait 3 weeks for appeal in the circuit court so have changed solicitors.
I also agree to the statement that their are 2 sides to every story, however i am not going to risk appealing to the circuit court if my facts were not correct, unlike district court, i needed a barrister which i am sure ye agree, dont come cheap. The other side to this story is that the state have no clear cut guidelines on accepting fleet insurance when producing at station versus producing it in court. I have held a clean licence for over 16 years, have been fully insured with my fleet insurance for last 8 years. The judge on the day told me i could appeal his decision on the grounds that the state wanted an official letter from insurance clarifying my position so i now have that, but in the meantime my 12 month ban stands. Bit excessive as a person on the same day was conviceted of driving without licence and insurance and got just 6 months. My main gripe is that if the police stations accept the general master cert when asked to produce then why doesn't the state. Arent they the same organisation. It just to warn people out there who do drive on fleet certs that if they are in court make sure you have letter from insurance stating that you are covered under the policy as it seems the subparagraph on the cert explaing that if you are over a certain age with full licence you can drive seems to be of no relevance in the court. Just another example of where the system in this country is far from black and white...more like a light shade of pink.

mickdw

aggreived wrote: »

it seems the subparagraph on the cert explaing that if you are over a certain age with full licence you can drive seems to be of no relevance in the court. Just another example of where the system in this country is far from black and white...more like a light shade of pink.

I dont think it was un reasonable of the court at the end of the day. I would meet the age & licence requirements for that company van but that doesnt mean I am currently insured to drive your van.
Your legal team made a balls of it. I mean, how hard was it to have obtained cast iron documentation from all angles specially since there was the other issues re missing summons etc

MIDNITE39

one thing i have to say if u did not get the summors in to yours hand u did not get it same thing happen to me went to court i said i did not get the summors from gardai i was put in my letter box i put my case to the judge that if i gave 50 euro to his wife did i give the to to him and he no same thing in my case so it was trow out of court

jimmycrackcorm

It looks like a case of insufficient evidence imho. Evidence of a fleet policy was presented but nothing directly tying the op to that policy i.e. specific permission to be covered.. In fairness it usually works the other way for defendants when it's a break in the chain of evidence. TBH this thread would be better moved to Legal discussion.

kazul

MIDNITE39 wrote: »

one thing i have to say if u did not get the summors in to yours hand u did not get it same thing happen to me went to court i said i did not get the summors from gardai i was put in my letter box i put my case to the judge that if i gave 50 euro to his wife did i give the to to him and he no same thing in my case so it was trow out of court

If that appears in an official court transcript I'll eat my laptop. It would take a brave lawyer to put that to a judge, never mind a civilian. I call BS.

R.O.R

MIDNITE39 wrote: »

one thing i have to say if u did not get the summors in to yours hand u did not get it same thing happen to me went to court i said i did not get the summors from gardai i was put in my letter box i put my case to the judge that if i gave 50 euro to his wife did i give the to to him and he no same thing in my case so it was trow out of court

kazul wrote: »

If that appears in an official court transcript I'll eat my laptop. It would take a brave lawyer to put that to a judge, never mind a civilian. I call BS.

Kazul,

If you could make out what MIDNITE39 was saying in their post, could you provide a translation for the rest of us? I've tried to read it umpteen times now and still haven't a clue what it means.

Thanks.

kazul

From what I gather, claiming that a summons was thrown out of court because it wasn't served on the person directly.
In other words "Judge if I gave your wife €50 to give to you and you claim you never got it.., the same could apply to my summons".
I can picture the jolly judge with a twinkle in his eye thinking, "Yes, she is a dishonest b**ch, she probably intercepts summonses too" and saying "Run along you little rascal, and get a licence and insurance before you get yourself into trouble".

aggreived

mickdw wrote: »

I dont think it was un reasonable of the court at the end of the day. I would meet the age & licence requirements for that company van but that doesnt mean I am currently insured to drive your van.
Your legal team made a balls of it. I mean, how hard was it to have obtained cast iron documentation from all angles specially since there was the other issues re missing summons etc

Im not disputing the courts findings, as my appeal will fully clear me and prove that i was insured to drive the car as well as being owner of the car. i am disputing the fact that their is 2 sets of rules in place. Why is the cert accepted in police station and not in the courts. The police don't ask for proof etc, they take the details, imput them and thats the end of it. One of my drivers today went to produce as was stopped at checkpoint driving a van..(i was in company car registered to same company name as on insurance policy) and didn't have licence on him. He had to produce licence and insurance and i told him to ask the guard did he need a letter verifying insurance from employer and insurance company lo and behold, he was told no, the cert was grand so no surprise to me as this has always been the norm...no problem.
So while i understand that the law is their for a reason, telling you to produce licence and insurance at your local garda station within 10 days does not translate as produce your original cert, plus letter from insurance company confirming your allowed drive vehicle, plus log book to prove insurance is relevant to vehicle, plus letter from employer stating you have permission. The same applies to the court. If you receive a summons to go to court to produce licence and insurance, maybe they should put it all these extra documents because unless you work in the state solicitors office, these rules seem to elude us.

daveharnett

aggreived wrote: »

Im not disputing the courts findings, as my appeal will fully clear me and prove that i was insured to drive the car as well as being owner of the car. i am disputing the fact that their is 2 sets of rules in place. Why is the cert accepted in police station and not in the courts.

You were originally found guilty of the offence. As I understand it, the presumption of innocence is different when you have already been found guilty and are appealing.

Del2005

aggreived wrote: »

Im not disputing the courts findings, as my appeal will fully clear me and prove that i was insured to drive the car as well as being owner of the car. i am disputing the fact that their is 2 sets of rules in place. Why is the cert accepted in police station and not in the courts. The police don't ask for proof etc, they take the details, imput them and thats the end of it. One of my drivers today went to produce as was stopped at checkpoint driving a van..(i was in company car registered to same company name as on insurance policy) and didn't have licence on him. He had to produce licence and insurance and i told him to ask the guard did he need a letter verifying insurance from employer and insurance company lo and behold, he was told no, the cert was grand so no surprise to me as this has always been the norm...no problem.
So while i understand that the law is their for a reason, telling you to produce licence and insurance at your local garda station within 10 days does not translate as produce your original cert, plus letter from insurance company confirming your allowed drive vehicle, plus log book to prove insurance is relevant to vehicle, plus letter from employer stating you have permission. The same applies to the court. If you receive a summons to go to court to produce licence and insurance, maybe they should put it all these extra documents because unless you work in the state solicitors office, these rules seem to elude us.

The difference is that at the Garda station you are only showing a cert, which could be anything, to a Garda they don't verify it's legit they just note down what you produced.

In court you have to prove that you have insurance, motoring isn't a right it's a privilege so innocent till proven guilty doesn't apply according to the EU. If you have a private policy then the cert will do as that has you name and car reg on it. You needed to prove to the judge that you where legal at the time you where stopped but because you where on a fleet policy you needed more proof then most to prove it with a letter from insurance comp etc.

Was the Barrister you used experienced at traffic offences? From reading this they are the ones that messed up by not preparing correctly.

aggreived

Del2005 wrote: »

The difference is that at the Garda station you are only showing a cert, which could be anything, to a Garda they don't verify it's legit they just note down what you produced.

In court you have to prove that you have insurance, motoring isn't a right it's a privilege so innocent till proven guilty doesn't apply according to the EU. If you have a private policy then the cert will do as that has you name and car reg on it. You needed to prove to the judge that you where legal at the time you where stopped but because you where on a fleet policy you needed more proof then most to prove it with a letter from insurance comp etc.

Was the Barrister you used experienced at traffic offences? From reading this they are the ones that messed up by not preparing correctly.

I blame the barrister, as i am not in the legal profession and i don't attend court on a daily basis, nor do i charge a fee to represent people with this problem so while some might say i should have had the foresight, i unfortunatly paid a barrister and presumed he knew what he was doing so in the mean time i was put off the road over this cert. Ah well, ive learned a hard lesson. My appeal is on in 2 weeks so ill keep ye posted, in the interm its done great for the fitness level as walking everywhere is not something i would have done in the past.

kmick

If your livelyhood depends on your car why would you foget to produce this at the garda station? Thats not an oversight - that's lunacy. Once you enter the capricious courts system you will feel the might of its Catch22 process.

If it were me I would have got a letter from the insurance company stating
"On the 4th of July 2009 our client John Smith of 2 Happygolucky Terrace, Dundalk was insured to drive the 02-d-23456 Modeo in question". End of case.

Never solely rely on the advice of a solicitor or Barrister. Always do what is possible within your means to get as much evidence as possible and bring it with you. No one else is going to talk you out of it without evidence.

Gregor Samsa

aggreived wrote: »

however the state solicitor in limerick decided that it was not sufficient evidence that i was insured and hence was disqualified for 12 months

State solicitors only present a case to a judge on behalf of the State, they don't decide what is valid evidence, or hand down sentences or hear appeals. So it was a judge that disqualified you, after hearing the evidence from both the state solicitor and your barrister.

If you were actually insured for the time in question, I'd be getting a new barrister for the next appeal, as it really should be black and white, and they should have no trouble in proving this.

kazul

Why did you engage a barrister for a simple case that was presumably heard in the district court in the first place? It seems a bit extravagant. It's not like you were appealing against an article of the constitution.

-Corkie-

This makes no sense what so ever. Their is something missing from the story, has to be. I have a fleet policy and never heard of the likes. If your story is correct i would be changing my law firm.....

galwaytt

Del2005 wrote: »

The difference is that at the Garda station you are only showing a cert, which could be anything, to a Garda they don't verify it's legit they just note down what you produced.

In court you have to prove that you have insurance,

...all you have to do is produce the Cert. The court doesn't/can't check it, either.........I dunno where you get your info from.....

Del2005

galwaytt wrote: »

...all you have to do is produce the Cert. The court doesn't/can't check it, either.........I dunno where you get your info from.....

If all you need to do is produce the cert, which the OP did, why were they banned for no insurance? Apart from having a useless barrister.

In court for motoring offences you have to prove your innocent not the state prove that your guilty, as I said before motoring isn't a right it's a privilege. If you go in with a private policy it'll have your name and car details so you have proof that you had cover.

The OP had a fleet insurance cert which proves that they had insurance but they had no proof that they where insured in the vehicle they where driving at the time they where stopped which is why they where banned.