Summoned to court after presenting evidence to guards

Guest !!

Not seeking legal advice here just wondering why he must attend court.

i just want to know why my friend must go to court after clearing everything with the guards & was not charged with anything.

he recieved a summons to court recently, my friend in question took his liscense disc from his previous car and put it on the window of his new car, {his insurence policy states he can drive any car on his license}

at a checkpoint the guards, seized the car because his license did not match the license of the car.

the next morning he went to the guards and showd proof that the car he was driving was insured, payd a fine {for the exspence of the tow truck} and they gave him the car back. no problims..

but why has he been summoned to court after he presented the relivent evidence to the guards?

if something was wrong in this instance, surely the guards would have not given the car back to him... thats what confusses me..

Delancey

When you talk of a licence do you mean a tax disc ?

Your post is difficult to understand but I think your friend used a tax disc from one car on another car - quite illegal and I suspect that is why he has to go to court .

Guest !!

No tax disc was fine, was insurence disc, with his policy number on it, because it dient match the car he was driving they took it off the road, even tough he told the guard that his policy enabled him to drive the veichle he was in.

he actually showd the guard in question the actuall insurence disc {registered to that car,} 5 minutes after and she told him to do one :cool:

sparkling sea

What actual offence was he charged with ? Sounds strange so far

Guest !!

im not sure, i still have to read the summons myself. i'll post it here tommorow.

coylemj

Guest !! wrote: »

at a checkpoint the guards, seized the car because his license did not match the license of the car.

They seized the car because they suspected that he was driving with no insurance, an assumption they were entitled to make if he was driving using the insurance disc from another car.

He should have been carrying his own insurance cert. (not the disc, the actual cert.) in which case he could have proved on the spot that he was insured and they wouldn't have seized the car. You're asking for trouble putting a disc in the window that doesn't match the reg. of the car and driving with no cert. in your pocket.

I borrowed a car from a dealer for a week recently, I put my own insurance disc in the window to get me through any checkpoint where the Garda just scanned the expiry date but if he noticed that the reg. no. didn't match the car I had the cert. in my pocket to prove that I was insured to drive any car.

Guest !!

Ya he should had it with him, he did show it to them before they took the car away and they just :pac::rolleyes:, still don't know why he have to go to court tough mixup ??

coylemj

Guest !! wrote: »

Ya he should had it with him, he did show it to them before they took the car away and they just :pac::rolleyes:, still don't know why he have to go to court tough mixup ??

Not for the first time you're giving confusing information...

'he should (have) had it with him'

followed by....

'he did show it to them before they took the car away'

What did he not have with him which he showed to them?

Del2005

Guest !! wrote: »

[
he recieved a summons to court recently, my friend in question took his liscense disc from his previous car and put it on the window of his new car, {his insurence policy states he can drive any car on his license}

This is why he's getting summoned. Unless he has a very special policy he wasn't insured.

Most polices which have "Driving Other Cars" extension clearly state the the vehicle can't belong to you or be leased to you etc. He needed to transfer his insurance over. And he shouldn't have gotten his car back till he had a cert for it.

goat2

if i understand this correctly, your friend took an insurance disc from one car and put it on another, there is where he broke the law, i can drive my daughters, sons and partners cars as my insurance says i can drive other cars, but i would never take my disc and slip it on the windscreen of any of their cars, if i am caught i would just bring my insurance details to garda station, but i would never ever in the first place put an insurance disc that cover one car on another, that is false documentation stuck on windscreen,

Guest !!

sorry for the confusion, i'm only trying to put together what he told me happened, i was just interested to know why he had received a summones even after they alowd him to pick the car up the next morning.

coylemj, he went back home to get his cert and arrived back to the checkpoint, driving his own car :rolleyes: no problim.

goat on your insurence are your family members cars listed as cars you can drive? meaning that before my friend can drive another car he must register those cars first in is name? {he can't just drive any car and be insured}

He was under the impression he could just drive another car with the policy that he had, could the court ban him from driving {he works as a driver and is screwd if he losses his job..} and what kind of jail time/fine is he likly to face anyone know?

Del2005

Guest !! wrote: »

He was under the impression he could just drive another car with the policy that he had, could the court ban him from driving {he works as a driver and is screwd if he losses his job..} and what kind of jail time/fine is he likly to face anyone know?

Driving without insurance, even by mistake is a serious offence. It's 5 points plus a fine on conviction. He'll need a solicitor to plead mitigating circumstances, will more than likely get himself in more trouble if he tries himself.

Link to penalty points .pdf

Guest !!

So there goes his no claims bonus :pac::pac::pac:, guess he'l have to talk to a soliciter about the chances of getting off, with it been a serious offence and all

thanks for the help everyone.

Del2005

Guest !! wrote: »

So there goes his no claims bonus :pac::pac::pac:, guess he'l have to talk to a soliciter about the chances of getting off, with it been a serious offence and all

thanks for the help everyone.

He won't loose his no claims bonus as he hasn't made a claim, but his insurance will go up. Unless he gets a good solicitor and a sympathetic judge he could loose his job.

Guest !!

On his insurence cert, under section 5 liabilty to others,
{a}Liability for injury to third parties or damage to thier porperties
{b}liability whilst driving vehicles not owned by the insured.

{a}i assume this is if he was driving the car he was driving at the time and he hits another person his insurence will cover the damage,
{b} Does this part mean he can drive any vehicle? or does it mean something else

I still ask because somebody else told him that if he goes to court without a solictor {Stupit IMO} and shows that both cars were insured, that he is insured to drive any car.

He pays extra on his insurence for this, to drive any car.. but does he have to register this car first on his insurence or can he just drive another car without registering it..

Reloc8

In most cases the 'drive any car' provision allows you to drive any car if that car is validly insured under another policy of insurance

That means the other car has to be validly insured to him (unlikely) or to somebody else or to someone else. If the other car is validly insured he doesn't need to register it or anything. If its not validly insured, he's not insured to drive it.

To prove this he needs his own insurance certificate and the other insurance certificate which relates to the car he was driving.

Guest !!

Ya both cars were insured, now i got to find out why the court wants him to appear infront of a judge.

i'll have to check what exactly the summones says, he's going to the guards again anyway about it.. can the guards cancell this court date or must he appear regardless?

when he collected the car he showd this cars insurence...

barman linen

Reloc8 wrote: »

In most cases the 'drive any car' provision allows you to drive any car if that car is validly insured under another policy of insurance

That means the other car has to be validly insured to him (unlikely) or to somebody else or to someone else. If the other car is validly insured he doesn't need to register it or anything. If its not validly insured, he's not insured to drive it.

To prove this he needs his own insurance certificate and the other insurance certificate which relates to the car he was driving.

I understood that the 'other car' provision is restricted to 'third party' cover only....on the original policy. Am not sure if there is a requirement to have the other car insured.

The implication is that I am legally covered under the road traffic act and can pay a third party but if I crashed the car into a wall with no third party involved I would be at a loss for cost of repair.


If I understand the OP scenario the cops took his car thinking it was not insured....he subsequently proved it was insured...got his car back. The summons must relate to an offence regarding 'display' of insurance.

coylemj

Reloc8 wrote: »

In most cases the 'drive any car' provision allows you to drive any car if that car is validly insured under another policy of insurance

That means the other car has to be validly insured to him (unlikely) or to somebody else or to someone else. If the other car is validly insured he doesn't need to register it or anything. If its not validly insured, he's not insured to drive it.

To prove this he needs his own insurance certificate and the other insurance certificate which relates to the car he was driving.

Complete nonsense. If your insurance allows you to drive another car, the only condition is that you do not own that car and it is not hired out to you.

In some cases (Axa had this on their policy document last time I checked) you cannot drive a car that is leased to or owned by your employer i.e. you cannot hop into a colleague's company car and be covered by your own policy.

If I drive my neighbour's car, it is covered under my 'driving other cars' provision regardless of whether my neighbour's policy is current or not.

It is NOT and has never been a condition of motor insurance that the car you borrow has to be covered by it's owner's as well as your policy.

There is a provision in some policies which says that if you borrow a car from a friend and are involved in an accident, you should get the other guy's insurance to pay out. Some people interpret this to mean that you are not covered unless the owner's policy is active as well as your own but at the end of the day if the owner's insurance won't cover you, you would have to fall back on your own insurance and if you are insured to drive other cars they will have to pay out. You cannot be covered by two policies so once you are insured to drive the other guy's car, it doesn't matter a toss whether he has insurance or not.

It is the use of the car that is (or is not) covered, not the car itself.

coylemj

barman linen wrote: »

I understood that the 'other car' provision is restricted to 'third party' cover only....on the original policy. Am not sure if there is a requirement to have the other car insured.

No there isn't, the Road Traffic Act only requires third party cover i.e. if through your fault you injure another person or damage their property then the insurance will pay out. If you want to take a chance with 3rd party only that's your business and if you borrow a car from a friend and run it into a tree that's between you and him, the law couldn't care less.

Some policies extend fully comp. cover to borrowed cars with restrictions. I can drive a borrowed car and have fully comp. cover provided the car is not more than 2,000 c.c and the value is up to 40,000 euros.

barman linen wrote: »

The implication is that I am legally covered under the road traffic act and can pay a third party but if I crashed the car into a wall with no third party involved I would be at a loss for cost of repair.

Correct.

coylemj

Guest !! wrote: »

Ya both cars were insured, now i got to find out why the court wants him to appear infront of a judge.

In the original post you referred to the car as your friend's 'new car' which has implications for insurance. You may have missed an important point made by an earlier poster..

Del2005 wrote: »

This is why he's getting summoned. Unless he has a very special policy he wasn't insured.

Most polices which have "Driving Other Cars" extension clearly state the the vehicle can't belong to you or be leased to you etc. He needed to transfer his insurance over. And he shouldn't have gotten his car back till he had a cert for it.

This is a very valid point. If you have an old car and are insured and you then purchase a new car, you need to get your insurance moved over to the new car before you drive it off the forecourt, otherwise you are not insured. While you may be able to drive a friend's car, once you buy a car it is not covered by the 'other cars' provision so your friend was probably not insured.

This might explain why the Gardai are hauling him into court.

goat2

Guest !! wrote: »

sorry for the confusion, i'm only trying to put together what he told me happened, i was just interested to know why he had received a summones even after they alowd him to pick the car up the next morning.

coylemj, he went back home to get his cert and arrived back to the checkpoint, driving his own car :rolleyes: no problim.

goat on your insurence are your family members cars listed as cars you can drive? meaning that before my friend can drive another car he must register those cars first in is name? {he can't just drive any car and be insured}

He was under the impression he could just drive another car with the policy that he had, could the court ban him from driving {he works as a driver and is screwd if he losses his job..} and what kind of jail time/fine is he likly to face anyone know?

no their names are not mentioned
i drive my own car, which has its own insurance, but two of the family have me put as a name driver in their insurance

MagicSean

As already mentioned, the any other cars clause does not include vehicles owned by the policy holder. And you do not need a valid policy to get your car back from the pound.

Guest !!

i think the sole problim is that he swaped the insurence discs, thinking this was neccessary he did this, this is why he's been summoned i think..

the car did not belong to him at the time, it was his friends car.

MagicSean

Guest !! wrote: »

i think the sole problim is that he swaped the insurence discs, thinking this was neccessary he did this, this is why he's been summoned i think..

the car did not belong to him at the time, it was his friends car.

I thought it was a car he had just bought.

coylemj

Guest !! wrote: »

i think the sole problim is that he swaped the insurence discs, thinking this was neccessary he did this, this is why he's been summoned i think..

I doubt if the Gardai would summons you for using your own insurance disc in a different car provided you were insured to drive that car and could produce a cert. on the spot to prove it.

Technically you might be committing an offence but if the disc is from a current policy in your name and you are insured to drive the second car, I'm sure they'd turn a blind eye.

Guest !! wrote: »

the car did not belong to him at the time, it was his friends car.

That's not what you said in your original post.....

Guest !! wrote: »

he recieved a summons to court recently, my friend in question took his liscense disc from his previous car and put it on the window of his new car, {his insurence policy states he can drive any car on his license}

goat2

Guest !! wrote: »

i think the sole problim is that he swaped the insurence discs, thinking this was neccessary he did this, this is why he's been summoned i think..

the car did not belong to him at the time, it was his friends car.

i also think that is the problem, as the police see it, the car was not insured when they see insurance from a different regestration on windscreen, this is an offence to put another cars disc on the car a person is driving at the time

MagicSean

The way I see it is that the guy bought a car from his friend and got stopped while driving it home. He hadn't transferred his insurance to his new car and beleives he was covered under "driving other cars" because the car was still registered in the other persons name.

goat2

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

I thought it was a car he had just bought.

usually when you buy a car, when you get to the garage you ring your insurance company and ask them to do the transfer, or have it done for the time you drive car out of forecourt, that is what we usually do, we know we are not covered by our insurance until we do that, putting disc from another car is an offence

coylemj

goat2 wrote: »

usually when you buy a car, when you get to the garage you ring your insurance company and ask them to do the transfer, or have it done for the time you drive car out of forecourt, that is what we usually do, we know we are not covered by our insurance until we do that, putting disc from another car is an offence

Agree 100% on the issue of coverage and phoning the insurance before driving the new car, however I think you're on a high horse with the issue of the disc.

Are you saying that you would not switch the disc to the new car? You are also committing an offence by driving the car with no disc so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Or are you saying that you would first go to the insurance company office, get a new disc and cert. and then go back to the garage/private seller and take the car away with the new disc? If you lived outside the major cities what are you supposed to do with no car while you're waiting for the new documentation?

I bought a car recently and I drove it for day or so with the old disc on the windscreen, taking care not to park it on a public street for fear of getting a parking ticket from a warden with good eyesight.

If I was stopped by the Gardai I would have said as follows: 'Yes officer that disc has a different registration number but the policy is in my name and I have switched the cover to this car because I phoned them while sitting in the garage when I was picking up the car and when I get the new cert. I will produce it in xxx Garda station and the policy number will be the same as the one on the disc that's on the windscreen'. I had the garage invoice in the car to produce to prove that I had only bought the car in the past couple of days.

I really doubt that there are many Gardai that would take issue with that approach provided I produced the new cert in my local station within 10 days.

MagicSean

coylemj wrote: »

Agree 100% on the issue of coverage and phoning the insurance before driving the new car, however I think you're on a high horse with the issue of the disc.

Are you saying that you would not switch the disc to the new car? You are also committing an offence by driving the car with no disc so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Or are you saying that you would first go to the insurance company office, get a new disc and cert. and then go back to the garage/private seller and take the car away with the new disc? If you lived outside the major cities what are you supposed to do with no car while you're waiting for the new documentation?

I bought a car recently and I drove it for day or so with the old disc on the windscreen, taking care not to park it on a public street for fear of getting a parking ticket from a warden with good eyesight.

If I was stopped by the Gardai I would have said as follows: 'Yes officer that disc has a different registration number but the policy is in my name and I have switched the cover to this car because I phoned them while sitting in the garage when I was picking up the car and when I get the new cert. I will produce it in xxx Garda station and the policy number will be the same as the one on the disc that's on the windscreen'. I had the garage invoice in the car to produce to prove that I had only bought the car in the past couple of days.

I really doubt that there are many Gardai that would take issue with that approach provided I produced the new cert in my local station within 10 days.

I disagree. I think you would be better driving without the disk displayed. A Garda is more likely to think your insurance isn't ok if you have a disk from another car displayed than if you have a purchase receipt and the old disk in your posession.

goat2

coylemj wrote: »

Agree 100% on the issue of coverage and phoning the insurance before driving the new car, however I think you're on a high horse with the issue of the disc.

Are you saying that you would not switch the disc to the new car? You are also committing an offence by driving the car with no disc so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Or are you saying that you would first go to the insurance company office, get a new disc and cert. and then go back to the garage/private seller and take the car away with the new disc? If you lived outside the major cities what are you supposed to do with no car while you're waiting for the new documentation?

I bought a car recently and I drove it for day or so with the old disc on the windscreen, taking care not to park it on a public street for fear of getting a parking ticket from a warden with good eyesight.

If I was stopped by the Gardai I would have said as follows: 'Yes officer that disc has a different registration number but the policy is in my name and I have switched the cover to this car because I phoned them while sitting in the garage when I was picking up the car and when I get the new cert. I will produce it in xxx Garda station and the policy number will be the same as the one on the disc that's on the windscreen'. I had the garage invoice in the car to produce to prove that I had only bought the car in the past couple of days.

I really doubt that there are many Gardai that would take issue with that approach provided I produced the new cert in my local station within 10 days.

yes, i am saying i would not change discs, but i would carry paperwork with me in car to show that i just purchased car, and let them know i had done a transfer, and i will call in with the paperwork on the new transfer as soon as i get it, they will then see on the paperwork of insurance that car was insured on day they met me.

coylemj

goat2 wrote: »

yes, i am saying i would not change discs, but i would carry paperwork with me in car to show that i just purchased car, and let them know i had done a transfer, and i will call in with the paperwork on the new transfer as soon as i get it, they will then see on the paperwork of insurance that car was insured on day they met me.

Isn't it an offence of the same gravity to drive with no disc as it is to drive with a disc that was intended for a different car?

goat2

coylemj wrote: »

Isn't it an offence of the same gravity to drive with no disc as it is to drive with a disc that was intended for a different car?

not the same offence, with mine, i would not have a disc from another car which is more of a crime than not yet having a disc for a car i just bought as the old disc followed the licence plate of the car i traded in, i would rather be caught without a disc, than to have a disc that belonged to another car, because usually when you change insurance to another car, they ask the licence plate and the cc of the engine as well as make.

bath handle

coylemj wrote: »

goat2 wrote: »

usually when you buy a car, when you get to the garage you ring your insurance company and ask them to do the transfer, or have it done for the time you drive car out of forecourt, that is what we usually do, we know we are not covered by our insurance until we do that, putting disc from another car is an offence

Agree 100% on the issue of coverage and phoning the insurance before driving the new car, however I think you're on a high horse with the issue of the disc.

Are you saying that you would not switch the disc to the new car? You are also committing an offence by driving the car with no disc so it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

n 10 days.

an insurance disc does not have to be displayed until 10 days after the insurance has been effected. There is no offence committed in not displaying a disc on a newly acquired car.