Court Summons for No Insurance

Eccentric Toast

Hi there got three summons for driving with No insurance, not producing insurance and No display of insurance.

The car in question is my brothers it had no insurance on it as he no longer lives at home. I wasn't driving it I was working on a different car in the garden when the Garda showed up. They had got a report of a suspicious car driving around the estate(my brothers) which my friend was driving but he has full garage policy so he is covered to drive it anyway. I was trying to explain that I wasn't driving it but she was having none of it. I also tried to explain to her that my insurance covered me to drive 3rd party vehicles that are taxed and NCT not in my name anyway even if I was!
She told me that I would have to produce proof that I was insured on THAT vehicle within the next 10 days to a Garda station of my choosing. Which I just produced my Insurance certificate for my car that same day that states I can drive cars 3rd party under terms and conditions as this is all I could show.

Apparently this wasn't sufficient. I just want to know what's going to happen as I have a full clean driving license and would like to keep it this way.

I've never been in trouble with the Garda before and I would never drive a car that I didn't think I was insured on.

I also applied to join the Garda and I have a feeling if I'm convicted this will affect my application!

Any info would be really appreciated!

ironclaw

This makes no sense, why were you summoned for a car you don't own? And you were summoned on the idea that someone else was driving the car suspiciously and they just happened to find you outside the house? So they summoned you and not the mechanic would was driving it?

Story doesn't add up to me.

The only way this makes sense if is the car was parked in a public place and you owned it. Then I believe it is an offence not have valid tax , insurance and (I think) NCT on display i.e. The disks in the window. I am open to correction on that.

timmy4u2

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

Hi there got three summons for driving with No insurance, not producing insurance and No display of insurance.

The car in question is my brothers it had no insurance on it as he no longer lives at home. I wasn't driving it I was working on a different car in the garden when the Garda showed up. They had got a report of a suspicious car driving around the estate(my brothers) which my friend was driving but he has full garage policy so he is covered to drive it anyway. I was trying to explain that I wasn't driving it but she was having none of it. I also tried to explain to her that my insurance covered me to drive 3rd party vehicles that are taxed and NCT not in my name anyway even if I was!
She told me that I would have to produce proof that I was insured on THAT vehicle within the next 10 days to a Garda station of my choosing. Which I just produced my Insurance certificate for my car that same day that states I can drive cars 3rd party under terms and conditions as this is all I could show.

Apparently this wasn't sufficient. I just want to know what's going to happen as I have a full clean driving license and would like to keep it this way.

I've never been in trouble with the Garda before and I would never drive a car that I didn't think I was insured on.

I also applied to join the Garda and I have a feeling if I'm convicted this will affect my application!

Any info would be really appreciated!

Could you dumb down this story as I am confused as to what you are trying to say.
I member of the Garda is entitled to demand from you production of a certificate of insurance or exemption within one month after you were seen driving the car, either by the Garda or if it has been alleged to the Garda by someone else that you were driving the vehicle without being insured or exempted.
So for that part of thecstory it is not necessary for you to be stopped while driving

djimi

If you werent driving the car at the time, and the car is not in your name, then why are you even entertaining them? There is no reason for them to think that you were driving, so its up to them to prove that you were.

Eccentric Toast

There was a few of us there but I was the only one there related to the car. She wouldn't accept that I wasn't driving the car, even though we explained the situation. She just assumed it was me because it was my brothers.

The car was parked on the road across from the house in a private estate while I was working on a car in the driveway. The car had NCT and Tax.

I've got the summons to court now but I don't know where I stand how do I proof to the Judge I wasn't in the car?

djimi

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

The car was parked on the road across from the house in a private estate while I was working on a car in the driveway. The car had NCT and Tax.

If the car wasnt on private land then it must be insured. Someone is responsible for the fact that it was on a public road without insurance, but Im still not sure why the Garda thinks that someone is you?

ScouseMouse

djimi wrote: »

If the car wasnt on private land then it must be insured. Someone is responsible for the fact that it was on a public road without insurance, but Im still not sure why the Garda thinks that someone is you?

I thought a car needed TAX to be parked on a public road, not INSURANCE.

Is insurance not required to DRIVE it?

Eccentric Toast

My friend driving it has a garage policy.

timmy4u2

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

There was a few of us there but I was the only one there related to the car. She wouldn't accept that I wasn't driving the car, even though we explained the situation. She just assumed it was me because it was my brothers.

The car was parked on the road across from the house in a private estate while I was working on a car in the driveway. The car had NCT and Tax.

When she made the demand off you she would have specified a particular time, place and date.
The date and place will be on the summons.
You do not have a problem if your insurance is as you say. You will see her name on the summons so make an appointment to see her and show her where you are covered to drive the car and show that you were not driving it in connection with the motor trade, and bring her proof that the car is registered and owned by another.
Dialogue is always the best way to sort these things out.

P_1

If you were sent a summons then I'd say an appointment with a solicitor might be a wise investment. You seem to be having trouble explaining what happened to most readers so it seems likely that you'd be cut to shreds in court if it came to that. A solicitor should be able to translate your explanation into language the guards/courts will understand and hopefully make the situation go away for you.

TL/DR - A solicitor's bill will more than likely be cheaper and less hassle than a fine/conviction which I think will probably happen if you try to DIY this.

Eccentric Toast

I'm not great at trying to explain myself on forums

Simply put I wasn't driving the car but I got a summons for it.
It had no insurance in the window because the car itself wasn't insured the driver was, he had his policy on him too.

wonski

superscouse wrote: »

I thought a car needed TAX to be parked on a public road, not INSURANCE.

Is insurance not required to DRIVE it?

Insurance is required when the car is used (parked) on public road.

Gary ITR

I was in court a while back.. Speeding fine never arrived but a case similar to this came up and the Guard was eaten by the judge for wasting the courts time (note no mention of the persons time) Basically Guards in general don't know enough about car insurance and are forced to enforce laws they aren't fully educated on.

If it's as you say it was then you have no are to answer and will be fine

Gary ITR

wonski wrote: »

Insurance is required when the car is used (parked) on public road.

That's incorrect

pred racer

You have 2 options,
Go see the guard and explain the situation.
Go to court and explain it to the judge.

In both situations I cant see how you could be done for this if you have the supporting paperwork with you. Btw if your mate who was driving it was with you it will make your explaination alot easier.

If option A doesn't work and you move on to option B bring a solicitor with you, they are alot better at explaining situations to Judges;)

djimi

superscouse wrote: »

I thought a car needed TAX to be parked on a public road, not INSURANCE.

Is insurance not required to DRIVE it?

Once the car is on a public road (be it stationary or moving) then it must be fully road legal; tax, insurance and NCT. Only if it parked on private property is insurance not required.

Eccentric Toast

Any idea how much a solicitor is going to set me back?

P_1

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

I'm not great at trying to explain myself on forums

Simply put I wasn't driving the car but I got a summons for it.
It had no insurance in the window because the car itself wasn't insured the driver was, he had his policy on him too.

Right I think I get you. Seems to me is your problem is that you've got yourself into a 'my word vs your word' situation with the Garda.

Just so I've got everything right:
You've presented your insurance which has the 'Driving of other cars' cover on it.
The other car is owned, taxed and insured in your brother's name but that wasn't displayed when the Garda saw it.

Two scenarios come to mind:
1 - The Garda wants to see the tax/insurance details of your brother's car
2 - The Garda doesn't know what she's talking about

pred racer

Gary ITR wrote: »

I was in court a while back.. Speeding fine never arrived but a case similar to this came up and the Guard was eaten by the judge for wasting the courts time (note no mention of the persons time) Basically Guards in general don't know enough about car insurance and are forced to enforce laws they aren't fully educated on.

If it's as you say it was then you have no are to answer and will be fine

I have also seen Guards given out to in court for silly summons!

(off topic) Did you get off the speeding fine Gary?

wonski

Gary ITR wrote: »

That's incorrect

Always thought it was correct - and the insurance disk is also required.
Not saying i am 100% in the right, but that was my understanding.

timmy4u2

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

I'm not great at trying to explain myself on forums

Simply put I wasn't driving the car but I got a summons for it.
It had no insurance in the window because the car itself wasn't insured the driver was, he had his policy on him too.

Trade insurance issues discs with the traders name on it that can be placed on any vehicle.
That was remiss of him not to put his disc up.
So you have two defences to this then.
Your defence as I pointed out to you previously and you have the defence of the mechanic with his traders policy.
It then becomes a very small issue that can be sorted beforehand.
So when you make the appointment bring the mechanic with you to explain his part.
Incidentally non display of an insurance disc on a parked vehicle carries just an on the spot fine of €60. So she is basing her case on a moving offence.
Contact her, talk to her, if nothing doing make an appointment with the Superintendent.
If your story here is accurate you do not have a reason to worry too much.

wonski

djimi wrote: »

Once the car is on a public road (be it stationary or moving) then it must be fully road legal; tax, insurance and NCT. Only if it parked on private property is insurance not required.

Are you sure about the NCT when it isn't driven?

djimi

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

I'm not great at trying to explain myself on forums

Simply put I wasn't driving the car but I got a summons for it.
It had no insurance in the window because the car itself wasn't insured the driver was, he had his policy on him too.

What exactly is the Garda looking to prosecute for?

If the car was seen driving on the road then get your friend to bring their garage policy details to show that they were covered to drive it at the time.

If the car was seen parked uninsured on a public place then its the problem of the owner, not you.

I still dont see where you fit into all this? Has the Garda offered any explination as to why they felt you had anything to do with this?

Eccentric Toast

Correct I presented my insurance which covers me third party
BUT my brothers car wasn't insured as he no longer lived in the country. It was NCT'd and Taxed though.

The Garda didn't seem like she knew what she was talking about. Everytime I tried to explain it she just kept saying under section 4 of the road traffic act "Your not insured to drive this vehicle"

djimi

wonski wrote: »

Are you sure about the NCT when it isn't driven?

I could be wrong, but I dont think that there is a distinction between being driven and being parked; either way the vehicle is being used on a public road and therefore must be road legal.

timmy4u2

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

Any idea how much a solicitor is going to set me back?

Stay away from the solicitor until you talk it over with the Garda.
You would have an appointment made in the time you have been posting here.

pred racer

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

Any idea how much a solicitor is going to set me back?

Anywhere from 40 to a couple of hundred, it depends on many things, where in the country you are, whether the solicitor would normally be in that court anyway, and how busy (skint) he/she is.

wonski

timmy4u2 wrote: »

Stay away from the solicitor until you talk it over with the Garda.
You would have an appointment made in the time you have been posting here.

But the OP already spoke to Garda in the past. The Summons is issued, so this is his best bet. Not a usual "didn't present the documents within 10 days" case, where it would be strucked out when prove of insurance is provided. More complex, so i would personally seek a proper advice.
The story, and the way the Garda handled it is a bit messy...

wonski

djimi wrote: »

I could be wrong, but I dont think that there is a distinction between being driven and being parked; either way the vehicle is being used on a public road and therefore must be road legal.

I thought it was an offence to drive vehicle without the NCT, not using it (as being parked), but once again could be wrong. OT anyway, but seems like there are always different answers to these. Shows how messed up the system is.

P_1

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

Correct I presented my insurance which covers me third party
BUT my brothers car wasn't insured as he no longer lived in the country. It was NCT'd and Taxed though.

The Garda didn't seem like she knew what she was talking about. Everytime I tried to explain it she just kept saying under section 4 of the road traffic act "Your not insured to drive this vehicle"

Ok I think that's what is causing the issue. For the 'driving of other cars' 3rd party cover to apply usually the other car has to be insured, otherwise its the same as driving with no insurance. Best thing is to have a close read of your insurance policy but I think you could be in bother because of your brother's car not being insured.

djimi

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I think that's what is causing the issue. For the 'driving of other cars' 3rd party cover to apply usually the other car has to be insured, otherwise its the same as driving with no insurance. Best thing is to have a close read of your insurance policy but I think you could be in bother because of your brother's car not being insured.

Most insurance policies do not require the other car to be insured, but I agree its good advice to check the policy anyway, just to be sure.

Gary ITR

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I think that's what is causing the issue. For the 'driving of other cars' 3rd party cover to apply usually the other car has to be insured, otherwise its the same as driving with no insurance. Best thing is to have a close read of your insurance policy but I think you could be in bother because of your brother's car not being insured.

While historically that was the case it's not so much anymore. It depends on the insurer but the pendulum has swung the other way


@pred, nope I got a 250 fine and 4 points. Expired now though

P_1

Gary ITR wrote: »

While historically that was the case it's not so much anymore. It depends on the insurer but the pendulum has swung the other way

Fair enough, it's been a few years since I worked in insurance but that was something that was drilled into us in training.

Eccentric Toast

I'm with Liberty and I rang them and I am covered to drive cars that are not insured as long as they are road legal(NCT,TAX)

P_1

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

I'm with Liberty and I rang them and I am covered to drive cars that are not insured as long as they are road legal(NCT,TAX)

See if you can get that in writing off them, that should nuke the case for you

Eccentric Toast

This is really annoying as I wasn't actually driving the car :S

It states it on my insurance certificate the part that comes with the disc just not in complete detail!
When I rang Liberty they said the only thing they have is in their little booklet they send out to all customers, which just says the same thing the Certificate does.

K.Flyer

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I think that's what is causing the issue. For the 'driving of other cars' 3rd party cover to apply usually the other car has to be insured, otherwise its the same as driving with no insurance. Best thing is to have a close read of your insurance policy but I think you could be in bother because of your brother's car not being insured.

I would suggest that he contact his insurance company for written confirmation regarding cover on other vehicles. Also a copy of his friends trade policy outlining his cover on other vehicles.
O.P. get going to a solicitor asap, if what you say is true, a good solicitor will punch holes through the accusation.

Slick50

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

I've got the summons to court now but I don't know where I stand how do I proof to the Judge I wasn't in the car?

This sounds like the garda just doesn't believe you, maybe explaining to her that you have whatever number of witnesses (those who were with you on the day), and the guy who was driving, who are willing to go to court, you may be able to persuade her to drop the charges. Either way, you will probably have to go to court to be sure she doesn't proceed without you being present.
Bring the people who were with you on the day, to testify that you hadn't been driving the car. Also bring the guy who was driving, to state that he was driving, it would be helpful if he could produce proof that he was insured to drive the car in question.

If you weren't driving, the other summonses are void, as it's not your car.

Thomas D

They have to prove you were driving, not the other way round.

They will need a witness which they don't have and the case will be struck out.

Gardai can't use hearsay. Judges will usually strike a case out if they hear second hand testimony.

Slick50

P_1 wrote: »

Ok I think that's what is causing the issue. For the 'driving of other cars' 3rd party cover to apply usually the other car has to be insured, otherwise its the same as driving with no insurance. Best thing is to have a close read of your insurance policy but I think you could be in bother because of your brother's car not being insured.

The OP has stated he wasn't driving, so it's a mute point.

00833827

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

They had got a report of a suspicious car driving around the estate

its all odd but is there anything extra at all to this story? Were ye flying around the estate, doing burnouts/doughnuts/generally being anti-social and this got the neighbors back up who knows a garda - who came own and just gave ye a ticket for anything at all she could?

Eccentric Toast

The only thing odd about the car when it was driving into the estate was the license plate was in the front windscreen but was clearly visible.

timmy4u2

wonski wrote: »

But the OP already spoke to Garda in the past. The Summons is issued, so this is his best bet. Not a usual "didn't present the documents within 10 days" case, where it would be strucked out when prove of insurance is provided. More complex, so i would personally seek a proper advice.
The story, and the way the Garda handled it is a bit messy...

That is a conversation that took place on the side of the street where there were others present and not a place where proper discussion can take place.

An appointment at the station will be on record and the Garda will be obliged to examine all the details and if the OP story is correct there will not be a problem.

From the OP first post it appears that the Garda was acting on information received from a third party and it was a section 69 demand based on this information.

The Garda is obliged to examine all aspects of the incident before bringing it to court.
I still say that at this stage get an appointment and do not waste your money........yet.

Spook_ie

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

There was a few of us there but I was the only one there related to the car. She wouldn't accept that I wasn't driving the car, even though we explained the situation. She just assumed it was me because it was my brothers.

The car was parked on the road across from the house in a private estate while I was working on a car in the driveway. The car had NCT and Tax.

I've got the summons to court now but I don't know where I stand how do I proof to the Judge I wasn't in the car?

Running a street side motor repair shop? if so might have a bearing on the insurance issue as your insurance wouldn't necessarily cover you for motor trade activity, though if you weren't driving shouldn't become an issue

coolock94

you cant be done mate they have no prove so it be thrown out go to court deny you were driving and ask them to prove that you were driving

bigroad

There is no need to show your insurance as you were not driving the car.
Have you given your date of birth.
Its up to the guards talk to the owner of the vehicle or catch the person driving the car.Nothing to do with the Op full stop.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Tigger

wonski wrote: »

Insurance is required when the car is used (parked) on public road.

Whut?

matt70iu

Eccentric Toast wrote: »

I'm with Liberty and I rang them and I am covered to drive cars that are not insured as long as they are road legal(NCT,TAX)

I had a similar case happen to me. I was driving my sister's car, not named on her policy but was covered to drive other cars.

Long story short, got summons, took cert and local solicitor to court room with me.

Case was struck out. With Liberty too and they told me the same thing.

In the UK the car you are driving under your third party extension has to be have it's own cover but not in Eire.

I would still advise you to talk to a solicitor as many Gardai don't understand the whole idea of a third party extension, that you can drive other cars and I've no doubt they will try and prove you wrong.

You should be fine but get legal advice

Pro Hoc Vice

Tigger wrote: »

Whut?

The RTA's require that a car shall not be used in a public place without insurance. Use is defined

The original section 56 of the 1961 Act


Obligation to be insured or guaranteed.

56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time or there is in force at that time either—

Amended in 2004 by section 34

“56.—(1) A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless—

“use”, in relation to a vehicle, includes park, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

timmy4u2

bigroad wrote: »

There is no need to show your insurance as you were not driving the car.
Have you given your date of birth.
Its up to the guards talk to the owner of the vehicle or catch the person driving the car.Nothing to do with the Op full stop.

I cannot agree with you here.
A Member of An Garda Siochana is enpowered to make a demand for the production if she has reasonable grounds for believing that the OP was driving at the time.
So I am afraid it is not just up to the Garda to talk to the owner or to catch the driver in the act.
Sec 69 (1) of the 61 Act is very clear on this.

69.—(1) (a) Where a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that a mechanically propelled vehicle has been used in a public place on a particular occasion (including a case in which the member has himself observed the use) and that the actual user of the vehicle on that occasion was a particular person, the member may, at any time not later than one month after the occasion, demand of the person the production of either a certificate of insurance or a certificate of guarantee or a certificate of exemption in respect of the use of the vehicle by the person on the occasion and, if the person refuses or fails to produce any such certificate then and there, he shall, unless within ten days after the day on which the production was demanded he produces such certificate in person to a member of the Garda Síochána at a Garda Síochána station named by the person at the time at which the production was demanded, be guilty of an offence.

(b) In a prosecution for an offence under this subsection, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that he did not, within ten days after the day on which the production was demanded produce the certificate in person to a member of the Garda Síochána at a Garda Síochána station named by the defendant at the time at which the production was demanded.

(c) It shall be a good defence in a prosecution for an offence under this subsection if the defendant shows that on the occasion in question—

(i) he did not use the vehicle, or

(ii) he was the servant of the owner of the vehicle and was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.

To enter into a confrontational situation on the matter will not do the OP any favours either with the prosecuting Garda or if it proceeds to court with the District Justice.
Nor will it auger well for his asperations to become a Garda.

It is very clear from the original posters first post that the alleged incident was reported to her by a third party and she is obliged to assess that report and make a decision on the evidence given to her and on her belief based on reasonable grounds.
Consultation with the prosecuting Garda is part of the assessment of the alleged incident and it should not be allowed to go to court without such a consultation at the request of the accused.
A District Justice may well ask why the accused did not ask for a consultation.
There is plenty case law where it is clear that the onus is on the accused to prove that he was not driving or that he was covered to drive at the stated time.
The issue of a summons is justThat and does not become an issue until it is lodged with the District Court Clerk. After that it is under the jurisdiction of the court and a Judge just might decide that it will be his decision whether to allow it to be withdrawn but in most cases the Court Clerk will take it off the list.
With that in mind the OP should arrange a meeting asap before the summons progresses through the Pulse System