Court summons for no car tax

frankletanc

Last year I was stopped by traffic corps for having no car tax on the car. The tax had been out for some time but I rarely drove the car and on this occassion stupidly decided to as I needed to move equipment I was using. I didnt have my license on me at the time and am a provisional driver which also did not go down well. Through a number of reasons I didnt get to present my license to the local garda station within the 10 days.

I paid the fine and thought that might be the end of it when i heard nothing but now, almost 6 months on I have been summonsed for not having tax on the car, driving without a licence, driving without a fully licensed driver, no insurance and failing to provide my license within the 10 days and as you can imagine am extremely worried. Has anyone been involved in something like this previously. What can I expect from the judge. I know I was in the wrong but getting 5 summonses like that has really gotten to me.

Little CuChulainn

If you are convicted of no insurance you can expect a driving ban. The others generally come with hefty enough fines.

Nino Brown

I would guess, a ban, a E500-E1000 fine, and 5 points on your license, which will make your future insurance quotes outrageous assuming you decide to actually buy insurance.

frankletanc

My insurance was all paid up on the car but because I was driving on a provisional license I have been summonsed for no insurance. Will that still count against me?

sjb25

frankletanc wrote: »

My insurance was all paid up on the car but because I was driving on a provisional license I have been summonsed for no insurance. Will that still count against me?

Will depend on you're insurance company I'd say Iv been told some won't cover you driving alone on a provisional as you basically don't have a licence as you are don't fufill the conditions of the licence driving alone but some do you will need to check that

JIdontknow

This previous thread may give you some guidance or info:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=89974673

NUTLEY BOY

Because of the potential implications for you a solicitor should be consulted now.

emeldc

You were summoned for no insurance because you didn't produce it. The disk on the window doesn't have your name on it. It could have been anyones'. Produce your cert in court and that one will probably be struck out. The rest will carry fines and/or penalty points. Bring a good solicitor with you.

frankletanc

Ah ok, I wasn't aware of that. That's fair enough. Insurance was always paid up so i'll take the certs with me.

I was reluctant on bringing a solicitor. Is it such a severe case I would need one?

emeldc

frankletanc wrote: »

Ah ok, I wasn't aware of that. That's fair enough. Insurance was always paid up so i'll take the certs with me.

I was reluctant on bringing a solicitor. Is it such a severe case I would need one?

Please, please bring a solicitor. He will be better able to put up a good argument and minimise the damage. Remember any penalty points you get will last for three years.

frankletanc

Ok thanks for the advice. I will do that.

My worry here is there are 5 summonses. Whats the maximum penalty im looking at?

emeldc

frankletanc wrote: »

Ok thanks for the advice. I will do that.

My worry here is there are 5 summonses. Whats the maximum penalty im looking at?

You had a license and insurance so I would imagine they will only consider no tax and no full driver. I don't think there are points for the tax, just a fine, but there are 4 points for conviction on the driver thing. That's why you need a solicitor to argue against the points. Forget about the amount of the fine. You'll get over it.

Pat Mustard

frankletanc wrote: »

Ah ok, I wasn't aware of that. That's fair enough. Insurance was always paid up so i'll take the certs with me.

I was reluctant on bringing a solicitor. Is it such a severe case I would need one?

It doesn't look like a severe case. It's a common scenario.

It might cost in the region of €150 to hire a solicitor to represent you, I suppose.

You might be okay if you represent yourself, or you might not. If not, then bear in mind that you will be shelling out for an appeal to the Circuit Court and that will cost you a lot more than €150.

Up to you.

Pat Mustard

frankletanc wrote: »

Ok thanks for the advice. I will do that.

My worry here is there are 5 summonses. Whats the maximum penalty im looking at?

Mod:

You are right up to the line regarding requests for legal advice. It would be reasonable to argue that you have already crossed it. I assume that you have read the forum charter.

Also, the only way that question can be answered without breaching the charter will be by direct reference to the appropriate legislation.

emeldc

I was thinking too that if you back tax the car, it might take care of that summons as well as there is 'no loss of revenue to the state'. It might also be cheaper than the fine.
That leaves the no full driver thing. If your solicitor knows the guard and has a word, who knows, maybe the guard will have a heart and tell the judge that 'everything is in order' and the matter can be struck out. It's a long shot but you have little to lose. Don't under estimate what those PP's will do to your insurance for years to come.

Greenmachine

The fact that you failed to produce your documents might go against you. That should have been priority number 1, before, work, holidays or family. In your case, I would do like other have said. I was in similar position before except I had valid insurance, tax and a full license. I produced everything to the garda station and still received a summons. The judge read out my cases, and threw it out with even calling me. In your case, there is a high likelihood of the garda turning up and present the case. A solicitor will be comfortable and familiar with the court setting and will present your defense.

frankletanc

Ok thank you The Mustard. Apologies for that.

Zambia

emeldc wrote: »

You were summoned for no insurance because you didn't produce it. The disk on the window doesn't have your name on it. It could have been anyones'. Produce your cert in court and that one will probably be struck out. The rest will carry fines and/or penalty points. Bring a good solicitor with you.

Seriously I read this a lot on this forum. Why are there charges laid that are so easily disproved at court?

Surely the GARDA should only lay charges he/she has already found to be true and correct??

Graham

Zambia wrote: »

Seriously I read this a lot on this forum. Why are there charges laid that are so easily disproved at court?

Surely the GARDA should only lay charges he/she has already found to be true and correct??

Because the OP failed to prove them when given the opportunity despite being aware that such failure would more than likely lead to a court appearance.

emeldc

Zambia wrote: »

Seriously I read this a lot on this forum. Why are there charges laid that are so easily disproved at court?

Surely the GARDA should only lay charges he/she has already found to be true and correct??

If the OP can produce a valid license and insurance cert in court, then why would he be convicted on those summonses. He may however still be convicted of failing to produce his documents within the specified time. It will be up the the judge. That's why several posters have recommended bringing a solicitor along.

the_syco

frankletanc wrote: »

I was reluctant on bringing a solicitor.

It's either costly now, or costly for the next few years.

Pay all back taxes, book a date to do your test for your full license, and bring a solicitor. The solicitor will use the other two items to show that you're a good citizen, that you're sorry, and hopefully you'll get away with a slap on the wrists and a fine.

Also, get a suit of some sort; show respect to the judge.

emeldc

the_syco wrote: »

It's either costly now, or costly for the next few years.

Pay all back taxes, book a date to do your test for your full license, and bring a solicitor. The solicitor will use the other two items to show that you're a good citizen, that you're sorry, and hopefully you'll get away with a slap on the wrists and a fine.

Also, get a suit of some sort; show respect to the judge.

Yep, bang on.

MarkAnthony

They're doing learner permit holders for no insurance now when they're unaccompanied? :eek:

emeldc

MarkAnthony wrote: »

They're doing learner permit holders for no insurance now when they're unaccompanied? :eek:

Link for that?

MarkAnthony

emeldc wrote: »

Link for that?

Here :pac: #4

emeldc

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Here :pac: #4

thought you were making a statement, not asking a question :rolleyes:

goz83

Let us know how you get on OP. When you in court?

234

MarkAnthony wrote: »

They're doing learner permit holders for no insurance now when they're unaccompanied? :eek:

emeldc wrote: »

thought you were making a statement, not asking a question :rolleyes:

If only there were some kind of convenient punctuation mark that could differentiate between the two

Kalman

"No tax on the car, driving without a licence, driving without a fully licensed driver, no insurance and failing to provide my license within the 10 days and as you can imagine am extremely worried [sic]"

What can I expect from the judge?

That's easy, you should be banned from the roads.
You should not be behind the wheel of a car, you have no insurance and as it seems, not a thought for other road users. To sum up, you are selfish!

emeldc

Kalman wrote: »

"No tax on the car, driving without a licence, driving without a fully licensed driver, no insurance and failing to provide my license within the 10 days and as you can imagine am extremely worried [sic]"

What can I expect from the judge?

That's easy, you should be banned from the roads.
You should not be behind the wheel of a car, you have no insurance and as it seems, not a thought for other road users. To sum up, you are selfish!

Relax there buddy, read the whole thread. He does have insurance.

Kalman

emeldc wrote: »

Relax there buddy, read the whole thread. He does have insurance.

If he is as he says, a learner driver, then driving unsupervised makes the insurance null & void. He should read the small print.

emeldc

Kalman wrote: »

If he is as he says, a learner driver, then driving unsupervised makes the insurance null & void. He should read the small print.

Better still, you show it to me.

taytobreath

Kalman wrote: »

"No tax on the car, driving without a licence, driving without a fully licensed driver, no insurance and failing to provide my license within the 10 days and as you can imagine am extremely worried [sic]"

What can I expect from the judge?

That's easy, you should be banned from the roads.
You should not be behind the wheel of a car, you have no insurance and as it seems, not a thought for other road users. To sum up, you are selfish!

do we have an angel in our midst

Pat Mustard

Kalman wrote: »

That's easy, you should be banned from the roads.
You should not be behind the wheel of a car, you have no insurance and as it seems, not a thought for other road users. To sum up, you are selfish!

Mod:

If you are not here for legal discussion, you are posting off-topic. Please don't do that here.

slimjimmc

Kalman wrote: »

If he is as he says, a learner driver, then driving unsupervised makes the insurance null & void. He should read the small print.

I wonder is that contrary to Sect 5 of SI 14/1992 which prohibits an insurer from writing into their policy any clause that effectively allows them to refuse a third party claim where the driver does not hold a valid provisional licence (SI 58/1964) now learner permit?

I've seen policies that state no cover will be provided for learners breaching their permit conditions but I always wondered if that actually means you have no compulsory cover as required by law.

Lmklad

Contact the Garda before the court date. Show them Certs that covered you for the day. Bring the receipt for the fine you paid. Ask the Guard where it's going to go from there.

Zambia

Graham wrote: »

Because the OP failed to prove them when given the opportunity despite being aware that such failure would more than likely lead to a court appearance.

Then the charge of failing to provide should stand alone.

Example
The Garda Asks the motorist roadside to provide insurance cert and he fails to do so.

Garda asks who is your insurer? Motorists states its AXA.

On the Gardas return to the station AXA is called and confirms the vehicle or the driver is not currently insured. The Garda Asks for a certificate or letter stating that and is emailed one.

Then the garda lays that charge as there is proof the driver is not insured.

As it appears to be the case that if the driver does not provide proof he is insured he gets charged.

Surely its the prosecutions job to prove that he isn't.

In an ideal world there should be a one stop shop available to Gardai to query whether a car is insured or not.

billyhead

just out of curiousity and sorry for going a little of topic OP. I understand that AGS have up to 6 months to apply for a summons for an indictable offence but why do you always read about people waiting 6 or more months to get a summons. Is this a local management directive. Surely a lot of potential prosecutiuons are slipping through the new if due to forgetfulness or mislaying of files etc. Do any AGS members here know what the reasoning is behind this. Surely when a crime has been committed the member goes back to the station, logs it straightaway on the system and then applies for the summons for the next available court sitting as soon as all the evidence is at hand etc? Would this not be the correct way of doing it? For example with this case once the 10 days were up the garda involved would process the summons.

Graham

Zambia wrote: »

As it appears to be the case that if the driver does not provide proof he is insured he gets charged.

Sounds fair enough to me, I'd rather keep the Gardai on the roads than back at the station contacting insurance companies.

Zambia wrote: »

In an ideal world there should be a one stop shop available to Gardai to query whether a car is insured or not.

Agreed, I suspect it's a lack of resources/finances that's preventing this. I'd go further, in an ideal world the Gardai wouldn't need a one-stop-shop. ANPR would detect registration details and automatically check insurance details, sounding an alert and if necessary instigating the issue of summons/fines.

delthedriver

Best advice. Engage the services of a good solicitor, who will take away all the stress and worry in attending the court hearing.


Chin up!

Zambia

Graham wrote: »

Sounds fair enough to me, I'd rather keep the Gardai on the roads than back at the station contacting insurance companies.

You cant sacrifice that, the fact is if you want to charge people you have to have some evidence proving your case, not the lack of evidence disproving it.

schemingbohemia

Zambia wrote: »

You cant sacrifice that, the fact is if you want to charge people you have to have some evidence proving your case, not the lack of evidence disproving it.

The onus in these cases is on the driver to produce proof to AGS that they have insurance not for AGS to obtain proof, the OP didn't do this.

Zambia

schemingbohemia wrote: »

The onus in these cases is on the driver to produce proof to AGS that they have insurance not for AGS to obtain proof, the OP didn't do this.

Really strikes me as an awfull waste of time.

Pat Mustard

Zambia wrote: »

Really strikes me as an awfull waste of time.

I'm inclined to agree. If insurance companies had to give the information to Gardai and if Gardai had proper information systems, the information could be read from laptops in Garda Cars. I know that Garda cars don't have laptops generally, but if we went back in time nearly 20 years, they were in patrol cars in the US.

I assume that the Aussies have them and that they are connected to the relevant police databases?

If police had the relevant information at their fingertips, it would minimise delays in relation to investigation and prosecution of these types of offences.

Graham

The Mustard wrote: »

If police had the relevant information at their fingertips, it would minimise delays in relation to investigation and prosecution of these types of offences.

ANPR with a link back to an insurance/NCT/driver license database, automatic fines and seizure of non-compliant vehicles. Fines should be at least equivalent to the proportional costs of running the ANPR service for each person being fined with an allowance made for the initial setup costs. Fines collected to be returned to running the service.

billy few mates

the_syco wrote: »

Also, get a suit of some sort; show respect to the judge.

Something seriously wrong with a legal system when the level of justice you can expect is directly related to you sartorial elegance.....

audi12

Kalman wrote: »

"No tax on the car, driving without a licence, driving without a fully licensed driver, no insurance and failing to provide my license within the 10 days and as you can imagine am extremely worried [sic]"

What can I expect from the judge?

That's easy, you should be banned from the roads.
You should not be behind the wheel of a car, you have no insurance and as it seems, not a thought for other road users. To sum up, you are selfish!

Very high and mighty you must be a guard who didnt read the thread he said he had insurance

Pat Mustard

billy few mates wrote: »

Something seriously wrong with a legal system when the level of justice you can expect is directly related to you sartorial elegance.....

It's not even necessary to have a suit. Somebody in a shirt and tie would stand out as not being one of the tracksuits.