Driving with no insurance case in court

konraado

Hi everyone,
Maybe someone can help me with info. I got catched with no insurance, actually i had a valid policy on that car and all was even paid till end of year. But my mistake was to change a logbook to my brothers name because wanted to sell a car to him.
Another bad thing was that i bought a car with fake nct disc. I never understand why someone needs to make nct fake? It costs only 55 eur. And later when i went to nct my car flew through nct with no problem at all..
So my question is what can i do to avoid driving ban? I cannot afford be banned because of my two jobs and another thing..i am nearly finished with my truck driving licence.

koutoubia

I don't think it matters whose name the car is in , in the eyes of the law. If you have an insurance certificate with your name and the registration of the car then you are covered.
The false NCT is a different issue .

seamus

You're not really making a lot of sense. You had insurance on the car in your name, but you transferred the car into your brother's name. The insurance policy would still have been active, though 3rd party only.

The car had a fake NCT when you bought it, but you got it NCTed and passed.

What's the issue? Your car was insured and NCTed. What are you being charged with?

konraado

Thanks for replies!
At that moment when gards stopped me i did not have nct, because disc was fake. Thats the problem. I think ill be charged as driving with no nct.
But insurance - i was thinking same way as you- i did have insurance policy with my name on it and cars reg.
Now i am sending papers to insurance company to proof that i gave my data correctly. They cancelled my policy as soon as gards checked how things are with insurance. The major problem is that car was not in my name

L1011

While its not guaranteed, I suspect that showing that you had bought the car after the time the fake disc claimed to be covering and had obtained a valid NCT at the first instance of being made aware it was fake will probably be taken well by the judge.

However, its a very minor issue compared to the insurance if you can't get that resolved.

BattleCorp

seamus wrote: »

You're not really making a lot of sense. You had insurance on the car in your name, but you transferred the car into your brother's name. The insurance policy would still have been active, though 3rd party only.

Would he be insured in what is technically his brother's car if his brother didn't have it insured either?

If that was the case, I'd insure myself in a 1ltr car. Then I'd register it to my brother and drive around in a 10ltr v100 monster of a machine (you get the picture) and still be insured.

seamus

konraado wrote: »

Thanks for replies!
At that moment when gards stopped me i did not have nct, because disc was fake. Thats the problem. I think ill be charged as driving with no nct.
But insurance - i was thinking same way as you- i did have insurance policy with my name on it and cars reg.
Now i am sending papers to insurance company to proof that i gave my data correctly. They cancelled my policy as soon as gards checked how things are with insurance. The major problem is that car was not in my name

They can cancel the policy because the car wasn't in your name, but that doesn't mean you weren't technically insured at the time you were stopped.

Full honesty here - if you're scrambling around for help on the internet, you're going to get a ban. Your livelihood depends on you keeping your licence.

Forgo the nights out for two months and instead throw €1,000 at a solicitor to help you sort this out. Otherwise you're screwed.

seamus

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would he be insured in what is technically his brother's car if his brother didn't have it insured either?

Yes. But third party only, which is all that really matters when it comes to the law.

If that was the case, I'd insure myself in a 1ltr car. Then I'd register it to my brother and drive around in a 10ltr v100 monster of a machine (you get the picture) and still be insured.

Technically yes, provided that the policy covered driving other vehicles and the 10L monster didn't belong to you.

It's a well-known loophole that some people still use.

konraado

At the moment i have solicitor. The free aid, but im not sure he is doing job well, at first for him there are plenty of other cases, mostly drugs related, as each time im sitting in court i see those persons in dirty tracksuits and all i hear is drugs.
So is it good idea to get paid solicitor. To change one?

Other thing. I was wondering that i am going to be charged for no insurance if i got the policy and paid, because i heard many times that people driving someones else car with own policy on that car.
Anyway i better pay high fine rather then get banned.

NUTLEY BOY

IMHO the insurance is invalid.

You must have a right to insure a car. It is called insurable interest. It arises in very many ways. Ownership, statutory obligation and contract are three examples of the concept.

Once ownership was transferred to the OP's brother I think that he (OP) lost his insurable interest. Ergo, the legal right to continue to hold the policy of motor insurance ceased.

Put another way, transferring ownership to the OP's brother created a situation whereby the OP's legal interest in the car ceased and with that his right to insure the car.

The fact that there may be a current policy and certificate in place at any time on a vehicle does not render a vehicle validly insured in terms of the legal requirements as per RTA 1961 S. 56.

seamus

Nothing wrong with a free legal aid solicitor, I know at least one great one, but there will be plenty of duds out there. And they can be overworked and may have little or no experience with traffic issues.

Plus they have more than a few dodgy clients - it may be a case of the client who shouts loudest gets the most attention. If you can find a solicitor with expertise in traffic cases, and pay them, then yes you will get a better and more personalised service.

Pawwed Rig

Can insurance be invalid where there is no NCT in place or is that a folk tale?

seamus

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

You must have a right to insure a car. It is called insurable interest. It arises in very many ways. Ownership, statutory obligation and contract are three examples of the concept.

The fact that there may be a current policy and certificate in place at any time on a vehicle does not render a vehicle validly insured in terms of the legal requirements as per RTA 1961 S. 56.

And this is why he needs a decent solicitor. A prosecuting Garda is not going to go into court and argue the toss about insurable interests and the technicalities of the name on the VLC -v- the legal owner of the vehicle.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Can insurance be invalid where there is no NCT in place or is that a folk tale?

Folk tale, really. Insurance policies will include an obligation to maintain the vehicle in a roadworthy condition, however lack of an NCT does not make a vehicle unroadworthy. It's been threatened a lot, but I've never heard of anyone's insurance being invalidated for it.

konraado

Then everyone who gets caught with no nct would be automatically charged with no insurance. I dont think its like that.
And who knows, whats the charge of no insurance nowadays? All i hear around is 2 years ban. Can i avoid it if its first time offence and i was not driving with no policy at all?

HeidiHeidi

OP if you've already been in court you must have either a summons or a charge sheet, which will say what exactly what offences you're being accused of. Since it's road traffic offences I'm assuming it'll be a summons.

Graham

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

IMHO the insurance is invalid.

You must have a right to insure a car. It is called insurable interest.

Following that logic wound't that mean car insurance would never cover you for driving other peoples cars?

konraado

Who knows, what means for example 3 penalty points for no nct and 5 penalty points for same bu "on conviction in court"
In this case do i already have 10 penalty points for no insurance and no nct?

Claw Hammer

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

IMHO the insurance is invalid.



The fact that there may be a current policy and certificate in place at any time on a vehicle does not render a vehicle validly insured in terms of the legal requirements as per RTA 1961 S. 56.

Yes it does. There is a separate offence of obtaining insurance by deception to cover that situation. The idea is to protect 3rd parties from insurance companies avoiding policies after an incident. The o/p, if properly advised might get some headway that way.

Claw Hammer

konraado wrote: »

Who knows, what means for example 3 penalty points for no nct and 5 penalty points for same bu "on conviction in court"
In this case do i already have 10 penalty points for no insurance and no nct?

With regard to the NCT most judges strike it out if NCT has been obtained by the time the case comes on. You have no penalty points yet because you have not been convicted. If you don't cop yourself on you will soon be banned and uninsurable for a long time.

konraado

What would be best thing to do? Getting proper solicitor?
I was stopped 2nd of Feb last year.. its more than year around and still cant make sure that i can save myself from ban. It driving me crazy.

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

Following that logic wound't that mean car insurance would never cover you for driving other peoples cars?

I have never seen a third party extension which covers damage to the car that's being driven; it generally only applies to damage done to the other car, property and people.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

I have never seen a third party extension which covers damage to the car that's being driven; it generally only applies to damage done to the other car, property and people.

But the insurance cover would still be valid on a 3rd party basis which is the topic at hand.

slimjimmc

Marcusm wrote: »

I have never seen a third party extension which covers damage to the car that's being driven; it generally only applies to damage done to the other car, property and people.

AXA and possibly a few others give it. AXA have been giving fully comp cover while driving other cars for years.

Stheno

konraado wrote: »

What would be best thing to do? Getting proper solicitor?
I was stopped 2nd of Feb last year.. its more than year around and still cant make sure that i can save myself from ban. It driving me crazy.

What date are you due in court, and what are the charges on your summons that you got?

peteb2

seamus wrote:

Folk tale, really. Insurance policies will include an obligation to maintain the vehicle in a roadworthy condition, however lack of an NCT does not make a vehicle unroadworthy. It's been threatened a lot, but I've never heard of anyone's insurance being invalidated for it.

Most insurers state it now. As it's taken to be the standard benchmark

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

konraado

First thing i got charge sheets about no nct..other of having fake instrument.. and at one of times when i came to court garda who stopped me came to me and said you had no insurance because car was on brothers name

punisher5112

How can 1 get legal aid if working two jobs....?

The story is quite strange.

Either you are getting done for no insurance or nct or both.

How long were you driving the car before been stopped?


Nct site gives you all info on when a car is due.

Op is that the whole story?

Stheno

konraado wrote: »

First thing i got charge sheets about no nct..other of having fake instrument.. and at one of times when i came to court garda who stopped me came to me and said you had no insurance because car was on brothers name

How many times have you been in court? You should have gotten one summons listing all of the charges, gone to court once and it would be dealt with?

Your story makes no sense tbh

jimmycrackcorm

konraado wrote:

First thing i got charge sheets about no nct..other of having fake instrument.. and at one of times when i came to court garda who stopped me came to me and said you had no insurance because car was on brothers name

Have you actually been given a charge sheet about no insurance because it sounds like you are just expecting it because of what the Garda said.

It may be a technical issue but having paid for insurance and having a policy on the car at the time is a lot different in court than not having any insurance.

konraado

Both are part time. And at the moment when i got stopped - it was more than year ago i worked in just one place. Thats why probably i could get legal aid. They checked payslips before.
At the beginning it was and is charge for not having nct. But when gards came with that info that i did not have insurance all is about insurance now.
Even solicitors are saying nct its nothing... no insurance that can get me into trouble

Stheno

konraado wrote: »

Both are part time. And at the moment when i got stopped - it was more than year ago i worked in just one place. Thats why probably i could get legal aid. They checked payslips before.
At the beginning it was and is charge for not having nct. But when gards came with that info that i did not have insurance all is about insurance now.
Even solicitors are saying nct its nothing... no insurance that can get me into trouble

For goodness sake, this is now the fourth time you've been asked the following:

"have you recieved a summons in relation to not having insurance?" Or is it just chat from the guards?

konraado

I hope so that its a difference.

konraado

Charge sheet aswell, when they said they brought another charge sheet for not having insurance.

konraado

Charge sheet aswell, when they said they brought another charge sheet for not having insurance.

konraado

Charge sheet aswell, when they said they brought another charge sheet for not having insurance.

Stheno

konraado wrote: »

Charge sheet aswell, when they said they brought another charge sheet for not having insurance.

SO you had a second summons for no insurance? Is that what you mean?

How long were you in court for the NCT?

And have you been in court yet for the insurance?

konraado

Yes, i did not get second summons, but another charge sheet is added to my case.
Well, im going to court almost every month and all time 10 mins before solicitor is saying "your case is going back"

Stheno

konraado wrote: »

Yes, i did not get second summons, but another charge sheet is added to my case.
Well, im going to court almost every month and all time 10 mins before solicitor is saying "your case is going back"

That sounds very strange to be honest that you are repeatedly going to court.

Is there anything you aren't telling us here?

Does your solicitor think you might be banned?

konraado

Many saying that its strange, while others - that these court things can go for years. I do not understand aswell why it does take so long.

In fact as soon as insurance problem was "added" it came back. My solicitor said that there is similar case (in fact not really similar - guy gave insurance company not his data) and he want to see the result of that case . It did not sound professionally to me.

Solicitor thinks that if i can not proof that i had cover in that time i can be banned, but in same time said phrase - in that other case noone speaks about ban.
So i hope to best!

NUTLEY BOY

Graham wrote: »

Following that logic wound't that mean car insurance would never cover you for driving other peoples cars?

No.

Under a driving other cars extension the insurable interest arises from your legal obligation to have insurance in place when you drive a car. i.e. your insurable interest arises under statute and your motor insurance underwriters are covering that under the terms of the DOC extension.

NUTLEY BOY

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Yes it does. There is a separate offence of obtaining insurance by deception to cover that situation. The idea is to protect 3rd parties from insurance companies avoiding policies after an incident. The o/p, if properly advised might get some headway that way.

Yoiks ! I disagree.

The legal obligation to be insured arises under S.56.

The fraud issue that you raised arises under S. 64. I see no mention of the fraud issue in the original question and am unclear as to the relevance of this point to a defence against a prosecution under S.56.

You are quite correct about the protection of third parties whereby they are not deprived of compensation because of the absence of valid insurance. However, that does not defeat the original point in relation to the offence of driving without valid motor insurance.

If someone is injured by a car which has a current certificate of insurance in place but where the insurance is invalid that is dealt with as a Motor Insurers' Bureau claim. I think that the convention is that the insurer who had the certificate issued on the car at the time of the accident deals with the third party claim on what they describe as an insurer concerned basis. This is not indemnity under the policy nor does it mean that the car and driver were validly insured. What you describe is an administrative arrangement to compensate victims of uninsured driving as per the various MIB Agreement(s).

Devil's advocate next ! It may yet be possible for a person in OP's position to escape conviction on a charge of no insurance whilst there was actually no valid insurance in place when detected by Gardaí !! Gardaí have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the offence was committed. In an RTA matter like this there might well be a reasonable argument to say that it is a strict liability scenario and throw the onus of proving otherwise back to the defendant. If OP could show that there is fair and reasonable doubt about the reason for no valid insurance a sympathetic DJ might strike it out. I have seen it happen.

NUTLEY BOY

seamus wrote: »

And this is why he needs a decent solicitor. A prosecuting Garda is not going to go into court and argue the toss about insurable interests SNIP SNIP.

Agreed.

That is why the prosecuting Garda needs to call an underwriting manager from the insurance company as a witness to explain the exact legal technicalities to the court as to why the insurers might view the policy as void at the date of the traffic stop.

roverrules

Surely you can be the owner of a car but not necessarily the registered keeper.
Are you not allowed to insure your own property or am I missing something?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Graham

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

No.

Under a driving other cars extension the insurable interest arises from your legal obligation to have insurance in place when you drive a car. i.e. your insurable interest arises under statute and your motor insurance underwriters are covering that under the terms of the DOC extension.

In which case the OP surely had an insurable interest when driving a car 'owned' by his brother?

konraado

Insurance company cancelled my policy without any warning. No telephone call, no letter, no even e-mail.
I found out it only when wanted to make claim on windscreen. Maybe this fact will help me somehow.
Later i received letter which said your policy is cancelled, insured- my name, surname, loss date - 04 june of 2015, not covered.
It was way after gards stopped me. (2nd of feb).

And also - which position is better to hold in court, im busy and driving every day, or i drove just that day after re registered my car to my bro's name.
Also my L pearmit on truck soon expires and i need to get full truck licence - needed for job.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

konraado

Nope.. i did not receive any letter. Only after my phone call in month of june i received that one i wrote above.

Kimbot

Konraado, im finding it very hard to understand what exactly is going on here so correct me if I am wrong:

- You were stopped by the Guards on the 2nd of Feb 2015
1: What was the reason given for stopping you? (Speeding/Checkpoint etc)
2: From this stop the guards determined that your NCT was fake and you got summoned to court over this offence?

- You have since been into court every month for a year with no resolution, and extra charges have been applied to you regarding your insurance but you have not received a summons for these offenses?

konraado

Yes its correct.
In more details - gards stopped me when i turned too early in bus lane before left turn. They noticed that there is no nct valid and seized a car. While it was there they found out that nct cert is fake.
I brought paper of my nct booking date at garda station and could get my car back from scrapyard.