Court summons no insurance

MinniexD

So I was stopped at checkpoint about 6 months ago driving my English plated car. I was driving the car third party extension on the bases the car wasn't in my name yet due to vrt which was booked for the next week. The garda seized the car and done me for no insurance at 3 am in the morning and when the car reached impound lot allowed my friend to drive it out at 5 am that morning on the same policy as my own. I rang my own insurance the next day and they spend the day deciding if I was covered or not to drive the car and they decided I was. Fair enough 6 months down the road i get two summons one for no producing insurance when asked for it and no approved insurance policy. He basically said on that night that I paid money for the car therefore I couldn't drive it third party but I was stopped earlier in the week by other garda in another town and produced the cert I had for the third party and they were happy with it.
I've never been involved with the garda before and terrified I'm going to lose my licence. I already have 2 points which were given to me on the same night for no n plates which I forgot to put up and I paid my fine for it. So If I get 5 more from this I'll lose my licence. Since the car been vrtd, its taxed, insured and nct on it.
Also I rang a number of times to my insurance company to check I was covered to drive the car third party on uk plates as long as it wasn't in my name. Have I a chance of it being striked out of court? The garda not the nicest person btw.

Skill Magill

MinniexD wrote: »

I rang my own insurance the next day and they spend the day deciding if I was covered or not to drive the car and they decided I was..

If you can get this in writing to show the judge, problem solved no?

MinniexD

Skill Magill wrote: »

If you can get this in writing to show the judge, problem solved no?

I don't know? They wouldn't send out a letter to me about it but just to show the garda the policy booklet where it states it. I didn't go near the garda because being honest, I felt so imitated, I was so scared. Could a solicitor get letter off them to show the judge? I've never been through anything like this and trying to sort a solicitor.

meathstevie

Sorry OP but the first sentence in your post confirms the Garda’s suspicion. If the car wasn’t in your name while on it’s UK reg who’s name was it in ? The last registered owner in the UK ?

MinniexD

meathstevie wrote: »

Sorry OP but the first sentence in your post confirms the Garda’s suspicion. If the car wasn’t in your name while on it’s UK reg who’s name was it in ? The last registered owner in the UK ?

Yes it was.

meathstevie

MinniexD wrote: »

Yes it was.

I suppose you also told the Garda that you were waiting for your VRT appointment, as in having made an indirect admission that you had bought the car.

You need to go and see a solicitor as soon as possible.

As for feeling intimidated, Gardai when suspecting an offence quite often need to be quite assertive and direct with the person they suspect as not doing so wouldn’t get them very far in most investigations.

It can be a bit unsettling but as long as the Garda wasn’t unnecessarily rude, forceful or violent you probably experienced the discomfort of being investigated on suspicion of having committed an offence. Again, go see a solicitor.

Meeoow

It wasn't in your name yet, but you owned it, so you shouldn't have been driving it on third party insurance. You stated that you were pulled earlier in the week, and another guard accepted your story. You were lucky then.

MinniexD

meathstevie wrote: »

I suppose you also told the Garda that you were waiting for your VRT appointment, as in having made an indirect admission that you had bought the car.

You need to go and see a solicitor as soon as possible.

As for feeling intimidated, Gardai when suspecting an offence quite often need to be quite assertive and direct with the person they suspect as not doing so wouldn’t get them very far in most investigations.

It can be a bit unsettling but as long as the Garda wasn’t unnecessarily rude, forceful or violent you probably experienced the discomfort of being investigated on suspicion of having committed an offence. Again, go see a solicitor.

I did of course. I showed him the text for vrt and even made sure I rang the insurance company straight after with the new registration number. I wouldn't have driven the car if I didn't think I was insured to drive it.
I was very imitated because my friend arrived to where I was and was told if she had been 20 mins earlier, she could have drove the car away and no need for recovery truck. She showed him her insurance cert on a phone and he never took a copy of mine or hers when the car was being released at the station. I didn't have to proof anything to get the car our for her to drive of the impound. It was very upsetting as it was my first time ever in trouble.

MinniexD

Meeoow wrote: »

It wasn't in your name yet, but you owned it, so you shouldn't have been driving it on third party insurance. You stated that you were pulled earlier in the week, and another guard accepted your story. You were lucky then.

Even though the insurance company were happy to say I was covered and when I checked with them on number of occasions, I was told I was covered even though I was waiting for vrt.

Meeoow

MinniexD wrote: »

Even though the insurance company were happy to say I was covered and when I checked with them on number of occasions, I was told I was covered even though I was waiting for vrt.

Sure see what the judge says in court. You can explain your case then.

meathstevie

MinniexD wrote: »

I did of course. I showed him the text for vrt and even made sure I rang the insurance company straight after with the new registration number. I wouldn't have driven the car if I didn't think I was insured to drive it.
I was very imitated because my friend arrived to where I was and was told if she had been 20 mins earlier, she could have drove the car away and no need for recovery truck. She showed him her insurance cert on a phone and he never took a copy of mine or hers when the car was being released at the station. I didn't have to proof anything to get the car our for her to drive of the impound. It was very upsetting as it was my first time ever in trouble.

In as far as “being in trouble” goes it’s not the end of the world. There’s hundreds of people answering charges very similar to your own in District Courts all over the country every week. You’ll see it when you go up there, you’ll be far from alone.

I’m not a solicitor and this is not legal advice but judges generally appreciate that a defendant attends on time, appropriately dressed and addresses the court in a respectful manner when asked to do so. Again, a solicitor will keep you right for the few minutes it’ll take.

As for the Garda letting your friend drive your car out of the impound yard that’s quite straightforward. Once he was satisfied that she had a license and insurance covering her to drive your car he had no reason to not let her.

MinniexD

meathstevie wrote: »

In as far as “being in trouble” goes it’s not the end of the world. There’s hundreds of people answering charges very similar to your own in District Courts all over the country every week. You’ll see it when you go up there, you’ll be far from alone.

I’m not a solicitor and this is not legal advice but judges generally appreciate that a defendant attends on time, appropriately dressed and addresses the court in a respectful manner when asked to do so. Again, a solicitor will keep you right for the few minutes it’ll take.

As for the Garda letting your friend drive your car out of the impound yard that’s quite straightforward. Once he was satisfied that she had a license and insurance covering her to drive your car he had no reason to not let her.

Apologies just so terrified about it. It's not till March so I just praying and hoping it can be sorted before then.

whomitconcerns

If the car was beneficially owned by you then you were not entitled to utilise 3rd party extension on it. And you were not insured.

It might not have been in your name in Shannon, but you owned it.

So the guard was correct, your insurance company was not. So I hope you had their statement that you were covered, in writing!

Meeoow

She wasn't insured, in fact, her friend was lucky to get the car out, as there was no insurance policy on the car.
I bought a UK car years ago, got my insurance changed over to it. The insurance company will insure a UK car until it is vrt'd.

MinniexD

whomitconcerns wrote: »

If the car was beneficially owned by you then you were not entitled to utilise 3rd party extension on it. And you were not insured.

It might not have been in your name in Shannon, but you owned it.

So the guard was correct, your insurance company was not. So I hope you had their statement that you were covered, in writing!

So pretty much it's an technical between insurance company and garda. Thank you for your input

whomitconcerns

Meeoow wrote: »

She wasn't insured, in fact, her friend was lucky to get the car out, as there was no insurance policy on the car.
I bought a UK car years ago, got my insurance changed over to it. The insurance company will insure a UK car until it is vrt'd.

The op wasn't covered as they owned the vehicle but the friend potentially was insured depending on her policies conditions.

For instance mine never required the other vehicle to have its own policy in place.

The actual solution here would have been for the op to get their own insurance temporarily transferred to the UK plate car.

Meeoow

whomitconcerns wrote: »

For instance mine never required the other vehicle to have its own policy in plac were.

Really? I thought that there had to be insurance on the vehicle to enable third party. My bad.

whomitconcerns

Meeoow wrote: »

Really? I thought that there had to be insurance on the vehicle to enable third party. My bad.

Depends on the policy, it's getting more common now that they do require it

MinniexD

Meeoow wrote: »

Really? I thought that there had to be insurance on the vehicle to enable third party. My bad.

No there doesn't. My own policy doesn't require it to be on the other car.

Meeoow

MinniexD wrote: »

No there doesn't. My own policy doesn't require it to be on the other car.

Is that your imaginary policy?

sidcon

MinniexD wrote: »

So pretty much it's an technical between insurance company and garda. Thank you for your input

No technicality, the car is insured for theft, fire and damage. That's what 3rd party insurance is. Insurance done the job. Its not insured to drive on the road as it did not meet the legal rules of the road requirements. That would have been the drivers responsibility.
OP has said that they have verbal acknowledgement from insurance company, however unless they can back it up then I'm afraid they will have to face facts of no insurance to drive the car at that time.

Cows Go µ

Some policies require the other car to be insured but not all do - I think it's just Aviva and Liberty at the moment.

The insurance company's responce might have depended on what was said. For instance if you said, I don't own the car then they would have said that you were covered to drive. If you had said I bought the car and it just isn't in my name yet then they should have told you that you weren't insured. The person in the insurance company was definitely wrong.

Once you buy the car, you can't used your driving of other cars extension. There would have been no reason at the time to not have your own insurance policy transferred onto your new car rather than using a third party extension to drive jt

MinniexD

Meeoow wrote: »

Is that your imaginary policy?

No need to be rude.

MinniexD

Cows Go µ wrote: »

Some policies require the other car to be insured but not all do - I think it's just Aviva and Liberty at the moment.

The insurance company's responce might have depended on what was said. For instance if you said, I don't own the car then they would have said that you were covered to drive. If you had said I bought the car and it just isn't in my name yet then they should have told you that you weren't insured. The person in the insurance company was definitely wrong.

Once you buy the car, you can't used your driving of other cars extension. There would have been no reason at the time to not have your own insurance policy transferred onto your new car rather than using a third party extension to drive jt

They knew I had the car bought and was in ireland at the time. I do know all the calls are recorded when we had the discussion.

square ball

MinniexD wrote: »

They knew I had the car bought and was in ireland at the time. I do know all the calls are recorded when we had the discussion.

Unless the car was in your name at the time the guards or courts cannot prove that you owned the car. Therefore your third party extension may cover you. If you can produce your logbook or other evidence showing date the car was changed into your name along with proof of third party extension (on your insurance cert) there should be no case against you.

Cows Go µ

MinniexD wrote: »

They knew I had the car bought and was in ireland at the time. I do know all the calls are recorded when we had the discussion.

It unfortunate when the people working in an insurance company have no clue how insurance works

triona1

Just go to court it's up to the judge this will only wreck your head,it's not a spectator's sport nobody only judge will decide the outcome.

MinniexD

square ball wrote: »

Unless the car was in your name at the time the guards or courts cannot prove that you owned the car. Therefore your third party extension may cover you. If you can produce your logbook or other evidence showing date the car was changed into your name along with proof of third party extension (on your insurance cert) there should be no case against you.

I have all the vrt paperwork that was done a week after the incident. It has my head wreaked that the very fact I could end up losing my licence and my job because of this horrible situation

Eggs For Dinner

You owned the car at the time of the incident, you told the Garda it was down for VRT, your insurers are not prepared to put in writing that you were insured, just to show your policy to the Gardai. The name on the log book is incidental.

I'd imagine the Garda will ask for proof of when you purchased the vehicle and I'd wager the outcome will depend on that.

Lenar3556

It will ultimately turn on the terms of the insurance policy you intend to rely upon. In any case I have come across, it is a condition of the ‘driving other cars’ extension that you do not own the vehicle.

The fact that you were not the registered owner is a poor defence. The OP has made admissions to bring the beneficial owner and unless the insurance policy is non-standard, you have a difficulty here.

The points in relation to the N plates aren’t added to those arising from another offence occurring at the same time, however driving without insurance is one of the more serious road traffic offences - get a solicitor.

Good luck.

whomitconcerns

square ball wrote: »

Unless the car was in your name at the time the guards or courts cannot prove that you owned the car. Therefore your third party extension may cover you. If you can produce your logbook or other evidence showing date the car was changed into your name along with proof of third party extension (on your insurance cert) there should be no case against you.

Doesn't work that way. You think the person the op bought it from will get involved, say they owned it at the time and that they gave permission to the op to drive it. Not a hope. That's a condition of the third party extension in most cases.



Even if they did, it would be an obvious attempt to circumvent a conviction and would not be looked on kindly by a judge. I wouldn't risk that

UID0

Use a GDPR subject access request to get a copy of the recordings of your conversation with the Insurance company. If they have said on the call that you are insured, then, provided you have given them a true and complete description of the situation you believed (and had a valid reason to believe) you were not driving without insurance. If you can't get that recording then it will be very difficult to argue you were insured, as the date you purchased the car would be considered to be the date the car is yours, not the date it was registered to you, and from that date the driving other cars extension would not apply. This may/may not get the case dismissed and may/may not get the punishment reduced. It depends very much on the judge on the day. If you can't get this case dismissed then you will get a driving ban (either a direct ban from driving without insurance or from the penalty points). The judge may also decide that you would have been insured had you contacted the insurance company before being stopped instead of after.
Don't try to argue that you didn't own the vehicle at the time. You will not be able to convince a judge that a UK seller allowed you to bring the car here and make an appointment to re-register it without selling it to you (unless the previous owner is a close relative who is willing to stand in front of the judge and say that). Even if they will stand up and say it, there will be a question of why you didn't say that to the Garda the stopped you.
This doesn't get you out of the non-production of insurance.
You need to talk to a good solicitor, as your defence is a very non-standard defence. You are relying on the verbal statement of an authorised agent of the insurance company over-riding the contents of the written document and it will take a lot of convincing for the judge to accept it. How the argument is presented will be key to winning this case.

What you should have done is transferred your insurance to the new car (some insurance companies will require the VIN instead of the registration, and some will only allow a short period before the car has to have an Irish registration number) or continued driving your old car until the new car was registered.

Eggs For Dinner

If my reading of this is right, the OP sought clarification from his insurers on whether he was covered or not AFTER the event took place. Doesn't really matter what way the conversation went (we only have one version of the call), if proof of purchase is provided showing the transaction was concluded prior to being stopped, that's the end of the matter

MinniexD

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

If my reading of this is right, the OP sought clarification from his insurers on whether he was covered or not AFTER the event took place. Doesn't really matter what way the conversation went (we only have one version of the call), if proof of purchase is provided showing the transaction was concluded prior to being stopped, that's the end of the matter

No I asked previous times prior to the event as well as after event and I was told I was covered. If I didn't clarify before the incident I wouldn't have been driving the car.

square ball

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Doesn't work that way. You think the person the op bought it from will get involved, say they owned it at the time and that they gave permission to the op to drive it. Not a hope. That's a condition of the third party extension in most cases.



Even if they did, it would be an obvious attempt to circumvent a conviction and would not be looked on kindly by a judge. I wouldn't risk that

The Vehicle Licensing Certificate or logbook is a legal document. If the car wasn't legally in the OP's name at the time they were stopped how can they be considered the legal owner of the vehicle? So if the ownership was transferred over at a date after they were stopped they should have a defence if they meet their insurers criteria to legally drive the vehicle under third party extension.

OP what date is the vehicle transferred into your name on the logbook and what date were you stopped?

Eggs For Dinner

square ball wrote: »

The Vehicle Licensing Certificate or logbook is a legal document.?

It's a legal document, but it's not proof of ownership

Eggs For Dinner

MinniexD wrote: »

No I asked previous times prior to the event as well as after event and I was told I was covered. If I didn't clarify before the incident I wouldn't have been driving the car.

Fair enough, if the (incorrect) advice you were given over the phone was that you were covered to drive, the recordings will be of assistance to you.

Del2005

MinniexD wrote: »

No I asked previous times prior to the event as well as after event and I was told I was covered. If I didn't clarify before the incident I wouldn't have been driving the car.

What did you ask? Because if it was "Can I drive a car I have bought which hasn't been transferred to my name yet on my driving other cars extension?" and they said yes you have a terrible insurance company.

What does it say in your policy documents because that is what the judge will ask to see. Every policy document I have had says that the car can't be owned by me and you own something when you hand over the money, how else could you transfer your insurance if you don't own it?

MinniexD

Del2005 wrote: »

What did you ask? Because if it was "Can I drive a car I have bought which hasn't been transferred to my name yet on my driving other cars extension?" and they said yes you have a terrible insurance company.

Pretty much yeah. Company was fbd. Was stopped on the 5th and car was vrtd on the 8th. I think I checked 3 time to pior this event about the third party extension. I've had the car since april.

Claw Hammer

Del2005 wrote: »

What did you ask? Because if it was "Can I drive a car I have bought which hasn't been transferred to my name yet on my driving other cars extension?" and they said yes you have a terrible insurance company.

What does it say in your policy documents because that is what the judge will ask to see. Every policy document I have had says that the car can't be owned by me and you own something when you hand over the money, how else could you transfer your insurance if you don't own it?

Once a buyer pays for the car, they have an insurable interest in it. The transfer of registered ownership is a formality and does not mean there is no valid insurance until it takes effect.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Once a buyer pays for the car, they have an insurable interest in it. The transfer of registered ownership is a formality and does not mean there is no valid insurance until it takes effect.

That's the problem OP faces. He owned the car but did not put it on cover

whomitconcerns

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Once a buyer pays for the car, they have an insurable interest in it. The transfer of registered ownership is a formality and does not mean there is no valid insurance until it takes effect.

Agreed again...Not sure why people still argue this... Pointed this out hours ago and people still saying "oh well if Shannon don't have your name it's not yours"..... Nonsense

Del2005

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Once a buyer pays for the car, they have an insurable interest in it. The transfer of registered ownership is a formality and does not mean there is no valid insurance until it takes effect.

Which means that they cannot drive it on their own policy using the driving other cars extension.

coylemj

When you pay the previous owner and he hands you the keys, you become the legal owner of a car. And the OP told the Garda that he had bought the car. So it's completely irrelevant who was the registered owner at the time the OP was stopped.

I'd also question the value of what the OP's insurance told her on the phone. It's telling that the agent she spoke to is unable to put his advice (that the OP was covered) in writing. That's because it's easy to be nice on the phone but a letter would have to be approved by a supervisor and (as it relates to cover) probably someone in legal so that looks like it's a non-starter. Why? Because she was not covered.

Could the OP get a transcript or recording of the call and bring it into court? Possibly, but what value will it have? The broker for the publicans who sued FBD recently was told by an FBD person in a phone call that the policy covered them for a pandemic. FBD refuted this but never denied that the phone call happened. If the advice given over the phone was binding on them, that case wouldn't have lasted more than an hour in the High Court. Instead the case ran on for several days and the legal costs ran into the hundreds of thousands. And the judge reserved judgement.

Why didn't the evidence of that phone call end the case and force FBD to settle? Because nothing that is said by an agent or servant of the company can vary the terms of the policy, that's why. Same applies here.

Which all leads back to something I have stated repeatedly on the insurance forum - you should never phone your insurance company and ask them about cover. Because you cannot rely on what they tell you. Read the policy document, that is the legal basis for your contract of insurance, not what a call agent tells you.

Every policy document I have ever read says that 'driving other cars' cover does not apply if you own the car. It couldn't be simpler - the OP was not covered to drive that car.

Del2005

MinniexD wrote: »

Del2005 wrote: »

What did you ask? Because if it was "Can I drive a car I have bought which hasn't been transferred to my name yet on my driving other cars extension?" and they said yes you have a terrible insurance company.

Pretty much yeah. Company was fbd. Was stopped on the 5th and car was vrtd on the 8th. I think I checked 3 time to pior this event about the third party extension. I've had the car since april.

I'm with FBD and in the policy document under 3rd party driving of other cars the 1st point is that the car does not belong to me. No matter what they told you over the phone the policy document is what the judge will decide on.

Claw Hammer

coylemj wrote: »

When you pay the previous owner and he hands you the keys, you become the legal owner of a car. And the OP told the Garda that he had bought the car. So it's completely irrelevant who was the registered owner at the time the OP was stopped.

I'd also question the value of what the OP's insurance told her on the phone. It's telling that the agent she spoke to is unable to put his advice (that the OP was covered) in writing. That's because it's easy to be nice on the phone but a letter would have to be approved by a supervisor and (as it relates to cover) probably someone in legal so that looks like it's a non-starter. Why? Because she was not covered.

Could the OP get a transcript or recording of the call and bring it into court? Possibly, but what value will it have? The broker for the publicans who sued FBD recently was told by an FBD person in a phone call that the policy covered them for a pandemic. FBD refuted this but never denied that the phone call happened. If the advice given over the phone was binding on them, that case wouldn't have lasted more than an hour in the High Court. Instead the case ran on for several days and the legal costs ran into the hundreds of thousands. And the judge reserved judgement.

Why didn't the evidence of that phone call end the case and force FBD to settle? Because nothing that is said by an agent or servant of the company can vary the terms of the policy, that's why. Same applies here.

Which all leads back to something I have stated repeatedly on the insurance forum - you should never phone your insurance company and ask them about cover. Because you cannot rely on what they tell you. Read the policy document, that is the legal basis for your contract of insurance, not what a call agent tells you.

Every policy document I have ever read says that 'driving other cars' cover does not apply if you own the car. It couldn't be simpler - the OP was not covered to drive that car.

If the o/p was told by a broker that he was covered by an underwriter, when he wasn't he can sue the broker on his professional indemnity policy. That would mean the o/p was covered to drive. What the o/p needs to do is get the brokers policy.

MinniexD

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the o/p was told by a broker that he was covered by an underwriter, when he wasn't he can sue the broker on his professional indemnity policy. That would mean the o/p was covered to drive. What the o/p needs to do is get the brokers policy.

I rang fbd after the incident and they spend the day talking to the underwriters of the company which came back that evening to me and said I was covered even though they know the car was bought already by me but I wasn't actually the registered owner. So is the insurance company in the wrong then? All calls were recorded during this which my solicitor is going to go for.

coylemj

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the o/p was told by a broker that he was covered by an underwriter, when he wasn't he can sue the broker on his professional indemnity policy. That would mean the o/p was covered to drive. What the o/p needs to do is get the brokers policy.

The broker's indemnity policy doesnot provide the cover required by the RTA. And sue them for what? This isn't about who is picking up the tab after an accident, did you bother to even read the first post? Where the OP said (in the first sentence) that she was stopped at a checkpoint.

But in any event, it wasn't a broker, she phoned the insurance company. This thread relates solely to a summons for driving without insurance.

coylemj

MinniexD wrote: »

I rang fbd after the incident and they spend the day talking to the underwriters of the company which came back that evening to me and said I was covered even though they know the car was bought already by me but I wasn't actually the registered owner. So is the insurance company in the wrong then? All calls were recorded during this which my solicitor is going to go for.

Then ask the underwriters to put that in writing and bring the letter to court. With a covering letter from FDB saying that those underwriters provide the cover for your policy.

Eggs For Dinner

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If the o/p was told by a broker that he was covered by an underwriter, when he wasn't he can sue the broker on his professional indemnity policy. That would mean the o/p was covered to drive. What the o/p needs to do is get the brokers policy.

That's not right and you're getting ahead of the situation. If the broker incorrectly told the OP that he was covered when he wasn't, he would indeed be able to seek compensation for professional negligence. But that will be a financial matter regarding the loss incurred by the claimant resulting from the action, it won't magically grant cover for the OP to drive under his insurance policy

As for seeking the brokers PI policy, that has nothing to do with anyone. Sue for compensation if you like, but the existence, or lack of a PI policy doesn't come in to it and you are not entitled to a copy of ANYBODY'S insurance policy

Lenar3556

I am surprised that the insurance company are in any way hesitant in addressing this matter on the phone. It would appear to me to be very straightforward. I wonder if the position is being correctly represented to them?

This was the OP’s car. The registered owner of any vehicle is not necessarily the legal or beneficial owner, particularly in circumstances where a vehicle had just changed hands. An admission from the OP to the Garda that he had just purchased is the final nail in that coffin.

I wouldn’t however undervalue the significance of a customer service agent of the insurer confirming that the policy did in fact cover him to drive the car. Employees of a business (or insurer) can indeed bind their employer to terms which falls outside the usual policy of a business. If the telephone call confirms that this confirmation was in fact unequivocally extended to the OP by the insurers call centre, it is evidence of some significance. Indeed it may well result in a strike out, particularly where such confirmation was obtained prior to the encounter with the Garda. But it all hinges on the availability of audio recordings which corroborate the OP’s assertions.