Need advice on court summon regarding driving without insurance

hottea2019

I am currently on learner permit. Never drive before or convict any offence at all in my life. After I finished 10 EDT lessons, my husband (full driving license in Ireland + 10 years international driving experiences) would like to practice me on his car in a quiet cul-de-sac 1 min away from our house around 9PM - late evening when noone is out. Unfortunately, due to stress, unfamiliarity with the car, I missed use the accelerator and the break while practicing turnabout ( my husband is outside the car to navigate me around) and hit one of the car on the road. The owner of that car called garda immediately and I was charged for driving unaccompanied (which I already paid immediately after getting the fine paper) and just got 2 court summon due to no insurance - 1 for not presenting the insurance at the time of the accident and 2 for not presenting it after 10 days of the accident. My husband has not put me on the insurance before now and then because I haven't intended to drive to any roads, also too stressful to sit on driver seat after that accident. The hit already cost me 10k to fix the other car and my husband's car, which is also a big stress and panic to me until now. We are expat here living on our own and have a special need kid to look after.

Appreciate if anyone can share your experiences on the similar circumstances. I have checked all related thread on boards.ie and have seen some got a small fine and the other for 2 years disqualification for the first offence. I know it depends on the judge and individual cases. It will be really tough on us if I get disqualification for 2 years or so because our kid requires many medical appointment, therapies. We have no excuse on the insurance things because it obviously our fault. I haven't sit on that car as a driver after the incident and only driven with my driving instructor since then so I am still not on the insurance of my husband car yet - I don't drive.

What should I expect from the court? How long should it be? Can I be away from the country few weeks time after the court? SHould I get a solicitor? If yes, how much will it cost in Dublin?

Thanks and appreciate all suggestions

whomitconcerns

You had no insurance, you are liable to 5 points and up to €5k fine. Equally you are going to be on the rungs for paying for the other cars damages.

You will also have 2 points and 160€ for driving unaccompanied (I think) as this will be a separate offence. This means 7 points and a ban is likely for you also

Times are tough. But no excuse whatsoever for driving with no insurance

Richmond Ultra

Get a solicitor who does the road traffic stuff in the local court. Many first time offenders seem to just get a fine lately, depends on the judge.

Padre_Pio

Get a solicitor and fight it in court.

Yeah I get that you're in the wrong, but the court may look favourably if you pay the fine and damage.

Peintre Celebre

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121203997#Comment_121203997

Fight it? That is terrible advice. She was driving uninsured. The only way to avoid a ban would be offer a plea and the judge might just issue a fine.

Lenar3556

Why did you get a fixed charge notice for driving unaccompanied? Wasn’t your husband there with you?

You likely will be convicted of driving without insurance. In the circumstances, you may avoid a driving ban and receive a fine. But insurance will be significantly more expensive for a number of years when you do get on the road.

Yes you should get a solicitor to represent you at the court sitting. Cost - maybe €300, but it varies.

I wouldn’t see any issue in you leaving the country after the court date.

POBox19

First thing to do is to arrange for a solicitor to represent you in court. Turn up in court and let your solicitor should do the rest. You have 3 things on your case, driving unaccompanied, not having insurance and failing to present insurance within 10 days of the incident. In mitigation your husband was, stupidly, supervising you from outside the car, you are now taking driving lessons and you have paid for the repairs to the car you damaged. It is possible you would have been covered by your husband's insurance if he was in the car at the time.

Nobody can predict what the judge will decide, but with a good solicitor and a good story who knows maybe a dismissal or small fine.

coylemj

It is possible you would have been covered by your husband's insurance if he was in the car at the time.

Not possible. She had a learner permit and was not a named driver on his policy. Didn't matter if her husband was in the car or not, she was not insured.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121249927#Comment_121249927

I guess the issue was that the husband was outside the car. The accompanying driver is supposed to be in the front passenger seat, supervising.

Claw Hammer

Find a legal aid solicitor in the court to which you have been summonsed. negotiate a fee. talk to a few if the fee is going to be massive. I ave known some to do it for €350.00 and others to look for 3k.

ADHD and Me

If it was me I would get a solicitor and go to court.

I'm sceptical that the disqualification is based on Points accumulation as I believe you can't get multiple points and fines at the same time. I think you would get the whatever offence has the highest points.

That does not mean you won't escape disqualification based on all offences in court maybe your reasoning my work for you.

Donald Trump

Was it a private lane? If it was, it would be an entirely civil matter

coylemj

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121254011#Comment_121254011

What's a 'private lane'? OP hit another car, that driver called the cops and they have initiiated a prosecution for no insurance and driving on a learner permit while unaccompanied. Which tells us that the accident happened in a public place.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121255675#Comment_121255675

A private lane is a lane which is privately owned and has no public right of way.

I would be honestly surprised that there would be someone who had difficulty with the concept.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121250409#Comment_121250409

Possibly, I didn’t think the legIsolation was quite so prescriptive. May have been better to leave the FCN unpaid and have this dealt with at the same time as the insurance charges.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121255675#Comment_121255675

Well that will need to be determined, if the area was not a public place as defined in the RTA, the OP will have a good defence to the no insurance charge.

Admittedly, there are very few scenarios where this could be successfully argued.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121256795#Comment_121256795

Ownership of the land, and the existence or otherwise of a public right of way, are irrelevant.

For Road Traffic Act purposes, what matters is whether this happened in a "public place". A public place is a place to which the public or a section of the have access, whether by right or by permission. So, for example, a privately owned car-park, accessible only by members of the public who have paid a fee to park, is still a "public place". So is a privately-owned laneway which members of the public in practice use, whether or not they have a legal right to use it.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257338#Comment_121257338

If it happened on a private lane then the RTA is not relevant. That is what I said and that is the point of my response to the OP.

Lenar3556

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257338#Comment_121257338

The privately owned car park, yes.

The privately owned lane is more arbitrary and the courts would need to adjudicate on a case by case basis. The driveway of a house for example wouldn’t be a public place, even if it was a long and extensive driveway without gates.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257773#Comment_121257773

But you defined a "private lane" as one which " is privately owned and has no public right of way".

As pointed out, these criteria are both irrelevant. This is not "splitting hairs on technicalities"; the RTA definition of "public place" does not depend at all on who owns the land and does not require that there should be a public right of way over it. It's a complete red herring, and quite misleading, to raise these factors in this context. Your assertion that, if it happens on a private lane (as you define the term) the RTA "is not relevant" is simply wrong.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257883#Comment_121257883

I was explaining it to someone who apparently was confused that such a concept existed. I am from a rural area. There are lots of private lanes. I found it surprising that someone might not understand the concept.

Replace what I said in relation to "public right of way" with "public right of access" then if you want.

And as you have noticed, I did not refer to any RTA definitions. So it is not valid to take a general term I used to explain a general concept, squeeze it into a term defined by one specific Act, and then say it is wrong.

I used the term "private lane". Not "public place"

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257902#Comment_121257902

What??

you literally said if it happened on a private lane it would be a civil matter, you’ve been told how that is wrong, yet you are now acting like you never said anything like that? 🤣

Peregrinus

I used the term "private lane". Not "public place"

That's the problem, Don. You were talking about whether the RTA would apply. For that question, it's irrelevant whether the location was a private lane. All that matters What matters is whether it's a public place.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257932#Comment_121257932

Yes, if it happened on a private lane it would be a civil matter. Please keep up. Your child won't, for example, be done for no insurance if practising their driving on your own driveway.

Other poster has taken issue with subsequent 101 explanation of what that might be based on some technicalities - which is ridiculous given that we don't have information that any of it is relevant.

If you want to continue splitting hairs, their own definition which included "or a section of the" (sic) is not strictly accurate either.

@Peregrinus has done what I said in the previous post and given an incorrect impression to other posters. I'm not saying they are incorrect in going on about technicalities, but they are causing others like yourself to be misled. There is a time for strictly technical language, and a time for explaining in more simple language to people who won't understand it.

hottea2019

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121249927#Comment_121249927

My husband was outside to navigate me for turnabout move. I admit it was a stupid/wrong way to do but it already happened anyway. Garda still decided to fined me for that unacompanying thing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121257979#Comment_121257979

I’ve kept up but you’ve stayed behind it seems like?

You’re stuck on the idea that you said this or that— but what you said was if it was on a private lane it would be a civil matter, ergo no court case to answer for.

You've had it explained how you are wrong, but you are trying to talk your way out of that. The Gardai’s favourite line is “it’s a civil matter”, so it’s safe to assume that the OP has indeed a case to answer.

It’s also really stupid imo to sit in this forum and tell people they are not liable for things they certainly are based on shoddy reasoning.

Peregrinus

Don, the bottom line here is that a private lane (privately owned, no public right of way) can be a public place, and it's simply misleading people to tell them that if this happened on a private lane the RTA doesn't apply. The fact is that it may or may not apply. It's really not helpful to be introducing the concept of "private lane" into this discussion at all.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258004#Comment_121258004

No. As mentioned above, you are misunderstanding @Peregrinus response. They are taking issue with the way I explained "private lane".

They are not saying - as you appear to have jumped to an illogical conclusion - that you are always liable to be convicted of a road traffic offence - even if something occurs on private property. That there may be private property that the public has access to does not negate the preceding sentence.

If you want to go on about certain things being stupid, we can easily start pointing fingers too. Particularly ones that make up baseless claims such as accusing other posters of "telling posters they are not liable for things they certainly are". Nobody told anyone they were not liable for anything. As I said, please try to keep up

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258011#Comment_121258011

You are giving the impression - see Chana Old-fashioned Sink's (for some reason highly aggressive) posts - to others that everyone is subject to the RTA 100% of the time.

I already said above to:

Replace what I said in relation to "public right of way" with "public right of access" then if you want.

I don't get the reason for the sniping. If I was a solicitor and someone came to me and told me something like that happened, it is the first question I would ask them - "was it by chance on a private lane". It would not be the only question. There would of course be follow-up questions. I would not hit them with "did the area in which the incident occurred fall under the definition of "public place" under the Road Traffic Act of 1961"

coylemj

The Gardai showed up and have decided to initiate a prosecution. Which tells us that this incident happened in a public place (as defined by the RTA). So this 'private lane' nonsense is a complete red herring.

If the OP was driving her car on private property which was not accessible to the public, what was that other car doing there?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121258957#Comment_121258957

You people post on here trying to pretend you are experts on things, but there is no need getting snotty because you didn't spot the one important question that should be clarified at the outset. I wouldn't like to be paying you for advice when you would never even have thought to consider asking whether or not the location actually came under the specified legislation. The OP would be answerable to a claim in damages regardless, but there would be a reasonable chance that they might not be subject to a criminal charge given the information presented.

None of anything that you waffle on about negates my point which included the phrase "if it was". When you hear "cul de sac" you are probably thinking a housing estate with a dead end down the end. Whereas I am considering one of the many privately owned laneways dotted all around the countryside. Some will have piers, or even gates, down the end of them. Many won't. You might be able to tell by the width and the surfaces that they are not public roads. The councils do not maintain them. Just because you might be ignorant of the latter category does not mean they do not exist.

After going off on your own tangent, your own line of reasoning that because the Gardai showed up then that is definitive proof of it being a "public place" is the only nonsense here. The Gardai could be simply making a mistake, or it might be not clear and fall to the court to decide. In your head, you've imagined an answer and decided not clarify it. As I said, I wouldn't like to be paying you for advice.

If you every buy your own private property, then you might drive your own car on it. You might even allow specific other people to drive on it. The fact that there would be two cars on your property would not make it into a public area. Which is the strange conclusion you appear to be coming to. Again with no basis other than your own imagination.