Court date for no insurance.

cml387 · 24-11-2020 5:27pm

I think it must be a replacement for the sacrament of confession for people to sign up to Boards specifically to confess their motoring misdeeds.

kippy · 24-11-2020 6:34pm

Witcher wrote: »

Where do people get these ideas from?

Someone, somewhere just dreams up this stuff and it gets passed on, mental that people actually fall for this stuff.

As good as the internet is, there are many many dangers of it was well......
A great way to gain knowledge but also a great place to gain the wrong knowledge/misinformation.
If the posters criticillay analysed their own statements they'd have a good chance of figureing them out as misinformation......

Case in point.
It's just as well there are other posters here to point out this extremely poor advice.

hullaballoo · 24-11-2020 7:57pm

Witcher wrote: »

Where do people get these ideas from?

Someone, somewhere just dreams up this stuff and it gets passed on, mental that people actually fall for this stuff.

kippy wrote: »

As good as the internet is, there are many many dangers of it was well......
A great way to gain knowledge but also a great place to gain the wrong knowledge/misinformation.
If the posters criticillay analysed their own statements they'd have a good chance of figureing them out as misinformation......

Case in point.
It's just as well there are other posters here to point out this extremely poor advice.

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here as to who's giving dreaming up "misinformation". This is legal discussion and the two posters, Claw Hammer and myself are both legal professionals.

I can't speak for Claw Hammer on the cancellation question and I was going to just leave the jibes from the re-reg after my post as being just crude lack of knowledge until you two crusaders decided to make a bigger issue out of it.

The point I was making is that any defence lawyer will seek to contextualise the offence following conviction to try to get a light fine and or avoid a ban. It would absolutely form a part of that, what's known as a plea in mitigation (possibly a bit grand for the District Court Road Traffic offences list but it is what it is), to set out that it's a victimless crime. This is in addition to other valid points made - as I said, I was picking up on something missed by others.

Overall, you would be looking to paint this offence in the most positive light - this isn't a case of someone who only gets caught with no insurance following an accident they caused, which is a far more serious issue and involves an innocent third party whose rights are implicated by the offence. The fact that there wasn't a crash while the person was uninsured is of course relevant and mitigating in terms of the scale of gravity of the offence. You would also be making absolutely clear the circumstances under which the driver was without insurance - e.g. genuine oversight due to being temporarily away from his normal residence. You would be emphasising how quickly the situation was remedied, a lack of prior convictions, the fact that everything else was in order etc. assuming this is all true in the situation.

For completeness, I'll add that some judges won't like it. It's a matter for the individual brief whether they advise not to raise these things to keep a particular judge sweet, or whether they advise that keeping the judge sweet doesn't matter because if they do something outlandish because they don't like a particular point, it's readily appealable. It's a matter for the individual client what to do with the advice they receive.

It would serve you to remember to take a step back before you go lashing out at people in here without appropriate insight into what is being discussed and in what manner.

Witcher · 24-11-2020 8:15pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

It would serve you to remember to take a step back before you go lashing out at people in here without appropriate insight into what is being discussed and in what manner.

There was no context to your original post and the fact you had to type out a wall of text just now to clarify your position shows that and that's why you were called out on it, by more than one poster including myself;

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not how car insurance works. If you're on public roads, you need insurance.

Silly Gilly wrote: »

I have seen some poor takes on certain topics but this is up there with the worst. What sort of precedent would a judge be setting by being lenient because the driver caused "no actual harm" while uninsured?

Most people don't have accidents when insured so take your chances and you'll get a slap on the wrist if you're unlucky enough to be caught. Surely you can see the can of worms that opens.

You were called out for a poorly explained post, don't be getting salty about it, own it. It happens to the best of us, even 'legal professionals'.

Eggs For Dinner · 24-11-2020 8:36pm

Claw Hammer, as a legal professional (your words) made a totally incorrect statement. Your assertion that a person driving without insurance is somehow a victimless crime is so wrong. It's a malaise in our society that affects all of us.

kippy · 24-11-2020 8:50pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here as to who's giving dreaming up "misinformation". This is legal discussion and the two posters, Claw Hammer and myself are both legal professionals.

I can't speak for Claw Hammer on the cancellation question and I was going to just leave the jibes from the re-reg after my post as being just crude lack of knowledge until you two crusaders decided to make a bigger issue out of it.

The point I was making is that any defence lawyer will seek to contextualise the offence following conviction to try to get a light fine and or avoid a ban. It would absolutely form a part of that, what's known as a plea in mitigation (possibly a bit grand for the District Court Road Traffic offences list but it is what it is), to set out that it's a victimless crime. This is in addition to other valid points made - as I said, I was picking up on something missed by others.

Overall, you would be looking to paint this offence in the most positive light - this isn't a case of someone who only gets caught with no insurance following an accident they caused, which is a far more serious issue and involves an innocent third party whose rights are implicated by the offence. The fact that there wasn't a crash while the person was uninsured is of course relevant and mitigating in terms of the scale of gravity of the offence. You would also be making absolutely clear the circumstances under which the driver was without insurance - e.g. genuine oversight due to being temporarily away from his normal residence. You would be emphasising how quickly the situation was remedied, a lack of prior convictions, the fact that everything else was in order etc. assuming this is all true in the situation.

For completeness, I'll add that some judges won't like it. It's a matter for the individual brief whether they advise not to raise these things to keep a particular judge sweet, or whether they advise that keeping the judge sweet doesn't matter because if they do something outlandish because they don't like a particular point, it's readily appealable. It's a matter for the individual client what to do with the advice they receive.

It would serve you to remember to take a step back before you go lashing out at people in here without appropriate insight into what is being discussed and in what manner.

Maybe so, but it's a completely ridiculous thing to say without that context.

jimmycrackcorm · 24-11-2020 9:02pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

A crucial point that no one has mentioned so far is that the insurance question is moot. If you didn't cause any issues that would have a bearing on your insurance, like crashing your car into someone, during the period when you were uninsured, then there is no actual harm.

This seems to be a strange point to make. Isn't it like saying that downloading and possession of child porn is "No actual harm" because you didn't cause it to be photographed / video.

hullaballoo · 24-11-2020 9:25pm

Witcher wrote: »

There was no context to your original post and the fact you had to type out a wall of text just now to clarify your position shows that and that's why you were called out on it, by more than one poster including myself;

You were called out for a poorly explained post, don't be getting salty about it, own it. It happens to the best of us, even 'legal professionals'.

Fair enough, if it wasn't clear what I was getting at I am happy to clarify. I thought it was clear but then I have the context in my head.

I wholeheartedly reject the contention that there is no need to be salty about it and reserve the right to be salty.

24-11-2020 11:37pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Fair enough, if it wasn't clear what I was getting at I am happy to clarify. I thought it was clear but then I have the context in my head.

I know what you were getting at but if the Judge takes that line of argument badly (and most of the district court judges I've come across would, tbh) it'll only make things worse for the OP. It'll come across as trying to slip out of what is a serious issue.

Fwiw, imo, OP you should turn up to Court along his solicitor in neat dress (suit or smart casual). Have the paperwork showing it was an innocent mistake that is totally out of character. Explain how it happened using the paperwork to re-iterate you have never made this mistake before. Be contrite and fling yourself on the mercy of the Judge.

As it's a first offence the Judge isn't going to hang you, though on a bad day there's no point promising you the Judge will let you off scott free either.

Silly Gilly · 25-11-2020 12:21am

hullaballoo wrote: »

There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding here as to who's giving dreaming up "misinformation". This is legal discussion and the two posters, Claw Hammer and myself are both legal professionals.

I can't speak for Claw Hammer on the cancellation question and I was going to just leave the jibes from the re-reg after my post as being just crude lack of knowledge until you two crusaders decided to make a bigger issue out of it.

The point I was making is that any defence lawyer will seek to contextualise the offence following conviction to try to get a light fine and or avoid a ban. It would absolutely form a part of that, what's known as a plea in mitigation (possibly a bit grand for the District Court Road Traffic offences list but it is what it is), to set out that it's a victimless crime. This is in addition to other valid points made - as I said, I was picking up on something missed by others.

Overall, you would be looking to paint this offence in the most positive light - this isn't a case of someone who only gets caught with no insurance following an accident they caused, which is a far more serious issue and involves an innocent third party whose rights are implicated by the offence. The fact that there wasn't a crash while the person was uninsured is of course relevant and mitigating in terms of the scale of gravity of the offence. You would also be making absolutely clear the circumstances under which the driver was without insurance - e.g. genuine oversight due to being temporarily away from his normal residence. You would be emphasising how quickly the situation was remedied, a lack of prior convictions, the fact that everything else was in order etc. assuming this is all true in the situation.

For completeness, I'll add that some judges won't like it. It's a matter for the individual brief whether they advise not to raise these things to keep a particular judge sweet, or whether they advise that keeping the judge sweet doesn't matter because if they do something outlandish because they don't like a particular point, it's readily appealable. It's a matter for the individual client what to do with the advice they receive.

It would serve you to remember to take a step back before you go lashing out at people in here without appropriate insight into what is being discussed and in what manner.

The toys are well and truly out of the pram! Just because you are supposedly a "legal professional" does not mean you are a competent one as evidenced by your terrible advice.

Dizzyblonde · 25-11-2020 10:59am

Mod note:
Silly Gilly this is a legal discussion forum where people give opinions, as per the charter:

All comments on this forum are to be regarded as the personal views of the individuals posting. Nothing posted in this forum is to be construed as legally accurate.

Your only two posts in this thread have attacked the opinion given by the same person in a very uncivil fashion, and have contributed nothing to the thread itself. Think very carefully and review your posting style before posting here again.

Thoie · 25-11-2020 4:17pm

OP, this is purely anecdotal (not legal advice), but when you did renew your insurance, was it backdated? A number of years ago I forgot to renew my insurance. In my case it was only out by about a week (I'd been out of the country), and when I called the insurance company they backdated the start to coincide with when it had lapsed, so it's worth checking what the start date of your new policy is - does it include the time and date you were stopped or not?

Regardless, getting a solicitor is your best bet - they'll know the procedures, and know what questions to ask you.

coylemj · 25-11-2020 4:34pm

Thoie wrote: »

OP, this is purely anecdotal (not legal advice), but when you did renew your insurance, was it backdated? A number of years ago I forgot to renew my insurance. In my case it was only out by about a week (I'd been out of the country), and when I called the insurance company they backdated the start to coincide with when it had lapsed, so it's worth checking what the start date of your new policy is - does it include the time and date you were stopped or not?

That is literally an incredible story.

No insurance company will backdate a motor policy. If your policy has lapsed and you renew it, the cert will show the exact date and time when you renewed it - often with 10 or 20 minutes added - just in case. You will not get it backdated by as much as one minute.

You did say it's an 'anecdotal' story, then you represent it as something which happened to you

kippy · 25-11-2020 5:12pm

coylemj wrote: »

That is literally an incredible story.

No insurance company will backdate a motor policy. If your policy has lapsed and you renew it, the cert will show the exact date and time when you renewed it - often with 10 or 20 minutes added - just in case. You will not get it backdated by as much as one minute.

You did say it's an 'anecdotal' story, then you represent it as something which happened to you

Sounds like nonsense at worst, a misunderstanding at best alright.
Why would an insurance company do this?

Thoie · 25-11-2020 5:13pm

coylemj wrote: »

That is literally an incredible story.

No insurance company will backdate a motor policy. If your policy has lapsed and you renew it, the cert will show the exact date and time when you renewed it - often with 10 or 20 minutes added - just in case. You will not get it backdated by as much as one minute.

You did say it's an 'anecdotal' story, then you represent it as something which happened to you

It did. I also found it strange. Let's say my insurance lapsed at 23:59 on the 22nd. I called them sometime on the 30th, saying I'd forgotten to renew, paid by credit card over the phone. They asked if I wanted to just roll over the previous policy, I said "sure", and when the new policy came out, it was from 00:01 (or whatever the usual start time is) on the 23rd. It was at least 4/5 years ago.

I called it anecdotal, as it's something that happened to me, a random stranger on the internet, rather than something that I will be able to prove at this stage, so it's no better than hearsay to anyone reading this. I cannot point to any law, or insurance company policy saying "this definitely happens".

Credit Checker Moose · 25-11-2020 5:16pm

This has happened to me. I forgot to send the cheque for a few days and when they sent out the cert it was backdated.

coylemj · 25-11-2020 5:28pm

Thoie wrote: »

It did. I also found it strange. Let's say my insurance lapsed at 23:59 on the 22nd. I called them sometime on the 30th, saying I'd forgotten to renew, paid by credit card over the phone. They asked if I wanted to just roll over the previous policy, I said "sure", and when the new policy came out, it was from 00:01 (or whatever the usual start time is) on the 23rd. It was at least 4/5 years ago.

Fine, I accept that it happened. But, on both sides, it makes no sense....

1. The insurance company is providing you with backdated cover, despite the fact that while your policy was lapsed, you could have knocked someone down causing them serious injury.

2. Unless you had been stopped by the cops in the interim and needed to produce a cert., you effectively paid in arrears for a week's worth of insurance. Which was a waste of money. With no event giving rise to a claim, you should have asked for the policy to start on the day you renewed it.

cml387 · 25-11-2020 5:32pm

coylemj wrote: »

Fine, I accept that it happened. But, on both sides, it makes no sense....

1. The insurance company is providing you with backdated cover, despite the fact that while your policy was lapsed, you could have knocked someone down causing them serious injury.

2. Unless you had been stopped by the cops in the interim and needed to produce a cert., you effectively paid in arrears for a week's worth of insurance. Which was a waste of money. With no event giving rise to a claim, you should have asked for the policy to start on the day you renewed it.

The point is, would the insurance company have been so accommodating had there indeed been a claim during the unpaid period?

irishfire · 25-11-2020 5:46pm

coylemj wrote:

That is literally an incredible story.

coylemj wrote:

No insurance company will backdate a motor policy. If your policy has lapsed and you renew it, the cert will show the exact date and time when you renewed it - often with 10 or 20 minutes added - just in case. You will not get it backdated by as much as one minute.

coylemj wrote:

You did say it's an 'anecdotal' story, then you represent it as something which happened to you

No expert on insurance but can confirm that on both private and commercial policies where vehicles were off the road/not in use and the renewal was passed by as much as 3 weeks, after a renewal over the phone, I've seen the new cert issued from the expiry of the old policy.

I've only seen it first hand with Aviva, AXA and Wrightway, but presumed it was common. On a private policy Aviva have asked me to confirm the vehicle wasn't used on a public road since expiration before issuing the renewal though

Cows Go µ · 25-11-2020 6:11pm

Used to happen all the time when I worked in a broker. Some insurers didn't allow it but so long as it was confirmed at the the renewal was processed that there were no accidents/claims/convictions it was fine. Normally it was only a few days after renewal though

coylemj · 25-11-2020 7:37pm

Cows Go µ wrote: »

Used to happen all the time when I worked in a broker. Some insurers didn't allow it but so long as it was confirmed at the the renewal was processed that there were no accidents/claims/convictions it was fine. Normally it was only a few days after renewal though

irishfire wrote: »

I've only seen it first hand with Aviva, AXA and Wrightway, but presumed it was common. On a private policy Aviva have asked me to confirm the vehicle wasn't used on a public road since expiration before issuing the renewal though

Why would you pay for the period since the policy lapsed? You can’t claim, even if something did happen in the interim. Because (under the principle of ‘full disclosure’) you’d be obliged to tell them about the incident and then they’d refuse to backdate the cover.

You’re paying a premium for the period the policy had expired and getting nothing in return. Is this to keep the auditors happy?

Eggs For Dinner · 25-11-2020 9:01pm

Brokers are usually provided with the annual certs and discs for all their upcoming renewals. Most have a months credit, which means (for e.g.) at the end of November, they will pay insurers with one payment for everyone who renewed in October and return the certs & discs for those that didn't.

Therefore, it is technically possible for an insurer to accept payment from a client in mid-November for a policy due in early October and let out the original cert. This would be a breach of the broker's agency agreement and a highly risky exercise. If a claim comes subsequently comes in or if Gardai make general enquiries, the insurer can seek proof of when the client paid the broker. This could have significant financial difficulty for the broker if anything is amiss. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but the risk is huge

Cows Go µ · 25-11-2020 9:30pm

coylemj wrote: »

Why would you pay for the period since the policy lapsed? You can’t claim, even if something did happen in the interim. Because (under the principle of ‘full disclosure’) you’d be obliged to tell them about the incident and then they’d refuse to backdate the cover.

You’re paying a premium for the period the policy had expired and getting nothing in return. Is this to keep the auditors happy?

Generally because the new business price is significantly higher. Quite common if the car is older so not every insurer will cover it

Cows Go µ · 25-11-2020 9:34pm

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Brokers are usually provided with the annual certs and discs for all their upcoming renewals. Most have a months credit, which means (for e.g.) at the end of November, they will pay insurers with one payment for everyone who renewed in October and return the certs & discs for those that didn't.

Therefore, it is technically possible for an insurer to accept payment from a client in mid-November for a policy due in early October and let out the original cert. This would be a breach of the broker's agency agreement and a highly risky exercise. If a claim comes subsequently comes in or if Gardai make general enquiries, the insurer can seek proof of when the client paid the broker. This could have significant financial difficulty for the broker if anything is amiss. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but the risk is huge

I agree. It never sat well with me when it was done. We didn't normally get certs though - only if it was a commercial vehicle (and then not always) or if it was a weird private car policy (or there was something strange about it that meant it couldn't be set up on the system as normal). The vast majority of policies were on the system so the insurance company specifically agreed to allow the policy to renew after the renewal date.

webs95 · 30-12-2020 11:14pm

Just an update to inform whoever might be in the same boat as I was, don't panic, get a solicitor, and everything is going to be fine, I got a couple of hundred euro fine is all and my insurance premium went up a bit (it'll go back down eventually...) which is totally understandable. Moral of the story is, do not drive without insurance. ever.

Reading the replies I almost thought I was gonna be locked up with murderers on a death sentence... the thread was clearly full of perfect human beings that never ever made a single mistake in their lives

(the perfect humans, I'm sure they obey all the rules of the road at all times, none of those people let their kids practise parking on their own before their driving exam, they always get a chance to bring the car to the mechanic on time for the NCT, never ever forgot to renew their tax and definitely never went over the speed limit even by 5km/h by accident before, they always use their indicator and every morning they make sure their tyre tread depth is absolutely spot on! they never double park to drop the kids off to school either!

If you have no previous convictions made an honest mistake and show that you care you will be fine. If you have other convictions it's probably a whole different story.

callaway92 · 02-01-2021 9:38am

webs95 wrote: »

Reading the replies I almost thought I was gonna be locked up with murderers on a death sentence... the thread was clearly full of perfect human beings that never ever made a single mistake in their lives

What a bizarre part of the post.

This hyperbole wasn’t needed - Pretty much everyone (with good or poor takes on things) were trying to help you and I can’t remember any post exaggerating to the extent that you mentioned there.

People wanted to get the full picture etc to help properly, hence some tough questions etc.

iwillhtfu · 02-01-2021 9:55am

Chickennuggets · 02-01-2021 6:34pm

webs95 wrote: »

Just an update to inform whoever might be in the same boat as I was, don't panic, get a solicitor, and everything is going to be fine, I got a couple of hundred euro fine is all and my insurance premium went up a bit (it'll go back down eventually...) which is totally understandable. Moral of the story is, do not drive without insurance. ever.

Reading the replies I almost thought I was gonna be locked up with murderers on a death sentence... the thread was clearly full of perfect human beings that never ever made a single mistake in their lives (the perfect humans, I'm sure they obey all the rules of the road at all times, none of those people let their kids practise parking on their own before their driving exam, they always get a chance to bring the car to the mechanic on time for the NCT, never ever forgot to renew their tax and definitely never went over the speed limit even by 5km/h by accident before, they always use their indicator and every morning they make sure their tyre tread depth is absolutely spot on! they never double park to drop the kids off to school either!

If you have no previous convictions made an honest mistake and show that you care you will be fine. If you have other convictions it's probably a whole different story.

Hi webs95.

Im currently in the same suitation, in short let a friend of mine drive my car. He got stopped for speeding and guard asked him to prove insurance within 10 days in the station. Having looked at his policy he wasn't insured to drive my car. So guard told me im getting done for giving consent for allowing my car being driven uninsured. Same charge as driving uninsured. Its been 5 months and ive heard nothing. Its doing my head in everyday and just want to get it done and over with. Ive a thread made on it in the motors thread. Can i pm you and ask a few questions on the process of the summons etc? Thanks

Court date for no insurance.

Comments