Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Court date for no insurance.

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,326 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    webs95 wrote: »
    Yes 56 (1) & (3)

    You've misread the summons, you've been summonsed for driving uninsured. What you claimed in your first post was that you were summonsed for failing to display a disc and failing to produce an insurance cert. at a Garda Station. Which are relatively minor offences.

    S 56(1) and (3) refer to driving with no insurance. Which is a totally different beast. For which you will have no defence, because you were not insured. Do not show up in court without a solicitor.


  • Options
    #33
    Silly Gilly
    Registered Users Posts: 128 ✭✭Silly Gilly


    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.

    It's a case that a smart lawyer will have to make but it's a big one imo.

    Get yourself a solicitor and a brief to show the court you're taking this seriously and it should be a minimal sanction. It won't be nothing but it ought to be no more than a lesson to you.

    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.


  • Options
    #34
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,935 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    It would appear that the OP took out insurance in order to get his vehicle released back to him. I trust he disclosed that he had a pending prosecution when doing so, otherwise his troubles are not confined to his impending court case


  • Options
    #35
    Westernworld.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭Westernworld.


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    It would appear that the OP took out insurance in order to get his vehicle released back to him. I trust he disclosed that he had a pending prosecution when doing so, otherwise his troubles are not confined to his impending court case

    Ya he'd want to have a think about that one

    Would he be better to cancel the policy now himself and restart when the court case is resolved rather than risking the insurance co cancelling it


  • Options
    #36
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,935 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Westernworld. wrote: »
    Ya he'd want to have a think about that one

    Would he be better to cancel the policy now himself and restart when the court case is resolved rather than risking the insurance co cancelling it

    He should contact the insurer and explain the situation in detail. If they are happy to maintain cover, grand. If not, he should ask that he voluntarily cancel the policy himself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Deleted User wrote: »
    ....
    , he'll get a fine of a couple of hundred euro and the judge will quickly move onto the next person.



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


    EDIT: For what it's worth - In Drogheda Court the go-to for no insurance is, assuming you're halfway decent and make an effort to show up, you get convicted and given a €300 fine. If you don't bother to show up, there's a 2 year ban added on aswell (but this is expected to be appealed, thus forcing you to go to the court). Obviously it changes from judge to judge and case to case, but that's the "norm" in that courthouse.

    No points usually?


  • Options
    #38
    Westernworld.
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭Westernworld.


    Eggs For Dinner wrote: »
    He should contact the insurer and explain the situation in detail. If they are happy to maintain cover, grand. If not, he should ask that he voluntarily cancel the policy himself.

    Ya but that may not be wise as you know

    That's going by the book

    If.it was me I'd probably look to exit the policy myself before the court date


  • Options
    #39
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,935 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Westernworld. wrote: »
    Ya but that may not be wise as you know

    That's going by the book

    If.it was me I'd probably look to exit the policy myself before the court date

    You're probably right.


  • Options
    #40
    BnB
    Registered Users Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭BnB


    You made a mistake. Sheet happens.

    Most important thing now by far is to get yourself a good local solicitor who has experience of the court, will know the judge and may know the guard.

    If money is tight and you want to take a chance yourself then you have to remember, so much is dependent on the mood of the judge. He/She will have 100+ cases that day and you could have no more than 1 or 2 minutes to make your case. Essentially you have to persuade the judge that you are a decent person and this was just an honest mistake...which is easier said than done because that's what so many other people will be there to do also and the vast majority will be chancing their arm.

    If I was going alone, I would bring my current insurance and my old insurance to show that it had only run out 12 days and once the Garda said it, you got a new one. It would also help if you had old certs or a letter from your insurance company to show that you have been insured without a break for x years. Again, that would strengthen your case that this was a genuine mistake.

    Also, if you are going it alone, I would contact the Garda involved and try and bring that to him/her first. Again, if you can genuinely persuade them that you are decent and this was just a mistake, it would be a great help. Best case scenario (but highly unlikely) , they may get it struck out. But even if they don't, they may in the court confirm that they have seen the documents to show that you have been insured for x years etc and make the judges job easy to just hopefully give you a small fine and move on.

    Also, don't worry about it. It seems very daunting because you're a decent person and haven't been in court before. But it really is nothing and the day of the court can actually be entertaining to see the line up of chancers and listen to their BS for the craic.


  • Options
    #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,344 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Augeo wrote: »
    No points usually?


    I think you get 5 by default, and they are 'mandatory' in the sense that the judge cant give you any less or more.. which is why i probably never hear them mentioned.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Was a registered letter sent cancelling the old insurance?


  • Options
    #43
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,393 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Was a registered letter sent cancelling the old insurance?

    I think you'll find this isn't relevant at all.


  • Options
    #44
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    kippy wrote: »
    What relevance does this have - does it actually happen?

    Before an insurer cancels a policy of insurance they are obliged to send a registered letter to the policy holder. Some people get off on this basis because the insurance companies are too mean to pay for a registered letter.


  • Options
    #45
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,393 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Before an insurer cancels a policy of insurance they are obliged to send a registered letter to the policy holder. Some people get off on this basis because the insurance companies are too mean to pay for a registered letter.

    This was not a cancellation though - the OP never renewed, so the contract term was up......


  • Options
    #46
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,160 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    kippy wrote: »
    This was not a cancellation though - the OP never renewed, so the contract term was up......

    The insurance company still has to positively cancel cover.


  • Options
    #47
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The insurance company still has to positively cancel cover.

    No they don't.


  • Options
    #48
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,935 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The insurance company still has to positively cancel cover.

    That's not correct.


  • Options
    #49
    BnB
    Registered Users Posts: 1,079 ✭✭✭BnB


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The insurance company still has to positively cancel cover.

    Jesus H.. The madness of what people will write on an Internet forum. If you do not renew your annual insurance, the insurance company are NOT cancelling your policy. Your policy ends on the last date of insurance. If you renew, you are taking on a new policy for 12 months. If you do not renew, you're not, and your old expired policy means diddly squat.

    Insurance companies will only send a registered letter of cancellation if your policy is cancelled mid-term for not paying a direct debit or something like that.


  • Options
    #50
    coylemj
    Registered Users Posts: 25,326 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The insurance company still has to positively cancel cover.

    But they're not cancelling anything. If you don't renew, your policy lapses. There are no days of grace and no requirement for either party to inform the other. At the stroke of midnight on the last day of cover, you are not insured and that's all there is to it.

    And despite the fact that we call it a 'renewal', if you stay with the same insurer, legally it's a brand new contract of insurance. Which is why they send you a new schedule every year.


  • Options
    #51
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    The insurance company still has to positively cancel cover.
    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.

    It's a case that a smart lawyer will have to make but it's a big one imo.

    Get yourself a solicitor and a brief to show the court you're taking this seriously and it should be a minimal sanction. It won't be nothing but it ought to be no more than a lesson to you.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    cml387
    Registered Users Posts: 8,363 ✭✭✭cml387


    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.


  • Options
    #53
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,393 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    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.


  • Options
    #54
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,708 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    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.


  • Options
    #55
    Witcher
    Registered Users Posts: 14,428 ✭✭✭✭Witcher


    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'.


  • Options
    #56
    Eggs For Dinner
    Registered Users Posts: 2,935 ✭✭✭Eggs For Dinner


    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.


  • Options
    #57
    kippy
    Registered Users Posts: 18,393 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    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.


  • Options
    #58
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,329 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    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.


  • Options
    #59
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,708 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    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.


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Silly Gilly
    Registered Users Posts: 128 ✭✭Silly Gilly


    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.


Advertisement