Business Use Car Insurance

[spen666]

Not quite true. They will have to prove that the insurance company would not pay out on a 3rd party claim which is the only bit you have to have under the Road Traffic act. It would be hard for the insurance company to get out of paying this part. They may come after you for the money though if you have broken the terms of your policy.

I am sorry you are talking shoot and do not know what you are talking about.

The proceeding would be Regina v You . The insurance company are not a party to a prosecution for no insurance.

Please stop misleading people about the law. You clearly do not understand the law regarding no insurance


You are talking about a civil / contract issue which is irrelevant in the context of a prosecution for no insurance.

If you had the slightest idea of what you were arguing about, you would know I was referring to criminal proceedings as I specifically said about arguing the case before the magistrates. They do not hear civil cases about insurance

 

[spen666]

confused as to what your point is

Well why are you arguing if you don't know what you are arguing about.

The point is simple.read my post again

 

[spen666]

And if you are insured you will be on the MID. What your policy terms are is between you and the insurance company not the police.

This is irrelevant to the point of law i have stated.

You are a driver in a prosecution against you for no insurance have the burden of proving you were insured

 

[NorthernDave]

And if you are insured you will be on the MID. What your policy terms are is between you and the insurance company not the police.

Not so - plod check the policy cover and will seize the vehicle if you don't have cover for what you were using the car for at the time - and then prosecute you for not having valid insurance.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...to-insurance-not-covering-commuting-1-8914526

 

[toffee]

This is irrelevant to the point of law i have stated.

You are a driver in a prosecution against you for no insurance have the burden of proving you were insured

And what point is that? If you have insurance you have insurance. It's is only he third party part that is relevant to the law. The insurance company won't be happy but they will have to pay out to a 3rd party

 

[toffee]

Not so - plod check the policy cover and will seize the vehicle if you don't have cover for what you were using the car for at the time - and then prosecute you for not having valid insurance.

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...to-insurance-not-covering-commuting-1-8914526

It doesn't actually say he was prosecuted for any offence though and they mention other problems with the policy.

 

[NorthernDave]

It doesn't actually say he was prosecuted for any offence though and they mention other problems with the policy.

Not having insurance for that journey (commuting, business use, etc) means you're not insured even if there is a policy on the car that covers you for other types of use. If the car is seized, prosecution inevitably follows unless the driver can prove they were insured at the time.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Well why are you arguing if you don't know what you are arguing about.

The point is simple.read my post again

Plod has certainly tried 'no insurance' prosecutions with cases like florists partner dropping a bouquet off on his way home and bits of fast food delivery industry.

As a lawyer can you quote authority from superior courts as to whether such cases are criminal rather than matter of contract between driver and insurer who has to pay up whatever?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Well why are you arguing if you don't know what you are arguing about.

I wasn't arguing you appear to be arguing with yourself

 

[spen666]

And what point is that? If you have insurance you have insurance. It's is only he third party part that is relevant to the law. The insurance company won't be happy but they will have to pay out to a 3rd party

Toffee try getting your head round the law.


You are repeatedly using a civil law example to try to contradict my correct staying of the position in a criminal matter.


I made a statement regarding a criminal law prosecution. All that you say trying to contradict me is irrelevant as civil law and criminal law are different.



In a case before a magistrates court, it will be a prosecution for no insurance. ( IE a criminal case).

The law in a criminal case is simple. All the police/ prosecution have to prove is that you were driving the car on a highway.

The burden of proof is then on you to prove you were insured.

All the prosecution need to prove, therefore for you to be found guilty of driving uninsured, is that you were driving a motor vehicle and were on a public road when the alleged offence occurred.

The burden of proof passes to the Defendant (you) to prove that you were insured at the time you were driving. Because this is a documentary offence, you are expected to be able to make your policy documentation available.

https://www.pattersonlaw.co.uk/motoring-offences/no-insurance-permitting-no-insurance/

Mr Justice Blake gave a useful review of the law in his judgement. Lawyers can learn these lessons for future cases.

1. On a charge of no insurance once the prosecutor has proved that the defendant drove the vehicle on a road the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that he was covered by insurance.

DPP v John Whittaker [2015] EWHC 1850 Admin
https://thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk/2...o-the-prosecution-have-to-prove-business-use/

If you are charged with driving without insurance, the burden of proof will be on you to produce a certificate of insurance or policy to show that you were insured.

http://www.bestcriminaldefencebarri...-summonsed-for-driving-without-insurance.aspx



Do you want me to quote any more legal experts or court judgements that confirm the law is as I said it was?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Not having insurance for that journey (commuting, business use, etc) means you're not insured even if there is a policy on the car that covers you for other types of use.

Although techically correct, I believe you are grasping at straws

 

[spen666]

Plod has certainly tried 'no insurance' prosecutions with cases like florists partner dropping a bouquet off on his way home and bits of fast food delivery industry.

As a lawyer can you quote authority from superior courts as to whether such cases are criminal rather than matter of contract between driver and insurer who has to pay up whatever?

FFS

A prosecution for no insurance is a criminal case. All prosecutions are criminal cases.

Magistrates courts do not decide civil law cases

 

[spen666]

Although techically correct, I believe you are grasping at straws

WTF is that supposed to mean? You are either insured for the journey you make or you aren't.

It's hardly clutching at straws to say you are not insured

 

[Deleted member 26715]

In a case before a magistrates court, it will be a prosecution for no insurance. ( IE a criminal case).

Why do you believe there is no insurance.

 

[SteCenturion]

Does she claim a mileage allowance back from her employer on the business mileage?

That's usually intended to cover insurance, fuel, depreciation, etc.

I do this, mileage allowance with certain restrictions & limitations + a monthly essential car user allowance, designed to contribute towards business use *compulsory under contract terms* & extra wear & tear/servicing costs etc.

I think this excludes me from making any tax rebate claims ?