merc0447:
Our insurance certificate is in a frame in the transport office,
That does not prove that it is still in force although being a company it is very unlikely that it is not.
There is a practice amongst some individuals whereby they take out insurance to be paid in monthly installments, get the insurance certificate and then after the first payment they cancel the DD so they now have an insurance certificate which is dated for the next 11 months but is no longer valid
As I said - very unlikely to happen where a company is concerned but you never know…
ROG:
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
(a) that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b) that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c) that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.
It is (c) that the driver gets arrested for and then, after investigation, the CPS and possibly the courts get involved
To conclude - the driver does get arrested for driving a vehicle without current insurance but it then gets investigated and on the findings of that investigation further action, if any, is decided
ROG you seem to be missing the obvious, it’s in bold right at the top! Driving without insurance is a strict liability offence but the section of the RTA posted above is the statutory defence for a driver of a company vehicle.
All 3 conditions a) b) & c) have to be met, you don’t just cherry pick 1 or 2 & provided all 3 are met then you are very unlikely to be charged with an offence because you can’t be convicted, the law says so! Quite why you think the CPS & courts would become involved I’m not sure, there is no case to answer!
dave:
obvously the fine for no mot or tax is a biggy, for company and driver if caught but does,nt no insurance come into aswell.
Missed this bit.
Having no MOT does not automatically invalidate your insurance.
ROG:
(c) seems to have been conveniently missed…
Correct, thats because we are not talking about knowingly driving a vehicle with no insurance.
Melchett:
ROG you seem to be missing the obvious,
(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves–
That means that the driver has to prove that a, b & c apply - not just one of them but ALL of them
If the driver cannot prove all those at the roadside then the driver would be arrested for the offence until such time that they were proven - hence the investigation which may or may not lead to any prosecution or conviction
All this was very clearly explained to me by a current police traffic officer because I tried to argue the oposite case as others on here have done.
Correct, thats because we are not talking about knowingly driving a vehicle with no insurance.
Could a driver PROVE that they were not knowingly doing so at the roadside 
ROG:
That means that the driver has to prove that a, b & c apply - not just one of them but ALL of them
If the driver cannot prove all those at the roadside then the driver would be arrested for the offence until such time that they were proven - hence the investigation which may or may not lead to any prosecution or conviction
You’re making the law up yourself here.
ROG:
All this was very clearly explained to me by a current police traffic officer because I tried to argue the oposite case as others on here have done.
He’s a copper not a lawyer.
ROG:
Correct, thats because we are not talking about knowingly driving a vehicle with no insurance.
Could a driver PROVE that they were not knowingly doing so at the roadside
I’m sure you’re losing the plot.
ROG:
Could a driver PROVE that they were not knowingly doing so at the roadside
How could he prove it in court??
With one or two exceptions on this thread I would have thought that the vast majority of drivers on here have never seen the insurance cert or the MOT &, more to the point, have never asked to see them!
Mike-C:
You’re making the law up yourself here.
I’ve quoted it so I aint making it up
How could he prove it in court??
That would be using the conclusions of the investigation and questioning those conclusions
mate of mine was stopped ( in his car ) had no tax car taken off him & has to re sit his said licence
i only found out other day this had happened ( but he has been drivin on roads for a while with no licence & only passed not that long go poss under 2 yr as no tax would invalidate his insurance
if you are stopped & they check they may find it it not yet registered with said comp so not insured ect they then give said driver a producer take all documents to said police station simple ( this is past experience ) as my old boss bought a vehicle the next day i took out but due to it bein new to him was registered with diff comp yes it did have tax was givin a producer took to said police station that day as it was goin abroad
so before it gets to CPS stage or any other all documents can be taken in to prove that is why we have this system as you not required to carry any documents in this country unlike other
ROG:
Mike-C:
You’re making the law up yourself here.
I’ve quoted it so I aint making it up
No, you’re making it up. Your story or version of what is right is wandering all over the place. Now you’re saying ALL conditions have to be met. Just stick with the first thing you said in the thread. You where wrong and so was your copper mate.
If you’re going to investigate answers for people and you don’t know the answers yourself you might be better off leaving someone to reply who knows what they’re talking about instead of getting wrong information from supposedly credible sources. You could potentially land someone in trouble.
Looks like I’ll have to spell it out very simply
Traffic cop with ANPR fitted clocks vehicle that comes up as no insurance
Traffic cop stops vehicle
Driver says vehicle is company owned
Cop checks with DVLA database and confirms that vehicle is indeed a company one
Driver is arested on SUSPICION of knowingly driving a vehicle without current insurance and asked to produce other documents at police station of their choice within 7 days if they do not have those documents with them at the time
Vehicle is removed by cops to a storage facility as that is the new(ish) power they have
Driver is taken to police station and booked for the alledged offence and then released on police bail
An investigation into the alledged offence is then conducted by police
If the outcome of the investigation suggests that the driver may have knowingly driven without insurance then it is passed to the CPS who then decide on whether the case should go to court
or
If the outcome of the investigation says that the driver did not have any knowledge and that the driver took all reasonable precautions then the charge against the driver is dropped
If the case against the driver does go to court then a lawyer will question the findings of the investigation and it’s conclusions
The court will then decide on the outcome
That is the way our UK law works
ROG:
Looks like I’ll have to spell it out very simply
Traffic cop with ANPR fitted clocks vehicle that comes up as no insurance
Traffic cop stops vehicle
Driver says vehicle is company owned
Cop checks with DVLA database and confirms that vehicle is indeed a company one
Driver is arested on SUSPICION of knowingly driving a vehicle without current insurance and asked to produce other documents at police station of their choice within 7 days if they do not have those documents with them at the time
Vehicle is removed by cops to a storage facility as that is the new(ish) power they have
Driver is taken to police station and booked for the alledged offence and then released on police bail
An investigation into the alledged offence is then conducted by police
If the outcome of the investigation suggests that the driver may have knowingly driven without insurance then it is passed to the CPS who then decide on whether the case should go to court
or
If the outcome of the investigation says that the driver did not have any knowledge and that the driver took all reasonable precautions then the charge against the driver is dropped
If the case against the driver does go to court then a lawyer will question the findings of the investigation and it’s conclusions
The court will then decide on the outcome
That is the way our UK law works
LOL !!! You’ve give up on the ‘mitigating circumstances’ baloney now ?!!! And now you have a new baloney, arrested and bailed for suspision of no insurance? The more of this you come out with the more i doubt anything you tell us.
You really need to get out more ROG 
Too much internet is frying your brain…try a tinfoil hat!
Mike-C:
You’ve give up on the ‘mitigating circumstances’ baloney now ?!!!
What do you think will be found by doing the investigation… mitigating circumstances perhaps !!
I’m not sure if you mean to be doing a wind-up or you really have no concept of the the way that the UK legal system works
C’mon ROG…
Noone gets arrested, taken to the station & bailed purely for no insurance! It’s likely the vehicle will be impounded but the driver arrested? No chance, this is insurance not mass murder.
At worst it’s a NIP (verbal or written) possibly followed by a court summons. A fixed penalty can also be issued on the spot.
Having said that, say I’m driving down the motorway in a, I’ll pick Stobart but could be anyone, truck & it gets flagged as not being insured.
BiB asks if I know wether the truck is insured & I reply “I assume so, they gave it to me so I took it that everything was ok, nobody said it wasn’t insured”
I’ve just met all the criteria under RTA section 3 points a) It’s not my truck & I haven’t borrowed/hired it b) I’m using the truck in the course of my employment & c) I have no reason to believe it’s not insured.
What does the occifer do next?
- Arrests me & drags me off the station in handcuffs
- Issues a fixed penalty
- Gives me a NIP
- Puts a prohibition on the truck, gets it towed & has a word with Eddie
i would have thought someone by now on this site reading this thread would have been picked up for no insurance and able to give their version of events on what happened? i find it hard to believe you would get carted off , its just a producer!!
on another note what happens when your ticket expires and you have to go to test station with no mot, i have had to do a few times but never been pulled
jimc1390:
on another note what happens when your ticket expires and you have to go to test station with no mot, i have had to do a few times but never been pulled
As long as it’s a pre-booked test and you’re going directly to the test centre, nothing
Melchett:
C’mon ROG…
Noone gets arrested, taken to the station & bailed purely for no insurance! It’s likely the vehicle will be impounded but the driver arrested? No chance, this is insurance not mass murder.
My fault - forgot a bit 
Driver is taken to police station and booked for the alledged offence and then released on police bail BUT only if their identity etc cannot be confirmed
That does make a big difference
As seen on TV - when caught without insurance the driver is left to make their own way to wherever without the vehicle
jimc1390:
what happens when your ticket expires and you have to go to test station with no mot
Legally allowed providing it is going directly to and from the MOT station - I assume they mean a test station located within a reasonable distance as well …
ROG:
Mike-C:
You’ve give up on the ‘mitigating circumstances’ baloney now ?!!!
What do you think will be found by doing the investigation… mitigating circumstances perhaps !!
I don’t think a passage in the law exhonerating someone from conviction and infact giving them a concrete legal defence against is ‘mitigation’
ROG:
I’m not sure if you mean to be doing a wind-up or you really have no concept of the the way that the UK legal system works
I have quite a good concept of the legal system, its you thats getting everything wrong not me. We’ve now established that not only is it very unlikeley in the general shceme of things that a driver will be prosecuted for driving his employers vehicle with no insurance also he will not be arrested and bailed. Now you know, you where told at the begining.
animal:
i only found out other day this had happened ( but he has been drivin on roads for a while with no licence & only passed not that long go poss under 2 yr as no tax would invalidate his insurance
No insurance policy i’ve ever had has stated it would be invalidated if the vehicle has no tax, that simply isn’t true. The only means that would invalidate the insurance is not having a licence or something else that was undeclared