difference between driving and using a vehicle without insurance

[baffled52]

long story shortened i was with my father in a vehicle that he was insured to drive and my brother in another vehicle. the vehicle that my father was driving broke down. The clutch had gone and the car was unable to move anywhere. I had AA covered with my bank so as everyone was in a rush to get to our destination i suggested and volunteered that my father and brother should go ahead and i will wait for the aa to turn up and get a cab when they have taken the car back to the house.
As i was waited i was approached by police(who besides the point were rude arrogant and ...) i explained to them i was merely waiting for the aa to turn up and was not in control of the vehicle. eventually i recieved a summons to turn up at court. and when asked for a plea, i plead not guilty, at first and the magistrates gave me the opportunity to change my plea i refused and i gave them the amount of evidence i had to support my defence. The magistrate then told me that the charge that they sought for me is using a vehicle and not driving the vehicle meaning the fact that i had the key to the vehicle and the vehicle was available to me that he will adjourn the case for 2 weeks while i seek further advice and then i can decide to plead guilty or not guilty. so can someone explain this to me do i have any defence at all. to be honest it seems like a cowboy charge seeing as i wasnt driving and even if the car keys and the car was available to me to use the car. The car was incapable of being used. but what is the full explanation of the 2 different offences and do i have any defence at all to using a vehicle as im not entirely sure what i have done wrong.

Thank you for any help in advanced

[Solad2b]

Just a thought, Did The Police seize the vehicle (Given that they believed you to be using it without insurance) ? Or did the officers leave you and the vehicle to continue to await recovery by the AA ? If The Police were (as you say Rude) then left only to summons you later they are guilty of the same "crime". Section 143.1.(b) makes it illegal to cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.... In other words If The police thought you to be using without insurance and they left you to continue to use without insurance they ( The Chief Constable ) caused or permitted you to use without insurance, If I were you I'd be making enquirers into whether he/she is/was/will be summonsed !!!

[Solad2b]

Your defense is, That you were a passenger in a car, the car broke down, you continued to be a passenger in that car while the driver continued in another vehicle, The driver left the keys in the car he had been driving to allow the recovery driver to load the car onto his lorry. You were a passenger at all times.

[baffled52]

Just a thought, Did The Police seize the vehicle (Given that they believed you to be using it without insurance) ? Or did the officers leave you and the vehicle to continue to await recovery by the AA ? If The Police were (as you say Rude) then left only to summons you later they are guilty of the same "crime". Section 143.1.(b) makes it illegal to cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.... In other words If The police thought you to be using without insurance and they left you to continue to use without insurance they ( The Chief Constable ) caused or permitted you to use without insurance, If I were you I'd be making enquirers into whether he/she is/was/will be summonsed !!!

Just a thought, Did The Police seize the vehicle (Given that they believed you to be using it without insurance) ? Or did the officers leave you and the vehicle to continue to await recovery by the AA ? If The Police were (as you say Rude) then left only to summons you later they are guilty of the same "crime". Section 143.1.(b) makes it illegal to cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.... In other words If The police thought you to be using without insurance and they left you to continue to use without insurance they ( The Chief Constable ) caused or permitted you to use without insurance, If I were you I'd be making enquirers into whether he/she is/was/will be summonsed !!!

funnily enough the aa turned up as the police officer was taking my statement and when she told him i was not insured and not the driver he said that he is not supposed to take the car unless the driver is present with the vehicle. when he asked her what he should do she told him to continue she was just notifying him of the situation but the aa towed the car for me and the police did not seize the vehicle.

would the above still apply?

Another question? i realised while looking over the statement that when i was being questioned by the male officer and he took my statement but it is the female police officer who is stating that she took my statement does this make her statement void.

in her statement i told her the vehicle belonged to my father which i did say but she has gone further to lie and say at this point she checked the pnc and confronted me with the information that he was the only person insured to drive the vehicle. is this a breach of data protection due to the fact that i may not have known he was insured on the vehicle or that he was the only person insured. she should have written that she confronted me with the fact that i was not on the insurance. needless to say that she lied as she did not do a pnc check. if she did do one she would have found out that my mother was also insured and can provide a certificate to prove this. could i use this information to question the officers competency and credibility.

[Maris1234]

Nice story! I hope that it will not happen to me Today i Get my driving licence firstly, i'am very happy because i finish driving exam without troubles. Big thank's driving school Presto - Best driving school in Latvia.

[jaycube]

Using a vehicle without insurance can be too much finically risky, you can be stuck into accident and if insurance is there its easy to claim your money which is used in repair work or vehicle lose.