# Caught with no car insurance



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

I know the title sounds terrible and it is. I bought a car recently and misinterpreted a conversation I had with my insurance company prior to buying the car. Long story short I thought my insurance policy covered me to drive the car. Was pulled over by a guard a few days later and told that my insurance was not valid and that I would receive a court summons for this.

 I told the guard that I was covered by my existing policy and handed him my policy to him there and then and he informed me that I was only covered to drive the car if it was not the owner of the car. In that case, I would have been covered by the extension. What I should have done was transfer the car into my policy on the day when I bought it. 

So obviously it was my fault for not understanding my policy and I accept that. I've never done this before and would never deliberately get into a car and chance my arm with insurance. I've never had any penalty points or convictions or any court summons before. 

After a few days after this had happened, I was dealing with the car seller/dealer over some issues I had with the car on the first day that I bought it. I found out that the seller had not transferred the car into my name at that time. The car was signed into my name a week after being caught for having no insurance. So essentially I should be covered with my insurance with my driving extension. I'm permitted to drive other peoples cars as long as I'm over 25 and in the Republic of Ireland. From what I've read in my policy I seem to be covered in this instance. I'm waiting on the summons and I'm wondering has anyone had any experience of this before?

 Is this enough to contest the charge or should I just admit guilt and take a fine and penalty points. I've been told by a solicitor that it's very unlikely that I will be disqualified for a first offence and given the circumstances.


----------



## Feemar5 (29 Nov 2020)

I think a relevant point here would be what date did you sign the Motor Transfer Form.    Technically the Garda may be correct but  I feel a judge would give you some leniency as you had motor insurance  to drive a vehicle - maybe not the one you were driving.


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

Thanks for your response. I didn't sign a motor transfer form because it was a dealer and they do it digitally/online. I did sign a sales manifest on the day when I purchased the car, I should add that as part of the terms of the sale I was meant to trade in my own car but I never brought the VLC for my old car and only got that to the dealer the following week. But the car was officially transferred into my name after the incident, the following week. According to my log book.


----------



## RedOnion (29 Nov 2020)

seebin said:


> essentially I should be covered with my insurance with my driving extension


Did you ask your insurer if this is the case?
My lay understanding is that you 'owned' the car, even if it wasn't registered in your name. 

If you want to challenge it, you'll need engagement with your insurer to understand whether or not you were covered - i.e. if you had had an accident, would they have covered you?


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

That's interesting, no according to the legal advice I received. 


RedOnion said:


> My lay understanding is that you 'owned' the car, even if it wasn't registered in your name





RedOnion said:


> If you want to challenge it, you'll need engagement with your insurer to understand whether or not you were covered - i.e. if you had had an accident, would they have covered you?



No, I haven't and that's a good point.


----------



## mathepac (29 Nov 2020)

We're into the muddy waters of registered ownership vs. beneficial ownership.  Having a car registered in your name does not automatically mean it is your property - it does not instill beneficial ownership on you.

Paying for a car means you are the beneficial owner, it is your property therefore to use it in a public place, drive it on the road, you must have insurance on that specific vehicle.  The car was yours beneficially the day the Guard stopped you and you had not transferred your insurance. You were not insured to drive it on that day.

IANAL.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Nov 2020)

Hi seebin

You had an insurance policy in force on the day you were stopped.   That is good but not enough. 

Did you still have the other car which was covered by the insurance or had you traded it in?  If you had only one car and one insurance policy, while it would be wrong, I think that the judge would exercise discretion. 

I think that you should appear in court and tell the story honestly. 

Tell the judge that while you did actually own the car, the garage had not actually transferred it. The judge might use that as an excuse to let you off.

I think you are better off going to the court yourself without a solicitor. Speak directly to the judge and I think that they will see that you are an honest citizen who made an honest mistake. 



Brendan


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

mathepac said:


> We're into the muddy waters of registered ownership vs. beneficial ownership.  Having a car registered in your name does not automatically mean it is your property - it does not instill beneficial ownership on you.
> 
> Paying for a car means you are the beneficial owner, it is your property therefore to use it in a public place, drive it on the road, you must have insurance on that specific vehicle.  The car was yours beneficially the day the Guard stopped you and you had not transferred your insurance. You were not insured to drive it on that day.
> 
> IANAL.



Ok, thanks for the input. That's something I'll have to bring up to my solicitor. I'm thinking I should not challenge it and accept responsibility. Hopefully, the judge doesn't ban me for two years.


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Hi seebin
> 
> You had an insurance policy in force on the day you were stopped.   That is good but not enough.
> 
> ...



Thanks! I'm not the best speaker so I'll probably get my solicitor to represent me, just in case.


----------



## jhegarty (29 Nov 2020)

The key question is , would the insurance company cover a crash you had that day.  Have you asked them  ?


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2020)

AFAIK the judge has no room for discretion in cases of no valid insurance other than maybe the size of fine.

As soon as you paid all monies due and received a receipt, you then owned the care, unless the dealer was not legally positioned to
sell the car to you.
You know, the guard knows and the judge will know you had no insurance covering you to drive that car when stopped.
IMHO your best bet is to come clean and put your 'hands up' and expect the worst but hope for some leniency.


Remember the judge will have heard every excuse in the book and some you could never even think up so do not try to 'muddy the waters', as they say.


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2020)

jhegarty said:


> The key question is , would the insurance company cover a crash you had that day.  Have you asked them  ?



I suspect we all know the answer to that.


----------



## MrEarl (29 Nov 2020)

Hello, 

Did the original poster have an insurable interest in the car, when they were stopped? 

Would the insurance consent have provided cover, pending the registration being updated to reflect the new ownership - keeping in mind, that it could take a few days? 

I agree with Mr Burgess, that going to court and being honest about what happened, is the way to go - but if the insurer were to indicate that they would not have given you a policy on that car, before registration, it would be worthwhile mentioning this.


----------



## Pinoy adventure (29 Nov 2020)

The dealer would need too send the log book off which takes about 7days.the car will still be in the old owners name.
You should of changed the reg on your insurance policy which can be done over the phone.
The dealer does not change ownership online


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2020)

Pinoy adventure said:


> The dealer would need too send the log book off which takes about 7days.the car will still be in the old owners name.


Immaterial


Pinoy adventure said:


> You should of changed the reg on your insurance policy which can be done over the phone.


Absolutely. But a bit late now.


Pinoy adventure said:


> The dealer does not change ownership online


Ownership changes as soon as all monies due have been paid.


MrEarl said:


> Did the original poster have an insurable interest in the car, when they were stopped?


Yes, he owns it.


MrEarl said:


> Would the insurance consent have provided cover, pending the registration being updated to reflect the new ownership - keeping in mind, that it could take a few days?


I'm pretty sure they would have, they do it all the time.


MrEarl said:


> but if the insurer were to indicate that they would not have given you a policy on that car, before registration, it would be worthwhile mentioning this.


Absolutely not as this would indicate that the OP knowingly drove it without a valid insurance policy, which is the whole crux of his defence:-


seebin said:


> What I should have done was transfer the car into my policy on the day when I bought it.
> So obviously it was my fault for not understanding my policy and I accept that.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Nov 2020)

seebin said:


> I'm not the best speaker so I'll probably get my solicitor to represent me



It's an advantage in not being the best speaker.

You will come across as genuine. 

I have seen it time and time again in the possession courts , the people who show up and speak directly to the judge or registrar get on much better. 

If you had some major legal point to argue, then I would recommend professional representation, but as this is just a "Sorry  judge, I misunderstood the cover" , you are much better off going there yourself.  

If you can, go to a hearing a week or two in advance to see how it works out. 

Brendan


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2020)

I would be on the opposite side of the fence from Brendan on the above.

Many a guard has told me, over the years, that for numerous reasons you are way better having a solicitor represent you in a district court, by doing so, you show that you are treating the matter as important, showing respect to the court and, not least, boosting the judges ego.

The old adage, 'that he who represents himself, has a fool for a client' is not founded without reason. You would not believe the amount of people who have unwittingly talked themselves into a conviction.


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

Brendan Burgess said:


> It's an advantage in not being the best speaker.
> 
> You will come across as genuine.
> 
> ...



I see what you mean alright but if I'd prefer to have someone just in case. Better to have that angle covered.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (29 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> The old adage, 'that he who represents himself, has a fool for a client'



Hi SparkRite

It's not an old adage, it's the motto of the Law Society.

Take a trip down to your local court and you will see what I mean.

Brendan


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> I would be on the opposite side of the fence from Brendan on the above.
> 
> Many a guard has told me, over the years, that for numerous reasons you are way better having a solicitor represent you in a district court, by doing so, you show that you are treating the matter as important, showing respect to the court and, not least, boosting the judges ego.
> 
> The old adage, 'that he who represents himself, has a fool for a client' is not founded without reason. You would not believe the amount of people who have unwittingly talked themselves into a conviction.



I also had no tax at the time but, I couldn't tax the car as I had no log book for it yet. Even when I tried to tax it at the tax office I was refused because the car wasn't in my name yet. If the Guard decides to summons me over this too will that argument defend me?


----------



## mathepac (29 Nov 2020)

There is no defence I'm afraid. Tax, insurance, valid NCT, condition of the car, including things like tyres, brakes, steering and so on are your responsibility.


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2020)

seebin said:


> I also had no tax at the time but, I couldn't tax the car as I had no log book for it yet. Even when I tried to tax it at the tax office I was refused because the car wasn't in my name yet. If the Guard decides to summons me over this too will that argument defend me?


As @mathepac has pointed out, these are all the responsibility of the driver and/or owner. No road tax is the least of your problems.


----------



## seebin (29 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> As @mathepac has pointed out, these are all the responsibility of the driver and/or owner. No road tax is the least of your problems.


That's interesting because the guard who pulled me over said it would likely be a fine and points. I spoke to another solicitor and she said 95% of cases in a first offence that she's witnessed concludes with points and a fine and no disqualification. Unless you've been aggressive or disruptive with the guard. Sounds like you have a different experience of this??


----------



## SparkRite (29 Nov 2020)

What I mean is that having no road tax, does not carry the same possible penalties that being convicted of no insurance carries.

That vehicle not being taxed does not have the possibility of :-
_from Citizens advice,
If you drive while uninsured, you could be fined up to €5000 and get 5 penalty points. You could also go to prison for up to 6 months. The judge may decide to disqualify you from driving instead of giving you penalty points. _

That is why I said:-


SparkRite said:


> No road tax is the least of your problems.


----------



## SGWidow (30 Nov 2020)

Hi Seebin,

I am not a lawyer.

For the avoidance of doubt, it seems to me that what you did make a mistake in that when you rang your insurance company, you misunderstood what was said.

However, having no insurance should be seen as a continuum which has reckless dereliction of the law, over an extended period, at one end of this spectrum and a simple, once-off, short-lived misunderstanding at the other. Any penalties should be proportionate to the offence and should not be a case of one size fits all. I wish you well and really hope that any penalty that you do get reflects all the mitigating circumstances which you have outlined.

One stray thought - is it possible to get a recording of your conversation with the insurer? - as its content may be useful for evidential or other purposes.

Best of luck.


----------



## jackswift (30 Nov 2020)

Would the car you’re driving need to be still insured by the previous owner for your insurance to cover you while driving it?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (30 Nov 2020)

SGWidow said:


> One stray thought - is it possible to get a recording of your conversation with the insurer? - as its content may be useful for evidential or other purposes.



This is an excellent idea. When you listen back you might find that they were to blame for at least some of the misunderstanding. If it doesn't support you then you wouldn't have to rely on it in court.


----------



## SparkRite (30 Nov 2020)

SGWidow said:


> For the avoidance of doubt, it seems to me that what you did make a mistake in that when you rang your insurance company, you misunderstood what was said.
> <snip>
> One stray thought - is it possible to get a recording of your conversation with the insurer? - as its content may be useful for evidential or other purposes.





NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is an excellent idea. When you listen back you might find that they were to blame for at least some of the misunderstanding. If it doesn't support you then you wouldn't have to rely on it in court.*



Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think the OP said he had any conversation with his insurer ?

BTW, I think that the path that this thread appears to be heading down is not a path that I would support.
*Looking for 'loopholes' or other excuses to try to mitigate the OP's lack of responsibility in ensuring he was legally driving is not, IMHO, something to be condoned.
Uninsured drivers are a scourge on the road and are an utter abomination.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (30 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't think the OP said he had any conversation with his insurer ?



I think it's in the first post:



seebin said:


> and misinterpreted a conversation I had with my insurance company



On your other point, the OP claimed to have had a good-faith misunderstanding with their insurer. It doesn't seem to be (on the basis of facts presented) a conscious attempt to avoid paying insurance. 

That said, we are all just anonymous pseudonyms here so who knows what the truth is.


----------



## MrEarl (30 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> ...
> Uninsured drivers are a scourge on the road and are an utter abomination.



While I agree with you, in principal - this doesn't appear to be a person with no insurance.

Those with no insurance, full stop, deserve notable jail time, but that's not even close to the situation that we appear to have here - in this instance, we have someone who has paid for insurance, holds a policy, but has changed their car and run into a problem along the way.


----------



## SparkRite (30 Nov 2020)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> I think it's in the first post:


My bad, you're absolutely right.



MrEarl said:


> Those who no insurance, full stop, deserve jail time, but that's not even close to the situation that we appear to have here - in this instance, we have someone who has paid for insurance, holds a policy, but has changed their car and run into a problem along the way.



The fact that he had insurance on another vehicle is really not relevant. By his own admission, he was not insured to drive the car he was driving at the time of being stopped. He admits to 'misinterpreting' what his insurer told him, so we can only assume he was in fact told he was not insured in his new car.
Because motor insurance is so important, it is paramount that every motorist ensures, beyond any doubt, that they are covered at all times in whatever vehicle they are driving.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It doesn't seem to be (on the basis of facts presented) a conscious attempt to avoid paying insurance.


I agree as you say 'on the facts presented' however I suspect it could well be, 'sure I'll take a chance...'. But that's an assumption.
As I said before, the Judge will have heard every excuse 'in the book'.
The outcome may well rest on how the case is presented and without doubt the Judge's humour on the day.


----------



## SparkRite (30 Nov 2020)

Pinoy adventure said:


> Ownership changes when the details are entered into the computer in shannon.
> You can write the time of sale on the log book in case of speeding fines and the likes but ownership changes only when details are entered into the computer in Shannon.



Incorrect.

*Registration* of change of ownership takes place when the data is entered.

*Change* of ownership takes place when ownership is transferred to the the new owner, by the existing owner or a person deemed to be acting on behalf of the existing owner. A declaration to this effect is made and the date is entered in the VRC and is signed by the seller and the new owner.
The process is slightly different if buying from a registered dealer but the date of ownership is not dependant on when it is registered.


----------



## SGWidow (30 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> My bad, you're absolutely right.



Well, we all can make genuine mistakes, right?


----------



## seebin (30 Nov 2020)

I thought you own the car when you buy it? As in when you become the beneficial owner? Not the date when it’s transferred or registered into your name. 

Anyways I’m going to be pleading guilty. I don’t want to muddy the waters and just admit it was a mistake, which it was. I didn’t knowingly drive the car uninsured or ‘chance my arm’. I’ll pay a price for this, I just don’t want it to be a driving ban.


----------



## SparkRite (30 Nov 2020)

SGWidow said:


> Well, we all can make genuine mistakes, right?


With somewhat differing degrees of possible consequences, I'm sure you would agree.

I find it somewhat amusing, the 'ambience' of purgation creeping in here.
I wonder would these posters display the same benevolence if say, they were driving home in their brand new car and an uninsured driver ploughs into the back of their shiny new 'pride and joy'. Absolutely destroys it and, putting possible death/injury to their family/passengers aside, then says , "I thought I had insurance but I actually don't".
I very much doubt the answer would be along the lines of "Ah that's a pity, sure you have a policy on another car. Good man, easy mistake to make".



seebin said:


> I thought you own the car when you buy it? As in when you become the beneficial owner? Not the date when it’s transferred or registered into your name.


That is EXACTLY  what I have been stating, and is fact, but it was argued.


----------



## seebin (30 Nov 2020)

SparkRite said:


> That is EXACTLY  what I have been stating, and is fact, but it was argued.


How dare they!


----------



## roker (1 Dec 2020)

is it not common sense when buying a car to phone the insurance from  the dealer and transfer the insurance before you drive it away


----------



## PaddyBloggit (1 Dec 2020)

roker said:


> is it not common sense when buying a car to phone the insurance from the dealer and transfer the insurance before you drive it away



I always ask for an email confirmation to be sent on... so that I have something in writing and also something to show a garda if I'm stopped.


----------



## peemac (31 Dec 2020)

An arguable case is there to say that the op was not the owner at the time of the stop and that the car was given on goodwill terms by the garage as the terms of sale had not yet been completed. (certificate of trade in not provided) 

Garage was not taking a risk in transferring ownership until they had the trade in registration documents. 

If the Garda issues the summons, surely they will have to check registration details? And that will show that the op did not own the car on that date.

So I'd be saying that I had the car on goodwill terms from the garage, but they would not transfer ownership to me until I had given them the registration documents of my trade in. 

Hence you were insured to drive. 


If you know what station the Garda is based in, you could try and talk to them and show this and see if they accept that you were insured.


----------



## Leo (4 Jan 2021)

peemac said:


> So I'd be saying that I had the car on goodwill terms from the garage, but they would not transfer ownership to me until I had given them the registration documents of my trade in.



As above, registration of a change in ownership and the actual change in ownership are two different events. It is not uncommon for the registration to take place days later.


----------



## Leo (4 Jan 2021)

peemac said:


> So I'd be saying that I had the car on goodwill terms from the garage, but they would not transfer ownership to me until I had given them the registration documents of my trade in.



As above, registration of a change in ownership and the actual change in pwnership are two different events.


----------



## peemac (4 Jan 2021)

Leo said:


> As above, registration of a change in ownership and the actual change in ownership are two different events. It is not uncommon for the registration to take place days later.


But if the OP had not completed the terms of the sale, then the actual change in ownership had not taken place. It's an arguable case and something a good solicitor could easily create enough doubt


----------



## PaddyBloggit (4 Jan 2021)

peemac said:


> But if the OP had not completed the terms of the sale, then the actual change in ownership had not taken place. It's an arguable case and something a good solicitor could easily create enough doubt



But, when I leave my car in for service, I get a loan of a garage car and ever before I leave the forecourt, I have to make sure that I transfer my insurance onto it. I don't own the car, the garage does.


----------



## Leo (5 Jan 2021)

peemac said:


> But if the OP had not completed the terms of the sale, then the actual change in ownership had not taken place. It's an arguable case and something a good solicitor could easily create enough doubt



I believe the beneficial ownership element comes into it then and it sounds like the OP handed over payment and in exchange was given the keys. This isn't an unusual scenario, in order to mount a defence, the OP would need their insurer to confirm they provided cover for this period.


----------



## peemac (9 Jan 2021)

PaddyBloggit said:


> But, when I leave my car in for service, I get a loan of a garage car and ever before I leave the forecourt, I have to make sure that I transfer my insurance onto it. I don't own the car, the garage does.


I've not had to do that for years. Once I tell them I have fully comp, they are happy (Reg garage, BMW dealership)


----------



## vandriver (10 Jan 2021)

peemac said:


> I've not had to do that for years. Once I tell them I have fully comp, they are happy (Reg garage, BMW dealership)


But does your insurance include fully comp while driving other cars?I know a lot of policies don't.


----------



## RedOnion (10 Jan 2021)

peemac said:


> I've not had to do that for years. Once I tell them I have fully comp, they are happy (Reg garage, BMW dealership)


That doesn't mean you're insured, and depends on the specific policy. 'Driving other cars' is not standard across the industry, and is often misunderstood. As an example, a standard Zurich policy only covers you driving another car where that car is covered by it's own insurance policy.


----------



## mathepac (10 Jan 2021)

Agreed @RedOnion, be very careful with the "driving other cars" clause if it is contained in your policy. Much to my surprise I discovered that a former insurer interpreted a loaner from a dealership while my car was in for a service as being rented to me. Their logic was that the rental on the loaner was implicitly included in the charges from the dealer and therefore I wasn't covered to drive it. Always check and always tell your insurer if there is any change from "standard".


----------

