This was a difficult case and highlighted the issues that can arise in family situations.  The police contacted our client following a road traffic accident involving client’s son and upon speaking to them, as she did not wish her son to get into trouble for taking the vehicle without consent, she told the police officer that he had asked her consent to drive the car.  Shortly afterwards she changed her mind and contacted the police to tell them the truth and confirm that he did not in fact have her consent.  Despite this, client was summoned to court for permitting her son to drive with no insurance, and her son was summonsed quite separately for driving with no insurance and driving without due care and attention.

Both matters came to Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court on the 28^th of September 2011, when client’s son pleaded guilty to the charges of driving with no insurance and driving without due care and attention, and client pleaded not guilty to the charge of permitting her son to drive the vehicle without insurance.

The matter was adjourned for a pre-trial review hearing, when the issues in this case were decided on and the matter finally came to trial on the 29^th of November 2011 at Llanelli Magistrates’ Court.

On this occasion, after lengthy negotiations with the prosecution, bearing in mind the relatively weak evidence of the police officer, we persuaded the Crown to offer no evidence in terms of the charge of permitting no insurance (and a lesser alternative charge of obstruction was laid and our client pleaded to this).  This was a very good result for client, as it avoided any penalty points on her licence and thus avoided increased insurance premiums. She  also avoided the significant fine that would come with being found guilty for permitting driving with no insurance.  Furthermore, there was the potential issue had she been  found guilty, of a subsequent personal injury claim against her in respect of the road traffic accident.

This case highlights the difficult issues that can arise in family situations such as this and the importance of a skilled and experienced solicitor to put forward arguments and submissions on your behalf.

He had taken out an online insurance policy for his vehicle with Budget insurance.

When he was stopped by the police on the 8^th of February 2011, he explained to the police that he had full insurance and was asked to provide his documents within seven days.  The following day he contacted his insurance company and they said there had been a problem with setting up the direct debit payments and that the bank had stopped the direct debit.  Due to problems at client’s address he had not received the post and therefore he was technically driving with no insurance.  He explained the position over the phone to Budget insurance and they agreed to reinstate his direct debit payments and he made a one-off payment to them to cover the last period.  However, they stated that he was not insured for the incident on the 8^th of February.

Client was stopped again by the police on the 29^th of March and was asked to produce his documents.  He again explained to the police that he was insured and it had cost him a lot to reinsure last time.  He contacted his insurance company on the spot who explained that they had received a direct debit from him this time but by the time they’d come to process it the deadline for setting up the policy had expired and therefore the policy again had been suspended.  He again paid a significant sum of money over the phone to reinstate the policy but the insurance company would not cover him for the 29^th of March.  Again, due to him not receiving post at his address client had not received the letter sent out by the insurance company informing him that the policy had been suspended (letter dated the 7^th of March 2011).

We attended with client at Carmarthen Magistrates’ Court on the 14^th of September 2011, when he pleaded guilty to both charges of driving with no insurance and the matter was adjourned for a special reasons argument and listed at Aberystwyth Magistrates’ Court on the 18^th of November 2011.

In this case, client was potentially facing the imposition of twelve penalty points for two instances of driving without insurance and therefore was liable to lose his licence under the totting-up procedure.

This matter was of upmost importance to client, as he lived in a rural and remote area and required his vehicle for work purposes and without it would inevitably lose his job and this would have significant financial consequences for him.

At court on the 18^th of November 2011, we successfully argued special reasons in terms of the second instance of driving without insurance, as client had specifically contacted the insurance company and made the payment on the 8^th of February and there was documentary evidence from his bank confirming this.  Furthermore, client gave evidence on oath confirming that he had not received any of the correspondence from the insurance company, and following retiring to consider the position the magistrates found special reasons and only six penalty points were imposed on client’s licence for the first instance on the 8^th of February as it was accepted that client was under a duty to check his bank accounts between November and February and if he had done so he would have been aware that the direct debit monies had not been taken out.

This was an excellent result for client, as it ensured the retention of his licence, which was of upmost importance to him.

On applying online for insurance he had completed the question regarding his business/employment as “motor trader”. He did not add a subsidiary that he occasionally did flood assessment work.

On the day in question he was travelling in his works vehicle in relation to his motor trader work, to look at some alloy wheels which he had seen advertised, and en route he made a detour to check on a water loss job. It was during that detour that he was stopped by police who checked with his insurance company and the wording of the policy did not specifically cover him for flood damage work. The police initially did not seem particularly interested, but he subsequently received a postal summons to court and was liable to be disqualified under the totting up procedure if he received the usual 6 – 8 points for no insurance  .

Soon after being stopped our client arranged insurance with another company which covered all his business use of the vehicle at little or no extra cost.

When the case came to court we argued that there were special reasons why he should not be disqualified, namely that on that particular journey he was primarily travelling in connection with his motor trader work,and use for flood damage work was secondary. The court accepted this and did not endorse his licence.

The driver of the Hyundai notified the police of the accident and immediately drove around the area looking for the car which had caused the collisi0n. She identified a vehicle which she thought was the vehicle in question and she identified the registration number as being like the number she partially remembered from the collision.She told the police of the car she had identified.

The police subsequently contacted our client who was the owner of the Suzuki and he made a statement to the police. Notwithstanding the fact that he explained to the police that he had an alibi in that he had been with his friend at the relevant time playing chess, and that there were three other persons as well as his friend who could verify this, he was charged with a number of offences. He was taken to court for driving without due care. failing to stop and failing to report an accident and  he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution seemed set on continuing the case against him and the case was adjourned for a management hearing. However at the adjourned hearing the prosecution discontinued the case and our client’s costs were paid from Central funds.

The prosecution evidence was that on the day  in question he had undertaken an unmarked police car at about 103 mph.  The unmarked police car had followed him a few miles at a speed of 90 mph. He was then stopped and questioned by the officer, and reported for driving without due care, and speeding.

When the case came before the Magistrates we submittted on his behalf that he was working as an agricultural contractor, he was of exemplary character, and that the loss of his licence would mean the loss of his job. Excellent references were provided to the court.

The Magistrates decided ,instead of disqualifying him, they would fine the client for each offence, and they endorsed his licence with five penalty points.

There was no challenge from the defence to the prosecution statements but, at the end of the prosecution case, the defence submitted:-

a)  that the summons didn’t make sense, in that it alleged that the offence was committed by “a motor vehicle, namely a trailer, drawn by a motor vehicle, namely a Scania Artic ”

It was submitted that the summons was duplicitous. We relied on the case of NFC Fording Ltd – v- DPP,  whose ratio decidendi was that separate offences were created under reg 100(1) of the Construction and Use Regs 1986. By analogy we submitted that the same principle should be applied to Sec 40 A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

b)  We also relied upon Article 6 (3) of the European Convention of Human Rights which states that everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language they understand, and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.

c)  It was submitted by the defence that there was no evidence that the unit or the trailer were unsuitable for the use for which they were being put by virtue of their design, construction or state of repair as the officer in the case had said that he could see no visible defects on the trailer hitch, receptor or any other part  of the Scania or trailer.

The court accepted the defence submissions, and dismissed the case, and granted the defendant his legal costs

He had passed his full driving licence and had applied to the DVLA on 8th July 2010 for a HGV licence. On handing in the documents he had been told that he could drive with L plates and an authorised driver with him.

The circumstances were that he had been driving a lorry between Newcastle Emlyn and Carmarthen with his mother who was a full licence holder for the vehicle, when they were stopped by police. The police officer made enquiries and the DVLA told him that the application for HGV had been received on 16th July but not yet granted. He subsequently received a court summons and instructed us to represent him.

Further enquiries with the DVLA revealed that his new licence with provisional entitlement to drive a lorry was not sent to our client until 21st August 2010.

When the case came to court in October 2010 we held negotiations with the prosecutor, and also contacted the insurance company, who confirmed that our client was covered to drive the vehicle on a third party basis. In those circumstances we advised our client to plead guilty to the single charge of driving not in accordance with a licence. The prosecution withdrew the charge of no insurance and the magistrates imposed a small fine and three penalty points.

This was a very important case for our client who, as a young driver, would have faced losing his licence if he had been found guilty of no insurance. This would have had a devastating effect on him as he was a nationally recognised horseman and travelled all over the country to show horses.

This particular case illustrates some of the complexity of the insurance and provisional licence regulations for HGVs and young drivers, and points to the importance of instructing a solicitor experienced in this field.

He explained that he had been stopped on 12th June 2010 whilst driving his mother’s car. The police made enquiries with the DVLA for the vehicle and found that he was not covered under his mother’s insurance. He explained to the police that his own insurance policy covered him to drive another person’s insured vehicle with their consent, but that he didn’t have his policy documents with him. The police made no enquiries as they could have done using details of his own vehicle, but seized his mother’s car and gave him a slip to produce his insurance documents at the police station within seven days, which he did.

Astonishingly a decision was subsequently made to prosecute him for no insurance!  He duly received a postal summons and contacted us to represent him at court.

At the first court hearing the case was adjourned for him to prove that he had had his mother’s consent to drive her car. He was also required to show that his certificate of insurance had been valid on the date he had been stopped by the police, even though the certificate was valid for a year from 12th May 2010!

It wasn’t until the second court hearing that matters resolved in his favour when the prosecution offered no evidence. The case was dismissed and  the court ordered that the defendant’s costs should be paid from central funds.

We are now in the process of recovering the £150 which our client had paid to release his mother’s car from the pound where it had been held following its seizure by the police.

If you should find yourself in a similarly unfortunate position as this client, don’t give up – get good legal advice and assistance at court.

He gave evidence on oath that if disqualified he would suffer exceptional hardship. He explained to the magistrates that because his licence was essential for his work,  he would be likely to be dismissed  if  he lost his his licence, and he produced a letter from his employer to that effect.

He further gave evidence that he lived with his elderly parents who were in poor health and  he  needed to be available to drive them to appointments in hospital in Swansea, and no-one else was available to do this.

The magistrates decided, after hearing his evidence, that he would suffer exceptional hardship if he were to be disqualified and so they imposed three points, fined him £100 plus a victim surcharge and prosecution costs.

The circumstances were that our client  was insured to drive his own tractor, and he used his own tractor to do some work on a friend’s farm to help him out. On one occasion however, the friend offered him the use of a larger tractor which was more suitable for carrying some goods down the road. Both parties believed he was covered by the farm insurance, but unfortunately this belief was incorrect.

This was a young driver of 17 years old and he had recently enrolled on a college course in agricultural engineering, and to lose his licence would have meant he could not drive the machinery that he was training on at  college.

When the case came to court we made detailed representations on his behalf to the prosecutor who decided to offer no evidence and withdrew the summons for no insurance, much to the client’s relief and delight.