A colleague of mine had his company motorcycle seized by the police yesterday, got a £200 fine and 6 points on his licence.

He was on his way to the shops when the police pulled him over for not indicating whilst changing lanes. At the same time they asked if the bike was used for business purposes, to which he answered 'yes'. At that time, the police said his bike was only insured for social, domestic and pleasure + commuting to and from work and seized his bike. Now since it's a company bike, you'd think that it's insured for company use, so we are looking into this with the insurance company.

My point is, when he was pulled over, he was on his way to the shops(and we can prove it), so even if the bike was not insured for business use, he was still fully entitle to ride it. Just because he might have used it for business purposes in the past doesn't mean he wasn't insured for it then. How can the police prove it??

I find it astonishing that they seized his bike, gave him a big fine and 6 points on his licence when he was not in the wrong at the time!

I've asked Stan for some input but he's not replied yet so I hope someone else might shed some light.

So is the bike actually owned by his company? If so, what's his position in the company?

I ask because one of the few statutory defences for no insurance is if you're using a company vehicle and have no reason to suspect that it may not be insured.

I assume he's already accepted a fixed-penalty notice - that was a mistake.

sounds harsh..

if he was using at the time for social/domestic at teh time of pulling him over then they really cant do any thing to him?

end of the day, with out proof of him using the bike to go to & from work they cant do anything.

no proof - no point?

or am i wrong there?

it seems to me that the police man is on a power trip.

I may be wrong, i dont know the compelte law..

im sure stan will come along and correct me..

buit it sounds harsh and wrong.

Yes, the bike is owned by the company, and is insured in his name. He was under the impression that it was insured for company use and told the policeman this.

The policeman did not ask him whether he was on his way to a job when he was pulled over, but only if he used the bike for company purposes. Also, the policeman shouted and swore at him, who he will report.

And yes, he did accept the penalty notice as he didn't know his rights. He was quite shaken by the whole thing as this has never happened before.

Copper was obviously a bit down on his targets this month.

He may have took the slip, but he didn't pay it I presume??

Ross

Motto of the story: Use your indicators!

Has he been done for no insurance? Because he has insurance. What the charge should be is using the vehicle outside the limitations of the insurance.

Your mate needs some proper legal advice.

He hasn't paid the fine yet. And on the seizure proforma it states his bike was seized for having 'no insurance', which I agree is nonsense.

From a quick Google it looks like he can still contest the FPN, and has 28 days to do so.

If he does so the case will go to court, and he has a statutory defence under section 143 of the RTA:



Of course, I AM NOT A LAWYER, so he may wish to talk to one before proceeding down this course.

I have advised via PM

Good luck

How good or bad is my advice, Stan?

Good.

The sad thing is, a road traffic lawyer will probably get him off, but they cost between £400-£1000, which at the end of the day makes it cheaper to just pay the fine.

Luckily work will have to fork out for this so we'll see what happens.

I wonder what happens if the insurance company made a mistake and he was properly insured all along?

I would be more worried about the 6 points, thats going to cost more than 400 - 1000 in insurance premiums over the next 5 years!

While he might need a chat with a lawyer, he shouldn't really need one in court - especially if the insurance company did make a mistake.

Explaining the situation and pointing to the relevant bit of the RTA should do the job.

In fact, in the circumstances, I wonder if the CPS would ever even take it to court.

PS As Mario says, the 6 points are a bugger. He'll have to disclose them for the next 5 years, and insurance companies really hate insurance dodgers (which is what he'll be admitting to).

Yeah the 6 points arent an issue now, but if he takes the rap for these, then loses a fight on another set later - bye bye license.

Ross

Has he double checked with the insurance company that it DEFINATELY isn't covered for business use? The police check could have been wrong/out of date.

I don't know where he stands with the points on his license, as surely he will send his license off to the DVLA before any CPS decision. So likely his license will have points against it even if he's found not guilty. WOuld they then remove the points?

You don't send your license off until you have accepted the NIP or went to court.

He won't have points to remove.

Ross

As long as your friend was driving a company vehicle in the course of his employment, he is not guilty of any offence and will not be convicted - whether or not there was any valid insurance for the vehicle - in terms of S.143(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

This doesn't make sense to me, because if you're right, it means no one would have insurance on any company vehicle.

What it does say is this.

There is also a statutory defence for persons using vehicles in the course of their employment. There are three conditions that require to be established for a successful defence under Section 143(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:
(a) That the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of loan or hiring

(b) That he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment;

(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.

These three points sum it up exactly, where all three apply to my colleague.

Er, except that you start by saying he was *not* using it in the course of his employment, but privately. And in that context, there is no need to have commercial use; just normal SDP cover.

If that's a reply to my post immediately before, I wonder if you realise that you have repeated exactly what I said that you apparently did not understand?

S.143(3) means that even if there was no insurance at all for the vehicle , the employee of a company who had no reason to believe that the company vehicle he was driving was uninsured is not guilty of any offence.

Tell your mate no to bother making a compliant against the police because it will go nowhere and is a waste of time . I made a compliant against the met police a couple of days after Ian Tomlinson was killed at the g8 2010 . I was heading home at 9pm and had been out on my motorbike all day in the wet . I came to the traffic lights at london wall ec2 and because i was wet to the core i decided to put my foot on the pavement on my right hand side . It meant i had to cross the line at the lights by about 5 inches . Anyway cop pulls up beside me and rolls down his window and starts shouting at me . He was turning left at the time . I said sorry and went to push my bike back and hes now shouting at the top of his voice at me saying its too late now . The arrogants and un professionalism was astounding and no need for it . I never said a word because he would have jumped out and the situation would have gotten worse . I got the serial number the make of the vehicle and a description of the cop . I made the compliant over the phone to the police and a few weeks later they sent me a nice letter telling me they could not find the officer with the description i had given .Even though they have cctv cameras everywhere .Dont get me wrong i am not anti police

The company itself would be guilty of an offence in that case. The director or partners are responsible for its behaviour.

Have I mentioned that the insurance was taken out in his own name?

Has he been told how much it will cost him too get the bike back from the police compound? Plus there will be daily storage charges.

He picked it up tonight. Cost £170 to release. The joke is, no change was made to his insurance, but he went and picked it up and rode it home.

am i missing something? If it was a company bike,why wasnt it insured by the company? its like me driving for a living,i have to be insured on their policy to drive works vans. OR is he a delivery boy? to which he would need business insurance..incase anythin like this happens.

What does this mean? Is it:

a. The company sort out all of the insurance, and he is the named rider of the bike, or

b. He's named as the policy holder, but the company foot the bill, with all of the documents going to him?

If (b) then that's more problematic, because he then fails condition (c) of section 143, which requires that he had no reason to suspect that insurance wasn't in force.

There's a world of difference between his boss saying, "I've sorted out your insurance for you" and saying, "Sort out your insurance, and here's the company credit card to pay it off". In the latter case it would be entirely up to him to ensure that he had adequate cover.