Court summons no insurance

square ball

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

It's a legal document, but it's not proof of ownership

That's exactly what it is. The person whose name is on the logbook is the legal owner of the vehicle according to the Department of Transport.

If I buy a car off you today and tell you to wait until the start of next month to submit the change of ownership (to avoid paying motor tax for this month for example) and I get parking tickets or get caught speeding by a go safe van etc. who do you think is liable in the eyes of the law?

For all the world OP could have had an agreement with the car owner to test drive the car for a week but pay them a 'deposit' to see if they were happy with it and could have gone back to the owner to return their money if the car didn't suit them.

Lenar3556

square ball wrote: »

That's exactly what it is. The person whose name is on the logbook is the legal owner of the vehicle according to the Department of Transport.

If I buy a car off you today and tell you to wait until the start of next month to submit the change of ownership (to avoid paying motor tax for this month for example) and I get parking tickets or get caught speeding by a go safe van etc. who do you think is liable in the eyes of the law?

For all the world OP could have had an agreement with the car owner to test drive the car for a week but pay them a 'deposit' to see if they were happy with it and could have gone back to the owner to return their money if the car didn't suit them.

Not really.

It’s the responsibility of the seller to submit the change of ownership documentation, when a vehicle is sold.

In relation to the parking tickets query, the new owner would be responsible, despite the fact that they may initially to sent to the previous owner.

Extended Test Drive? - Not very plausible, particularly in the case of car imported from outside the state. And the OP has already made admissions at the roadside. Such a defence would very quickly be seen through as bogus. I wouldn’t advise running it.

coylemj

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I wouldn’t however undervalue the significance of a customer service agent of the insurer confirming that the policy did in fact cover him to drive the car. Employees of a business (or insurer) can indeed bind their employer to terms which falls outside the usual policy of a business. If the telephone call confirms that this confirmation was in fact unequivocally extended to the OP by the insurers call centre, it is evidence of some significance.

It’s not binding on the employer if it can be retracted, in which case it carries no weight whatsoever. As happened in the FBD case concerning cover (or lack of) for pandemic....

Paul Shanahan, who is a Business Development Executive with FBD, accepted that he told Noel Anderson – the managing director of The Lemon and Duke bar-restaurant – in early March that FBD’s policy covered business disruption losses caused by Covid-19.

Anderson, whose partners in the bar-restaurant include Irish rugby players Sean O’Brien, brothers Dave and Rob Kearney, and Jamie Heaslip, told the High Court yesterday that he switched to FBD because he had heard its policies covered coronavirus.

.....

Shanahan accepted that he informed Anderson in an email in early March that its policy covered losses that may arise due to Covid-19 in the event of a forced closure.

https://www.thejournal.ie/fbd-employee-bar-covid-insurance-5233572-Oct2020/

His statement was refuted by FBD. Had they been bound by it (as you claim they should have been), they would have been forced to pay the claim. Even though the plaintiffs (the publicans) had it in an email, FBD was able to assert that it did not form part of the terms and conditions of the policy.

square ball

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Not really.

It’s the responsibility of the seller to submit the change of ownership documentation, when a vehicle is sold.

In relation to the parking tickets query, the new owner would be responsible, despite the fact that they may initially to sent to the previous owner.

Extended Test Drive? - Not very plausible, particularly in the case of car imported from outside the state. And the OP has already made admissions at the roadside. Such a defence would very quickly be seen through as bogus. I wouldn’t advise running it.

I have bought cars in the past close to the end of a month and the seller has agreed to hold out transferring the car for a couple of days until the start of a new month.

Might be a stretch but does happen especially with people that know each other and occasionally with dealers. My uncle was a mechanic and used to often be given cars from the dealer he dealt with for weeks before handing over a penny.

A decent solicitor should be able to present this as a flimsy enough case against the OP if the car was only registered in their name after the OP was stopped at the checkpoint. Very hard for the judge to convict if all the paperwork states that someone else was registered as the owner at the time of the 'offence'

Eggs For Dinner

If you have legal capacity to buy a car and pay over the agreed price, you own the car. The rest is just ifs, buts and maybes. That's the legalities of it

Lenar3556

coylemj wrote: »

It’s not binding on the employer if it can be retracted, in which case it carries no weight whatsoever. As happened in the FBD case concerning cover (or lack of) for pandemic....



https://www.thejournal.ie/fbd-employee-bar-covid-insurance-5233572-Oct2020/

His statement was refuted by FBD. Had they been bound by it (as you claim they should have been), they would have been forced to pay the claim. Even though the plaintiffs (the publicans) had it in an email, FBD was able to assert that it did not form part of the terms and conditions of the policy.

There are several variations, and much higher stakes in that case, hence weeks of hearings.

I wasn’t aware there was any adjudication by the high court on the evidence presented? Has there been a judgement?

Lenar3556

square ball wrote: »

I have bought cars in the past close to the end of a month and the seller has agreed to hold out transferring the car for a couple of days until the start of a new month.

Might be a stretch but does happen especially with people that know each other and occasionally with dealers. My uncle was a mechanic and used to often be given cars from the dealer he dealt with for weeks before handing over a penny.

A decent solicitor should be able to present this as a flimsy enough case against the OP if the car was only registered in their name after the OP was stopped at the checkpoint. Very hard for the judge to convict if all the paperwork states that someone else was registered as the owner at the time of the 'offence'

Based on what he has told us, I wouldn’t see it as flimsy at all. It will be very difficult at this stage to cast sufficient doubt at to the ownership of the car. A dealer would be somewhat different.

Del2005

square ball wrote: »

I have bought cars in the past close to the end of a month and the seller has agreed to hold out transferring the car for a couple of days until the start of a new month.

Might be a stretch but does happen especially with people that know each other and occasionally with dealers. My uncle was a mechanic and used to often be given cars from the dealer he dealt with for weeks before handing over a penny.

A decent solicitor should be able to present this as a flimsy enough case against the OP if the car was only registered in their name after the OP was stopped at the checkpoint. Very hard for the judge to convict if all the paperwork states that someone else was registered as the owner at the time of the 'offence'

The OP admitted to the Garda that they owned it and showed them the booking for the VRT inspection.

You are committing insurance fraud, which has serious consequences if found out, to avoid a few Euro of motor tax!

square ball

Del2005 wrote: »

The OP admitted to the Garda that they owned it and showed them the booking for the VRT inspection.

You are committing insurance fraud, which has serious consequences if found out, to avoid a few Euro of motor tax!

How do you figure I'm committing insurance fraud?

square ball

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

If you have legal capacity to buy a car and pay over the agreed price, you own the car. The rest is just ifs, buts and maybes. That's the legalities of it

But in the eyes of the law it will only show the car as being owned from the date on the logbook.

whomitconcerns

square ball wrote: »

But in the eyes of the law it will only show the car as being owned from the date on the logbook.

The relevant term is beneficial ownership. This is what the op had. That's what matters for insurance benefit.

If what your saying was true, if the op wrote the car off, they could just walk away and it's the sellers problem. Which would clearly be nonsense

square ball

whomitconcerns wrote: »

The relevant term is beneficial ownership. This is what the op had. That's what matters for insurance benefit.

If what your saying was true, if the op wrote the car off, they could just walk away and it's the sellers problem. Which would clearly be nonsense

Insurance and ownership are two different things. The OP would have only had third party extension if they were covered so there would be no coverage for the value of the vehicle if they walled it.

whomitconcerns

square ball wrote: »

Insurance and ownership are two different things. The OP would have only had third party extension if they were covered so there would be no coverage for the value of the vehicle if they walled it.

The key phrase is beneficial ownership. To take what you said. Forget the insurance for the moment, Who would have to pay for it if they walled it? Not the seller. The op couldn't walk away, they would be the ones losing out, not the seller.

The interest in not "walling" it is theirs

Del2005

square ball wrote: »

How do you figure I'm committing insurance fraud?

Because you are trying to claim that the vehicle you just bought isn't yours.

If anything happens do you think the seller is going to say that its their car and the potential affect on their insurance or say that they sold it to you with no potential to affect their insurance.

FishOnABike

sidcon wrote: »

No technicality, the car is insured for theft, fire and damage. That's what 3rd party insurance is. Insurance done the job. Its not insured to drive on the road as it did not meet the legal rules of the road requirements. That would have been the drivers responsibility.
OP has said that they have verbal acknowledgement from insurance company, however unless they can back it up then I'm afraid they will have to face facts of no insurance to drive the car at that time.

Remember the advice given when dealing with practically any call centre that calls may be recorded for training purposes? It might be worth OPs while checking their phone for the time and date of the calls where they were advised they were insured and consider making a request for a copy or transcript of those calls, through a solicitor if necessary.

The penalty, on conviction, of driving without insurance can include a driving ban. There is also the matter of the effect a conviction would have on the cost and ability to get insurance in future.

I wouldn't be inclined to represent myself in a case that could have important consequences and could rely on legal technicalities of road traffic and contract law.

whomitconcerns

FishOnABike wrote: »

.....I wouldn't be inclined to represent myself in a case that could have important consequences and could rely on legal technicalities of road traffic and contract law.

contract law wont help in a strict liability case. It would only help with potential civil recourse against the insurance company. For purposes of what the OP is facing, its irrelevant.

Lenar3556

whomitconcerns wrote: »

contract law wont help in a strict liability case. It would only help with potential civil recourse against the insurance company. For purposes of what the OP is facing, its irrelevant.

I’m not sure I would agree. The two matters are inextricably linked. He needs to raise a reasonable doubt to a charge that he had no insurance. If there is a recorded telephone call with the insurer confirming that he was insured, particularly a call occurring before the alleged offence, I would be hoping for a strike out.

whomitconcerns

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I’m not sure I would agree. The two matters are inextricably linked. He needs to raise a reasonable doubt to a charge that he had no insurance. If there is a recorded telephone call with the insurer confirming that he was insured, particularly a call occurring before the alleged offence, I would be hoping for a strike out.

It’a a fair counterpoint, and I would say I can’t definitively argue it.. I’m sticking with my post but would be interesting if we have a more specialist poster who could comment.

My own legal studies were years ago and not in this area

Del2005

Lenar3556 wrote: »

I’m not sure I would agree. The two matters are inextricably linked. He needs to raise a reasonable doubt to a charge that he had no insurance. If there is a recorded telephone call with the insurer confirming that he was insured, particularly a call occurring before the alleged offence, I would be hoping for a strike out.

IIRC Motoring isn't a right it's a privilege so there's no reasonable doubt.

Ignorance of the law is no defence and their policy documents, which came with the insurance cert, clearly state that the 3rd party driving of other cars doesn't apply to a car that they own. The only thing a recording might do is reduce the fine the points will most likely be applied.