Driving with no Licence , Court Duty Solicitor

[beverley69]

My son is 22 has fully comp insurance and thought he was entitled to drive his dads car he was stopped and is being done for having no insurance. (tiny writing found in policy says he is not covered to drive other cars being under25 ). He has to go to court will he be entitled to hav duty solicitor and will he hav to pay for his services or are duty solicitors free ? Thanks

[Loosehead]

Largely irrelevant because there is no defence. Duty solicitors are generally for arrest/interview situattions not for representing defendants free. He will probably not get legal aid in this case so if he wants a solicitor he'll have to pay but there's no point he can't get him off.

Stand by for the standard "No insurance" rants!

[beverley69]

Cheers I am expecting the No insurance rants ..lol except he did have insurance fully comp as well which he and others i hav spoke to thought he would be covered this is one of the reasons why he took out fully comp. I think he is going to plead guilty he ca'nt do any other just thought it was worth enquiring

[Loosehead]

There is often a general assumption that fully comp somehow gives rights that are not stated on the policy. Not true. If it doesn't say it you can't do it. If it sepcifically excludes it, similarly you can't do it, hence the under 25 bit in the policy.

[Annlinda]

If your son attends court and explains to the Magistrates that he genuinely believed that he was insured to drive his fathers car and shows them his insurance they may take the view that he didn't deliberately break the law and treat him accordingly.

[flip_flop]

Annlinda - no they won't: driving without insurance is a strict liability offence so he will be found guilty. The magistrates have no choice but to find him guilty.

[NORMANTHEDOG]

6 pts and a heavy fine,plus costs. people should always check their policies,it happens quite a lot nowadays,but a lot of insurers dont always allow you to drive other cars.

[New Judge]

As flip-plop and others suggest, your son should plead guilty. The onus is upon him to be absolutely certain he is insured before driving.

Your son will not have access to the duty solicitor. Defendants can only see them if they are otherwise unrepresented and are charged with an offence which is imprisonable. For similar reasons legal aid will not be available.

However, as has been said, there is no need. He should plead guilty, and explain the circumstances to mitigate the offence. This is unlikely to cut much ice, however, and he can expect a fine of around �200, plus a contribution towards prosecution costs of around �40, plus a �15 �Victim Surcharge�, and six penalty points. Hopefully he has held a full licence for more than two years. If not his licence will be revoked, he will revert to provisional status and will have to take his test again.

[Vesper99]

Both the above are right.
He needs to plead guilty and then present the facts as described. Magistrates can take a view on the penalty in the light of the misunderstanding. However he will still get 6 points.
You can use the duty solicitor free if you wish but this will not mean an acquittal.

[beverley69]

10 Clarion St
The police didnt even point out to my son on his policy that he wasnt covered even though they said he wasnt it was I that found it I mean normaly when you take out fully comp you assume it entitles you to drive other cars

I want to thank every one for thier replies watch this space n i will post on 30th this month what has happened to him

[Lindylou]

I have always believed (but correct me if I'm wrong - which I'm sure you will....) that if you have a comprehensive policy on one car that you are insured third party on any other car you drive. When was this ruling changed? And why were we not informed??

[beverley69]

Have checked with a legal firm and apparently most insurers have taken out the clause about being able to drive other cars but not told the insured or hav put it in small print which most people dont read

[Slooow_Jo]

I'm not a driver but I'd like to think that although they have to state him as guilty that they will be fair n realise it wasn't a known crime :(

just strengthens the fact...ALWAYS READ THE SMALL PRINT!!

[beverley69]

Slooow_jo I agree always read the small print but how many people actualy do I hav had some very positive and negitive answers and my son is gratefull for all of them but he knows in his heart at end of day even though he didnt think he was doing wrong he knows he will get banned the leagel.justice system sucks

[beverley69]

Just to let everyone who gave me advice both objective and negative son was in court this morning got 6 points �170 fine and no ban . He already had 10 points on his licence but some of them were spent so they come off It was a genuine mistake as I think the magistrates must of realised this is perhaps why they didnt ban him Thanks again folks