Insurance problem with police and small number plate issue

[Romans]

Hi there everyone.

I was stopped by police in London.I've got smaller number plate.Basically that's not a big issue(not very important for now).

But was is important,is that He said I don't have an insurance,even it was showing on his tablet that I have...

Basically he decide that that I was going from work to home but My insurance stated "SDP only"...

Any advice on that,please?

P.S.Also,they stopped Me because on small number plate...But how they can see it from the front???

So I ask that question...He replied that "an officer from down the road told him about my number plate"...

it is all recorded on camera,our conversation I mean...

Question is ...Is it legal for police to put someone "in the bushes" and then report future to the road about something?

Any advice on this also,please?

Thank You

Best regards

[Tiggie]

The onus will be on you to prove you weren't using the bike to travel from work. CCTV at work to show you weren't there on the bike perhaps? Or your phone location at the time.

 

As for police forwarding information on to each other I can't see anything wrong with that at all and would assume that is how they have to work. 

 

 

[Romans]

4 minutes ago, Tiggie said:

The onus will be on you to prove you weren't using the bike to travel from work. CCTV at work to show you weren't their on the bike perhaps? Or your phone location at the time.

 

As for police forwarding information on to each other I can't see anything wrong with that at all and would assume that is how they have to work. 

 

 

Well...As far what I can see on the letter from police...

"bla-bla-bla...without third party insurance Contrary to section 143 of road traffic act bla-bla-bla..."

My insurance is Comprehensive...I'm totally lost here

[Tiggie]

Do you have commuting on your insurance?  If not you are not classed as uninsured if travelling to and from work. 

 

This is a screenshot from my own policy which shows the conditions I am and am not insured for

 

 

 

Plenty of people don't put commuting down as it lowers the premium. 

[Gerontious]

1 hour ago, Tiggie said:

Plenty of people don't put commuting down as it lowers the premium. 

 

 

And normally the police will not care.

 

Until, that is, they stop you for something more obvious and then start digging. or if they have the experience, examine the bike more closely looking for other examples of naughtiness.

 

[KiwiBob]

Why ride a bike with an illegal numberplate? .. It's just asking for trouble!

 

"If your motorcycle’s number plate does not comply with UK laws, you could face a fine of up to £1,000. Additionally, if you take your motorbike in for an MOT, you will not pass".

[Bender]

Some are more clued up on insurance than others, commuting needs to be listed and it needs to be to and from a single place of work. 

 

Multiple places of work means business insurance. 

 

Fully comp is irrelevant as you are not covered for commuting. You could have had 3rd party with sdp and commuting. 

 

The commuting bit is important from an insurance point of view as it means your on the road at busy times regularly, that makes you a bigger risk and hence costs more. 

[Fish]

As @Bender says, commuting is classed as a single place of work, even if the different locations are the same company you would require business cover. I have to have this due to the various offices I attend.

[Guest]

You've given them an excuse to pull you over. It was a gamble so you could look good, now it's time to put your big boy pants on and take your lumps.

[Pie man]

It's pretty simple really and no doubt many have ridden to work on their bike in nice weather that only have SDP cover. If you're using the bike to commute, then chose to insure SDP & Commute. 

I like @Fish have SDP & Business Use, more than one office and travel to other places during work. The difference in cost was approx £50 

 

Coppers radioing ahead is nothing new, usually a traffic rat sat somewhere under a bridge looking out for simple stops like smaller number plates and then passing on the info to his colleague.  

 

[Fozzie]

Did you tell the officer you were heading back from, or to work? If so, the onus of proof is on you to prove you either have the correct insurance, or were there on non-business terms (visiting a work friend etc). 

 

If none of this was mentioned, and he's just derived it from spotting a uniform under your bike gear or something like that, the onus of proof is on the police officer. As otherwise, they could say you were speeding without the speed gun etc. 

 

The police in London are... Different... To the rest of the UK. I'm assuming they see a lot more bad behaviour on bikes. So I maybe biased in this case, as I've had about 4 bikes given an extensive inspection roadside, that would make the AA blush.

On a 125, I was accused of being a learner. I showed my license and he said it "could be your brothers". I showed my work ID, confirming my details, and he set about checking my tyres, chain slack, and what made this so irritating every time it happened (on about 3 subsequent bikes), was the amount of cars with chopped exhausts, illegal tints, rust covered by duct tape that drove by.

 

[Bender]

1 hour ago, Fozzie said:

Did you tell the officer you were heading back from, or to work? If so, the onus of proof is on you to prove you either have the correct insurance, or were there on non-business terms (visiting a work friend etc). 

 

If none of this was mentioned, and he's just derived it from spotting a uniform under your bike gear or something like that, the onus of proof is on the police officer. As otherwise, they could say you were speeding without the speed gun etc. 

 

The police in London are... Different... To the rest of the UK. I'm assuming they see a lot more bad behaviour on bikes. So I maybe biased in this case, as I've had about 4 bikes given an extensive inspection roadside, that would make the AA blush.

On a 125, I was accused of being a learner. I showed my license and he said it "could be your brothers". I showed my work ID, confirming my details, and he set about checking my tyres, chain slack, and what made this so irritating every time it happened (on about 3 subsequent bikes), was the amount of cars with chopped exhausts, illegal tints, rust covered by duct tape that drove by.

 

Yes visiting a friend at work is great, until they check with work, perverting the course of justice is much much worse than the original offence, as most streets have multiple cctv and anpr it wouldn't take a lot of effort to see if someone was visiting work friends on a regular basis like say being at work with them  

[Fozzie]

5 hours ago, Bender said:

Yes visiting a friend at work is great, until they check with work, perverting the course of justice is much much worse than the original offence, as most streets have multiple cctv and anpr it wouldn't take a lot of effort to see if someone was visiting work friends on a regular basis like say being at work with them  

 

I'm assuming OP won't be silly enough to try and lie if this is a fair cop! I'm trying to work out what was said to the police officer to make them say they didn't have the right insurance. As I had a couple of weird encounters in London where it felt like they were trying to find a way to get me for something, so wondered if it was the same thing. 

 

The most irritating, was an officer saying he pulled me as he thought my exhaust looked like a race only type, it was marked for road use, so no problems. He then measured my chain slack and lectured me on how I don't take care of my bike, and I interrupted him to point at the sticker on the swingarm showing my suggested slack, and that I was in the limit, and that earned me a 10 minute lecture on why he was actually right, and Honda was wrong. 

 

[MikeHorton]

17 minutes ago, Fozzie said:

 

I'm assuming OP won't be silly enough to try and lie if this is a fair cop! I'm trying to work out what was said to the police officer to make them say they didn't have the right insurance. As I had a couple of weird encounters in London where it felt like they were trying to find a way to get me for something, so wondered if it was the same thing. 

 

The most irritating, was an officer saying he pulled me as he thought my exhaust looked like a race only type, it was marked for road use, so no problems. He then measured my chain slack and lectured me on how I don't take care of my bike, and I interrupted him to point at the sticker on the swingarm showing my suggested slack, and that I was in the limit, and that earned me a 10 minute lecture on why he was actually right, and Honda was wrong. 

 

I bet ur windscreen wipers were knackered too! 

[Davidtav]

I would check your insurance situation with your insurance company. Don’t just take the officers word. … I thought some SDP policies include commuting by default?  I may be years out of date

[Capt Sisko]

It's a well know fact in police circles that if you stop a vehicle for something minor, something that the driver thinks falls into the, 'it doesn't matter' category, there's a fair chance there are other things the driver thinks it doesn't matter and they subsequently find no tax, MOT, bald tyres or whatever. Just watch any of those police fly on the wall series. In this case the 'it doesn't matter' was a small numberplate and as far as the Police are concerned their stop was as good call as they believe they've caught another uninsured motorist. Now ignoring all of that as it's irrelevant as to the why you were stopped, the important question here is were you commuting or not? Being guilty of that is going to haunt you (in terms of insurance cost) for years.

 

I take it you've already received a NIP and if you've already admitted that to them you were commuting then this side of an expensive lawyer you're going to be hard pressed to change a 'confession'. If you haven't, it's up to them to prove you were. Just being on the road at at commuter time is not proof that you are commuting. So if you know you weren't commuting, plead Not Guilty and let them prove you were. Your defence is quite simple, you live at A, work at B, no way is the A1234 or whatever on route, or I wasn't at work that day, I was on holiday that day. Preparation is everything and prepare to have your defence cross examined.

 

NOTE. Just be aware that if you plead not guilty and it becomes very obvious you're lying through your eye teeth, it's quite likely you'll end up with a bigger fine than if you'd pleaded guilty.

Edited November 18, 2022 by Capt Sisko

[Bender]

9 minutes ago, Capt Sisko said:

It's a well know fact in police circles that if you stop a vehicle for something minor, something that the driver thinks, 'it doesn't matter' category there's a fair chance there are other things the driver thinks it doesn't matter and they subsequently find no tax, MOT, bald tyres or whatever. Just watch any of those police fly on the wall series. In this case the 'it doesn't matter' was a small numberplate and as far as the Police are concerned their stop was as good call as they believe they've caught another uninsured motorist. Now ignoring all of that as it's irrelevant as to the why you were stopped, the important question here is were you commuting or not? Being guilty of that is going to haunt you (in terms of insurance cost) for years.

 

I take it you've already received a NIP and if you've already admitted that to them you were commuting then this side of an expensive lawyer you're going to be hard pressed to change a 'confession'. If you haven't it's up to them to prove you were. Just being on the road at at commuter time is not proof that you are commuting. So if you know you weren't commuting, plead Not Guilty and let them prove you were. Your defence is quite simple, you live at A, you work at B, no way is the A1234 or whatever on route, or I wasn't at work that day, I was on holiday that day. Preparation is everything and prepare to have what you're defence cross examined.

 

NOTE. Just be aware that if you plead not guilty and it becomes very obvious you're lying through your eye teeth, it's quite likely you'll end up with a bigger fine. 

Perverting the course of justice is what it's called and more often than not comes with a sentence attached, they take a very dim View of it, you would probably get off (would) with less for theft, unless you broke into judges House... 

[Capt Sisko]

1 hour ago, Bender said:

Perverting the course of justice is what it's called and more often than not comes with a sentence attached, they take a very dim Vue of it, you would probably get off (would) with less for theft, unless you broke into judges House... 

Deleted

Edited November 15, 2022 by Capt Sisko

[daveinlim]

14 hours ago, Bender said:

Perverting the course of justice is what it's called and more often than not comes with a sentence attached, they take a very dim View of it, you would probably get off (would) with less for theft, unless you broke into judges House... 

 

Is lying to police on the side of the road counted as perverting the course of justice? You're not under oath or anything. It would be different if lying in court but can you be convicted of telling lies to police on a traffic stop?

 

 

 

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

2 hours ago, daveinlim said:

 

Is lying to police on the side of the road counted as perverting the course of justice? You're not under oath or anything. It would be different if lying in court but can you be convicted of telling lies to police on a traffic stop?

 

 

 

Knowingly giving false details is an offence. Not technically perverting the course of justice at that stage but if you persisted in providing false information to try to escape prosecution then the original false statement will be taken into account.

[Bender]

2 hours ago, daveinlim said:

 

Is lying to police on the side of the road counted as perverting the course of justice? You're not under oath or anything. It would be different if lying in court but can you be convicted of telling lies to police on a traffic stop?

 

 

 

Going off first post I don't think he denied it, I was referring to the changing the narrative afterwards and the consequences of that going wrong

[Copycat73]

Lube up  Romans ........magistrate gonna take your trousers down... diss gonna hurt 

[daveinlim]

7 hours ago, Bender said:

Going off first post I don't think he denied it, I was referring to the changing the narrative afterwards and the consequences of that going wrong

Yeah changing your story could end up with a charge of wasting police time or worse 

[Tiggie]

I learnt not to lie to the Police at an early age

 

I was around 13 and got pulled by the police whilst I was skiving from school with a mate. My mate had the bright idea to tell the officer we were both expelled which is why we weren't in school.

 

Of course a quick phone call to the school soon brought out the truth. Best bit was he didn't take us back to school, instead he took us back to the station and left us in seperate interview rooms all afternoon before finally taking our sorry selves back to school........ 5 minutes before bell for hometime 

[Fiddlesticks]

Best plan,  say as little as legally possible.