Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jckamartin

Two Names on Registration, Traffic Ticket not issued to violator.

Recommended Posts

I received three different summons - three related offenses - in the mail for my son pulling over into a portion of the Phoenix airport reserved for shuttles. He did not receive parking tickets at the time. He had just started driving for Lyft when this happened.

I am going to court tomorrow - with him. The vehicle is registered in both of our names - because I cosigned the loan - but my name is first on the registration. I understand that if it was registered solely in my name and someone else drove it I am responsible for the parking ticket. But this is his car, he makes the payments, he is on the registration, and I made sure it was specifically so he could be responsible. Do you have any recommendations for a defense? How, if at all, does the two names on the registration help us?  

Thanks for your thoughts on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a defense because you weren't cited

 

I don't see anything in the original post that clearly indicates the citations weren't issued to the OP.  Indeed, the whole point seems to be that the citations were issued to the OP as the first-named registered owner.

 

To the OP:  As far as a "defense," if you're both going to show up in court, just tell the court what you wrote here (although I'm not sure why you wouldn't simply have your son pay the tickets and be done with it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in the original post that clearly indicates the citations weren't issued to the OP.  Indeed, the whole point seems to be that the citations were issued to the OP as the first-named registered owner.

 

To the OP:  As far as a "defense," if you're both going to show up in court, just tell the court what you wrote here (although I'm not sure why you wouldn't simply have your son pay the tickets and be done with it).

 

If there had been a single ticket for $152 for non-designated loading instead of three (no decal display and no permit as well) then I would say it was a lesson worth learning. But throwing the book at a 21 year old trying to do his best to support himself in this economy seems extreme and worth a fight. I believe in AZ the ticket is still thrown out if the officer does not appear, so we are taking the chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there had been a single ticket for $152 for non-designated loading instead of three (no decal display and no permit as well) then I would say it was a lesson worth learning. But throwing the book at a 21 year old trying to do his best to support himself in this economy seems extreme and worth a fight.

 

First, and while I'm not sure it really matters, what "decal" and what "permit" were (alleged to be) lacking?  Are you suggesting that the citations for "no decal display and no permit" are lacking in merit?  Even if it's "extreme," if a "decal" and a "permit" were required and the car didn't have them, then there's no basis for a fight.  Your son's age and the extent of his efforts to support himself aren't relevant.  However, if what you're saying is that the registration was expired (or, if it wasn't expired, that no one had yet applied the current sticker to the license plate), it may be possible to take care of that ticket by having a cop sign off that the registration is current and that the car now displays the proper "decal."

 

By the way, are you (or is your son) carrying appropriate auto insurance?  If your answer is, "sure.  He has [or I have] auto liability coverage that meets or exceeds Arizona's minimum requirements of 15/30/10," you should think again.  Regular auto policies contain exclusions when the driver is working as a driver for hire (read your policy -- the whole thing and not just the declarations page), so special coverage is needed.  If he isn't (or you aren't or the employer isn't) carrying appropriate coverage, then his intentions, no matter how good, could end up with him and you facing a big pile of liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

By the way, are you (or is your son) carrying appropriate auto insurance?  If your answer is, "sure.  He has [or I have] auto liability coverage that meets or exceeds Arizona's minimum requirements of 15/30/10," you should think again.  Regular auto policies contain exclusions when the driver is working as a driver for hire (read your policy -- the whole thing and not just the declarations page), so special coverage is needed.  If he isn't (or you aren't or the employer isn't) carrying appropriate coverage, then his intentions, no matter how good, could end up with him and you facing a big pile of liability.

 

Good point. Lyft is a ridesharing company that touts the potential for drivers to make up to $35 per hour driving people around in the driver's own vehicle.

 

OP's son is, in reality, a self employed taxicab operator.

 

This type of use is specifically excluded in all personal automobile insurance policies.

 

The exclusion typically reads:

 

"liability arising out of the ownership or operation of a vehicle while it is being used as a public or livery conveyance"

 

However, a look at Lyft's website reveals that the company provides public livery insurance for the drivers:

 

https://www.lyft.com/help/article/1229170

 

To jckamartin: You and your son would be wise to study this insurance and make sure your son's contract with Lyft specifies that he is covered in the manner touted by the website. The website is not a contract and neither is "being told" that he has it.

 

You would also be wise to study the tax implications of your son's business so he doesn't get an unpleasant surprise come tax time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, and while I'm not sure it really matters, what "decal" and what "permit" were (alleged to be) lacking?  Are you suggesting that the citations for "no decal display and no permit" are lacking in merit?  Even if it's "extreme," if a "decal" and a "permit" were required and the car didn't have them, then there's no basis for a fight.  Your son's age and the extent of his efforts to support himself aren't relevant.  However, if what you're saying is that the registration was expired (or, if it wasn't expired, that no one had yet applied the current sticker to the license plate), it may be possible to take care of that ticket by having a cop sign off that the registration is current and that the car now displays the proper "decal."

 

By the way, are you (or is your son) carrying appropriate auto insurance?  If your answer is, "sure.  He has [or I have] auto liability coverage that meets or exceeds Arizona's minimum requirements of 15/30/10," you should think again.  Regular auto policies contain exclusions when the driver is working as a driver for hire (read your policy -- the whole thing and not just the declarations page), so special coverage is needed.  If he isn't (or you aren't or the employer isn't) carrying appropriate coverage, then his intentions, no matter how good, could end up with him and you facing a big pile of liability.

 

Luckily this is where the spirit of the law and the letter of the law differ. WE WON. The tickets were ALL dismissed. The airport cops were being punitive and trying to punish Lyft and Uber drivers - teach them a lesson by throwing multiple infractions at them. Since the issuing of the tickets Lyft and Uber now have "an understanding" with the airport cops. ALWAYS FIGHT YOUR TICKETS! YOU CAN FIGHT CITY HALL! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...