There's a report in this month's WHICH? about problems where the police, using cameras linked to the Motor Insurance Database, can seize a car that appears to be uninsured, and then fine the driver, who will get points added to his/her licence - EVEN IF THE CAR IS ACTUALLY INSURED!
The problem apparently is that when you insure your car, the insurer is supposed to notify the Motor Insurance Database within 7 days - if they don't, or if they are late in doing so, your car will show on the records as being uninsured.
As so many of us now change insurers every year, this leaves plenty of scope for error and omissions. WHICH? suggests that:
1 we should always carry a copy of our insurance policy to show to the police; and
2 we should check on ASKMID to confirm that our car is shown properly as being insured. (it's easy, you just enter the registration number).
how is it my problem if the powers that be use a database which is not up to date?
If the car is insured, no-one has any power under statute to put points on your licence, or fine you.
If you cannot prove your car is insured, points can go on the licence and a fine levied, obviously, once the prosecution have led evidence that suggests that you are not insured the burden of proof passes to you to show you were insured on the relevant date.
Police can seize a vehicle which appears to be uninsured, but once you produce your documents you can reclaim the vehicle, and obviously then there will be no prosecutions for driving without insurance, and hence no fine or points. (Takes several weeks to get from the police notifying the CPS of an offence to an appearance in court.) There's a recovery fee and a storage charge to be paid for the impounding of the vehicle.
In principle, if the reason your car is seized is because your insurers have failed to register your policy on the system, you ought to be able to recover from your insurer whatever costs you incur in getting the car back from the pound.
Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 25th-January-2008 at 02:56 PM.
No. In fact some advise you don't carry documents like this around in the car so that they don't get destroyed if there is an incident of some kind.
In the UK the police use what is called a 'producer', which is a form which requires the person named upon it to show up at a police station specified on the form and 'produce' the documentation specified on the form. This is usually within 24 hours but may be longer in exceptional circumstances.
Well done to you that you've never discovered this yet!!
You are 'meant' to, but most people don't. The police know this and in these circumstances they will issue you with a 'producer'. Basically, you choose a convienient police station and you have seven days to produce whichever documents they ask to see (usually license, insurance, log book and MOT if the vehicle needs one).
I only ever carry my documents with me if I am driving abroad, and I have never had a problem with that. If your bag was stolen, your keys, and papers are inside it!
None of the above is untrue (except of course that the CPS doesn't have any powers in Scotland - or Northern Ireland, I think).
The point of my post was to help readers AVOID all the hassle involved by making sure that the police will have no reason to instigate these processes and leave readers stranded at the side of the A1 without any means of getting home.
(And I did say to keep a COPY of the policy in the car, not the original.)
Last year I tried to buy online a tax disc for a car which became uninsured earlier that day (it was off the road and not being used). The site wouldn't let me. After arranging new insurance on it the database was updated so that I could buy the tax disc within minutes as I recall.
Oh for goodness sake, at the risk of repeating myself, all I am trying to do is suggest ways of avoiding all the nasty consequences of the car's details not having been properly transferred onto the MID database.
If anyone has a DTP package that can mock up an insurance policy they probably wouldn't bother photocopying it, and if (as you correctly say) the police are not familiar with every policy then they are perfectly entitled to seek formal confirmation.
There is no obligation on a police officer at the scene to contact an insurance company to confirm the insurance details, but if reasonable cause is shown for them to do this then they may well do so. I would suggest that a copy of a valid insurance policy is such reasonable cause, particularly if it has been issued recently, as the police will be aware of database problems on recently issued policies.
I worked on the insurance database some years ago and was on a forum panel that helped to set it up. The team was made up of several people from different insurance companies. My part was to represent the Motor Insurance Bureau who deal with compensation if you are hit my an uninsured driver.
There were several big name companies that would not take part in the scheame and therefore, when the technology comes in would not have been prepared for it.
I left the insurance world some time ago but what is going on today with plate recognition cameras in police cars and instant database details was all in the pipeline back then (some 4-5 years ago).
My guess is that the insurers who didn't take part (and pay fees, lend resources) were not given the software and means to take part once the system was rolled out. I would not be supprised, given the technology and the inabilitys of some of these insurance companies, that they are still not taking part in the scheame or have the ability to upgrade their systems to do so (think little ibm dumb terminals, green screens and IS400 for those who are geeks).
I am not sure what the actual final rules are but at the time, the draft rules for police is that they would be able to use discretion. It was also agreed that there would be no impounding or storage charges for vehicles later found to be insured. There was also going to be a 24 hour number for the police to call where there would have been an actual person on the phone who had access to the basic policy details from all the insurance companys who would be able to tell even if they had insured via the wb 30 seconds ago.
This prob all changed as, like most things, money was more of an issue to most people on the forum than the people who had to live with any problems caused.
The problems that are about today with it should over the next few years sort themselves out. Really we should all be thankfull that the powers that be are trying to stop little 18 year old Billy running over a bus load of people with his uninsured Astra.
Also it does not matter if you do keep your insurance cert in your car. If your car is nicked, catches fire, then your insurance company will still deal with it. However, do not keep your service history, V5, mot etc in your car as these are pretty difficault to replace if trying to negotiate a settlement from your insurer for fire or theft.
Thank you!
Totally agree. That Billy is a terror and has to be stopped.Really we should all be thankfull that the powers that be are trying to stop little 18 year old Billy running over a bus load of people with his uninsured Astra.
Although I've always kept the main ownership, V5, MOT stuff at home I must admit the service record is in the car so I don't forget it when the car goes for service. Entirely valid point made, though so thanks - have some rep!Also it does not matter if you do keep your insurance cert in your car. If your car is nicked, catches fire, then your insurance company will still deal with it. However, do not keep your service history, V5, mot etc in your car as these are pretty difficault to replace if trying to negotiate a settlement from your insurer for fire or theft.
Last edited by John S; 25th-January-2008 at 04:07 PM. Reason: Because I can
Interesting! Of course those are the sort of carefully worked out details that are simply binned by administrators once they realise how much it's going to cost to operate. Somebody probably said "if the database isn't updated, we can argue it's the insurer's fault so why should we forego the impound fees?"... and so on.
Ironically Brian yours was the only post on this thread up until now that is off-topic. The rest of the posts dealt in someway with the topic; motor vehicle insurance. That is until you posted about forum etiquette on a thread about vehicle insurance. I hope you are suitably ashamed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks