Hi everyone

im a new member who really needs your help.

I was stopped on the m6 late august as ANPR showed i had no insurance. the police siezed the the car etc. but i recieved no fixed penalty.

the thing is i had completely no idea whatsoever that the policy had been cancelled as i was never sent any warnings or letters to say it was cancelled. In my opinion there was nothing i could have done to know the policy was cancelled and so thought i was still insured.

over a month later ive been sent a summons to attend court to hear the case.

I really need to know if CIS insurance have a responsibilty to inform they will cancel a policy as it says they will on their website.

as i can see it the court or the insurance company dont have a leg to stand on... is this the case?

This whole thing has been completly unjust and really would appreciate any comments.

Yes, they are required to send a notification of cancellation to your last known address 14 days before they actually cancel your policy. Have you contacted CIS to find out why they cancelled it?

Even if you fall behind with your monthly payments (for example), they should still contact you rather than just cancelling the policy behind your back.

cheers lemontwist for your reply. as you say it was cancelled due to a miss payment on the direct debit due to my wages not going through (works fault). I wasn't aware that there was not enough money remaining in my account for the insurance.

Do you know if the 14 days notice that you'd mentioned is law or a guideline they try to stick by?

It not a law as such - it is a requirement of the FSA and must be adhered to. I am not too sure whether your situation would amount to a defence, but I am sure imho, that a magistrate, if it gets that far, would show some leniency.

do let us know how you get on.

if i give the CIS a right good bollocking for their failures do you think they will reinstate the policy from then to now and thus ensuring that i was actually insured at the time in question or can this not be done retrospectivly?

It's possible. My technical knowledge is not now as good as it was in these areas, but these are what I think a corporation would say (regardless of how high they hold there morals):

why should we, effectively cancelling a policy legitimately, as far as we are concerned, re-instate it and put ourselves at risk of having to pay £XXX? (oooh ain't I a cynic?!)

That of course disregards any legalities (the technical bits I speak of), but it is certainly worth putting in a complaint to them and then taking it to the FOS. I belive better advice will follow (come on, Mossycat!)

An insurer cannot backdate insurance. That practice is illegal in law.

What they can do is to provide you with a letter of indemnity that states that had a claim been received within the period that the policy had been cancelled then they would have granted you indemnity and dealt with that claim.

In your particular circumstance the policy cannot be re-instated, however a new policy could be started to cover you from whatever date they start it to the end of the original term.

From my experience the CIS are very reasonable. What you need to do is talk to someone at their Head Office (Miller Street in Manchester) and explain the circumstances, it is highly unusual for a policy to be cancelled after just one missed payment and especially so without informing the policyholder.

Technically, you were driving without insurance, and as such that is an offence, however you do have mitigating circumstances which you need to bring to the attention of the Court. Explain to them that you pay for your insurance by direct debit and take evidence of previous payments (bank statements), advise the Court that you did not receive any notification from the CIS that your policy was cancelled and you assumed that if the Direct Debit was refused because of lack of funds that the CIS would have re-applied for the payment a few days after (that's fairly standard when a direct debit is refused). Summarise by explaining that you are of good character with no previous convictions (if that's true) and as far as you were aware you did have insurance (and add that had you for one minute known the policy was cancelled you would not have been driving). Ideally take the letter of indemnity from the CIS (if they agree to send you one) as proof that it was a genuine error and had an accident occured you would have been insured.

It may also be worth sending this to the CPS as they then might withdraw the prosecution before (or at) trial.

Post back with updates as to how it goes

Mossy

see! should be (coolcat!)

If you hadn't been told of the cancellation, you must still have the certificate. This makes you insured for the purposes of the RTA. Did you not produce the certificate to the police?

Sorry Bernie but it no longer works like that.

In the past people have taken out insurance just to get a certificate and then stopped paying the monthly premiums, when stopped by the police they would produce the certificate of insurance and everything would appear legal, when in reality even though they still had a certificate of insurance it had been cancelled (but the police wouldn't know the certificate was worthless).

Nowadays all (or most) insurers subscribe to a central database which the police have access to, which eliminates this problem, even though the person may physically have a certificate of insurance it doesn't mean anything if the database shows otherwise.

In cases of dispute the police ring from the roadside and get it direct from the Company involved as to why the Certificate was cancelled.

Mossy

(PS Bernie even in the old days the dodgy characters would claim the certificate was lost or destroyed so they wouldn't have to return it)

But Mossy,

That isn't what happened here. They are surely still the "Insurer of Record" had there been an accident and a third party claim they would have had to deal, or are you saying that has changed too?

Bernie if the insurer cancels the policy that's it. End of.

If there is an accident and/or a third party claim where the policy is cancelled they do not have to deal with it.

I am not for one minute saying that is what has happened here I am simply stating what happens in these circumstances. If it's a genuine error then a letter of indemnity is usually sufficient to smooth out the legal wrinkles BUT that is providing the insurer accepts that cancelling the policy was an error.

Once the policy is cancelled that is it, there is no insurance in place or legally enforceable.

Mossy

Thanks guys for the advice especially mossycat who seems to be the resident expert. So it looks as though the insurance cannot be backdated so I’ll have to try going down a different road cos i really feel it would be a miscarriage of justice if I got penalty points and ultimately a ban – (at the time i was within first 2 years of driving) for a genuine mishap. Surely the law was created to deter tossers who purposely drive uninsured and not me who would never intentionally do such a thing.

Just an update on my case; I’ve sent the court a letter of ‘special reasons’. This is basically to say I had no knowledge or most importantly no intention of driving uninsured as no notification was ever sent etc. I also included about my good driving record such as being in the institute of advanced motorists, always having a taxed good roadworthy vehicle and such like. I’m now waiting for a response to know when to attend this ‘special reasons’ hearing (which I’ve have to travel over 300 miles to!). If anyone else has been to one of these hearing I really would like to know how it went and what it involves.

I would also like to know if the court only sends a summons if they think they have a good chance of conviction or is it just something thats sent as a matter of course to everyone?

And to Bernie the bolt (and excuse my lack of intelligence here) you mentioned that if I wasn’t told about the cancellation that I was still insured for the purposes of RTA. Whats RTA?

Just on a personal note I just want to say how ridiculous this whole fiasco has been. It’s cost me hundreds, a ruined holiday and stress that a decent citizen just doesn’t need. Its totally wrong and geared up to make you plead guilty even though you know you’ve done nothing wrong. It’s clearly just one big money making [problem] and a sad reflection of British justice today, especially when it comes to motoring offences.

The RTA as mentioned by Bernie is the Road Traffic Act, any prosecution brought against you will be for contravention of this Act, namely that you did not have insurance in place for the vehicle you were in charge of.

It's the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) who will issue the summons if they feel it is in the public interest (Yes it is to deter others from driving without insurance) AND if they feel there is a good chance of prosecution (arguable in this case since it appears a genuine error, and especially if you get the CIS to give you a letter of indemnity).

Ring the CIS and speak to a senior manager and find out what (if anything) they are prepared to do, also check where they sent the notice of cancellation to and what date it was sent on.

Mossy

Mossy,

When did the change you mention take place?

The reason I ask is that in Aug 06 my wife had an accident with a fail to stop TP. She got the reg no and TP was traced. He produced a NU cert which the police accepted. TP failed to respond to correspondence so we chased NU, they said the policy had been cancelled and we lodged a claim directly against NU as the insurer concerned. NU failed to defend and we got judgment by default.

Are you saying that they could simply have defended this on the grounds that they were off risk?

I thought this was why insurers and brokers have to be so careful about certs.

Bernie

My understanding is that it has been this way for a number of years, the problem that insurers faced was in recovering the Certificate of Insurance from the policyholder. Favourite trick was to fail to return the Certificate and state it was lost or destroyed when in reality it was ready and to hand to hoodwink the police in the event of a producer (HORT/1).

In the last few years it has become a lot worse and the number of people taking out insurance on a monthly payment basis and then defaulting became almost epidemic.

I would imagine that there was some other reason behind NU not defending, once a policy has been cancelled (in the proper way and I stress in the proper way) then the driver is on their own and is effectively driving without insurance.

Mossy

once a policy has been cancelled (in the proper way and I stress in the proper way) then the driver is on their own and is effectively driving without insurance.

 

Mossy

And this is key, because I don't think that it was cancelled in the proper way in the OP's case because the cancellation (a breach of contract) was never communicated and they were never asked to return the certificate.

And this is key, because I don't think that it was cancelled in the proper way in the OP's case because the cancellation (a breach of contract) was never communicated and they were never asked to return the certificate.

Yeah I agree hence why I suggested the OP contact CIS Head Office and speak to a senior manager and try to arrange a letter of indemnity.

It could well be that the policy was cancelled in the correct way but for a genuine error (if that makes sense).

A lot depends on the dates involved, ie date of cancelled direct debit, effective date of cancellation, how was the cancellation actually communicated (according to the CIS because the OP is adamant they didn't receive any warining), date of police seizure.

I'd be really interested in hearing how the CIS communicated this cancellation to the OP.

Mossy

PS I have to say that the CIS are usually fair about cancellations and do it correctly, but sometimes they (like everyone else) make mistakes, but in my experience they will honour their mistakes.

a good friend of mine is an insurance broker.

i asked him about this and he said its common practice when cancelling an insurance policy,

for the insurance company to inform the policy holder of this by recorded delievery.

that way the insurance company are covering there own back

Yeah I agree hence why I suggested the OP contact CIS Head Office and speak to a senior manager and try to arrange a letter of indemnity.

 

It could well be that the policy was cancelled in the correct way but for a genuine error (if that makes sense).

 

A lot depends on the dates involved, ie date of cancelled direct debit, effective date of cancellation, how was the cancellation actually communicated (according to the CIS because the OP is adamant they didn't receive any warining), date of police seizure.

 

I'd be really interested in hearing how the CIS communicated this cancellation to the OP.

 

Mossy

just to clarify: Effective date of cancellation was 10th july, police seizure- 29th August.

I spoke to the CIS over the phone on the actual day I was stopped and they told me (admitted) that they did NOT send out a letter but did try to phone me. I never recieved a phone call (i.e they missed me- I don't dispute they did try and call) and they said they didn't leave a message. Obviously this was verbal although I believe they do record phone conversations but how I get a copy I don't Know.

As has been said, i'll write to them and arrange a letter of indemnity.

Just to make things more confusing, and I probaley should have mentioned this before, I was actually driving my dads car with his permission. He was the policyholder with me as a named driver.

All correspondents would have gone through him anyway so this can only make me less aware that they cancelled.

Anyway the weird thing is that the court sent a summons to me for driving uninsured but didn't send a summons to my dad for (in their eyes) allowing me to drive an uninsured vechicle?!

Can you post the date of the first DD that was refused by your bank. Also confirm when you actually got paid from work (ie what dates were funds available). As far as you are aware was it only one DD that was refused (ie one months payment)

Sorry to ask these personal questions, but that information could be quite salient to what I am thinking might be an argument for you to use.

Also you now state that your Dad was the policyholder but it was you and your bank that was paying the premiums. OK that changes it slightly, the CIS do not have to notify YOU since you are not the policyhoilder, the onus now shifts to you to ensure that you were insured to drive the car BEFORE you took charge of it.

If you answer the points raised above, I'll get my thinking head on.

Mossy

Thought I'd drop an opinion in, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

Firstly, it's not illegal to backdate insurance. Insurers won't do it if they've not made any mistakes and a policy has been cancelled for whatever reason. If, on the other hand; they've made an error - they can backdate the insurance to ensure the policy was in force at the time the incident occurred. In motor insurance, a letter of indemnity is the quickest way to prove the customer was insured under the terms of the RTA.

Having a direct debit in place doesn't discharge the responsibility of ensuring payment was made in accordance with the agreement. It's not the insurers responsibility to make sure bills are paid, that lies with the insured.

On the subject of cancellation, if the insurer has sent out notice of their intent to cancel due to non payment but you haven't received it - that most likely won't influence their decision to refuse indemnity.

If they've met all their obligations as an insurer, I don't think you'll be able to obtain a letter of indemnity.

Sorry but you are wrong, IT IS illegal to backdate an insurance certificate or a cover note.

Full stop end of argument.

Mossy

Evidence please?

Insurance cannot be backdated. It can be got around in some circumstances, but usually in those cases, in law, the insurance contract was running anyway and really it is not "backdating". The very idea of backdating insurance goes against the entire point of insurance - covering risk. If it were allowed, we'd all be driving without insurance until an accident happened.

I would be interested in seeing an example (preferably real) of where insurance has been backdated.