Insurance and ANPR vans

[Guest ChloeJane]

Reading posts with interest.

 

I must agree to support Buzby in this instance.

 

ANPR - Look at the BBC show the other night called the Enforcers. An example was a woman whose car was insured though did not show up on the Police system as having insurance. She was ousted out of her car, it was covered in yellow stickers and she was forced to incur the loss financially of a taxi.

 

At the end of this program it was identified that she was in fact insured. I did not note the police refunding the inconvenience nor the money for damages and that it was deemed part of their job and what concerns me, is that as has rightly been pointed out in this post, there are issues within the system.

 

ANPR is not living up to expectations and can be and is proving to be a direct abuse to a consumer. Not just for Insurance issues but for collection on those never ending parking fines that is the abuse of ANPR on principle.

 

As for ID cards, I won't even go there with my views. I will however after watching the BBC program called the Enforcers, vouch for the entire system being not performing as it says to.

 

I believe your posts Rob S, in arguement on principle interesting to read, though we are all entitled to our opinions and hold a right to share them and view them here. That is what this forum is about. Airing issues and gaining advice and support, please remember the emotive subjects and opinions of others and the importance for them to be heard too, without the feeling of being attacked for what is their experience of dealing with an issue?

 

I am not taking sides, just merely stating the obvious. We all have a right to a view and an opinion on matters. There are two sides to every debate and statement made. People choose a side and a debate is about just that, debating opinion and facts and interpretation. It is not for any one person to say another is wrong, nor judge on this.

 

I like this forum for the right to publicly place, my views, my thoughts, my opinions without judgement of being wrong. I stand corrected for errors by my opinions held, but they are my own. Respecting the value of another persons posts and opinions are as important as them valuing yours.

 

So ends my opinion after reading many posts of both posters.

[Conniff]

At the end of this program it was identified that she was in fact insured. I did not note the police refunding the inconvenience nor the money for damages and that it was deemed part of their job and what concerns me, is that as has rightly been pointed out in this post, there are issues within the system.

 

Common sense says there should be a 'running in' period for all new systems. In the insurance case detailed above, this could easily be done by mail telling them to take their documents into a station. When the system has been proved to be accurate then, and only then, should they take action at the scene.

[Guest ChloeJane]

Yay Conniff! You summed it up beautifully!

[Guest ChloeJane]

Just food for thought....

 

In Australia, when you register a vehicle as part of the registration cost it includes what is third party insurance.

 

Our system is rather different but I think works.

 

It is the same as the MOT here and a vehicle is to be road worthy, but in having the 3rd Party insurance as part of the registration cost(taxing as you call it here), it is up to a motorist to fully comprehensivley insure a vehicle.

 

There are also things like if you need to have a temporary permit on your vehicle to take it for repairs etc, these are purchased as 7 day allowances for the vehicle to be on the road and tracks the process. You are only allowed a maximum of 3 of these within a year.

 

I think to make it part of the taxing of a vehicle as compulsory third party insurance, gives motorists more options and ensures that all vehicles are tracked and traced as having a valid insurance and tax.

 

We don't have it right back home, but I think it makes sense and the premium for third party is very cheap when it is a government contract awarded scheme at this level.

[Rob S]

Mod note: Quote removed as was quoting unapproved post

 

Now, this is a great example of a post full of insults. There was no provocation, no insults in my original post, yet you still consider it necessary to display poor forum etiquette in your reply.

 

As this is an open forum, if I feel the need to respond to any of your posts, I will continue to do so. If you can't handle it when other members respond to the nonsense you regularly post on CAG then perhaps you should consider not posting. That would certainly give the moderators a break!

[buzby]

We don't have it right back home, but I think it makes sense and the premium for third party is very cheap when it is a government contract awarded scheme at this level.

 

However there are many instances that not everyone actually requires cover of any description - just as a SORN was introduced as part-and-parcel for the eventual REAL reason for having it (Continuous Registration), insurance will need a similar scheme - how about SNIR (Statutory No Insurance Registration?)

 

As for the errors I pointed out earlier, we're not talking about a 'running in' period, as the number/letter transpositions I pointed out are caused by the brokers and insurance companies themselves, and possibly by the policyholders themselves if arranging cover on-line. There is no validation check that the number registered is actually valid! Unless this incorporates the VIN (more room for error?) I doubt this will ever be fault free.

[buzby]

As a follow-up, I should have noticed this earlier, but it is possible for vehicle drivers to check that their insurance is in order by using this site:

 

ASKMID

 

This gives you access to a cursory check of the Motor Insurer's Database, and by entering the vehicle reg, you get a TICK or a CROSS that you're vehicle is registered on their database as insured.

 

Interestingly whilst appearing on MID myself as having valid insurance, the DVLAs insurance check for a new tax disc says otherwise... so no change there then.

[JonCris]

It's a good idea but it has to work efficiently otherwise it will fall into disrepute.

 

It has already been admitted by the authorities that approx 100 drivers per day, in the UK, are being stopped & having their vehicles impounded for no insurance when in fact they do.

 

As we saw on TV innocent motorists, including young children, are being left at the side of the road with no means of getting home & still having to pay more than £100 to reclaim vehicle

[buzby]

Perhaps they should be some QA system - if the percentage of wrongful stops reaches even 1% the process should be ended forthwith until it can be improved. As for the 100 drivers per day, it would be helpful to know against a sample of ???? to realise how nonsensical the idea is!

[Rob S]

It's a good idea but it has to work efficiently otherwise it will fall into disrepute.

 

It has already been admitted by the authorities that approx 100 drivers per day, in the UK, are being stopped & having their vehicles impounded for no insurance when in fact they do.

 

As we saw on TV innocent motorists, including young children, are being left at the side of the road with no means of getting home & still having to pay more than £100 to reclaim vehicle

 

The problem is the insurers and the time they have to update the database. They have to have 95% of all policies on the database within 14 days, which is far too long. They need to get their act together and fast. I hope that people who are caught up in the current system are ultimately refunded all their costs by their insurers.

 

 

As for the 100 drivers per day, it would be helpful to know against a sample of ???? to realise how nonsensical the idea is!

 

So you think it is nonsensical to pursue uninsured drivers?

[buzby]

So you think it is nonsensical to pursue uninsured drivers?

 

No. It is nonsensical to pursue drivers based on a system with proven flaws. Misrepresenting the point being made comes an no real surprise though.

 

However your suggestion that insurers have up to 14 days to upload the data (if that is indeed the case in your experience) then the system of persecuting drivers for not having insurance when they probably have it, is nothing short of civil (and possibly criminal) abuse.

 

As to the matter you commented on, it is nonsensical to rely on a system that has so many flaws as to inconvenience the law-abiding, simply because they don't appear to be able to catch transgressors any other way. Habeas corpus anyone?

[Conniff]

Originally Posted by Rob S

So you think it is nonsensical to pursue uninsured drivers?

 

You obviously didn't read the post properly. I understood the meaning of what was being said.

 

If your going to leave families out in the middle of nowhere because you take the results too literally, when they do in fact have insurance, then I believe you are leaving yourself very vunerable to further action.

 

If there is up to 14 days to load info into the database, and you know this, then it is reasonable to believe that the authorities know that as well, so I don't think that all the blame can be put on the insurance companies.

[Rob S]

No. It is nonsensical to pursue drivers based on a system with proven flaws. Misrepresenting the point being made comes an no real surprise though.

 

If you fail to qualify a point correctly then what do you expect:rolleyes:

 

However your suggestion that insurers have up to 14 days to upload the data (if that is indeed the case in your experience) then the system of persecuting drivers for not having insurance when they probably have it, is nothing short of civil (and possibly criminal) abuse.

 

It's not a suggestion that they have 14 days, it's a fact. I'm afraid to say that your assertion that such a system is "persecution of drivers " and "nothing short of civil (and possibly criminal) abuse" is absurd. Would you prefer they go back to the old ways of issuing producers and relying on the driver to produce their documents at a station?

 

As to the matter you commented on, it is nonsensical to rely on a system that has so many flaws as to inconvenience the law-abiding, simply because they don't appear to be able to catch transgressors any other way. Habeas corpus anyone?

 

It may be to you but to drivers who have been involved in accidents with uninsured drivers (such as myself) I am happy to see such systems in place, especially as it is resulting in so many seizures of uninsured vehicles.

[buzby]

I suggest you read message #37 which is a more than adequate response.

[Rob S]

I suggest you read message #37 which is a more than adequate response.

 

Does that mean you are not capable of producing a response of your own?

[craigey1]

The ANPR van's rarely utilise the insurance Database. They also tend to ignore the DVLA no tax (as most people have renewed the VEL by the time the list is updated). Your insurance details are normally only checked if you have hit against another Database. The process is as follows:

 

VRM is read & sent immediately to the Police National Computer where it is checked for anything illegal. (known drug dealer etc). It's also checked against any lists that are stored on the van. The local check is instant & the PNC check follows within a few seconds, but only if there is any relevant information. (ie you carry weapons or you are under surveilence or your a dealer etc). It does not just alert if your insurance details aren't held.

 

A lot of the hits are recorded for statistical analysis rather then for pulling people over for minor issues.

[Guest 10110001]

When a driver is stopped and has his car impounded for having no insurance, and later produces documents at a station. Can the driver then claim disbursements and financial losses?

[patdavies]

When a driver is stopped and has his car impounded for having no insurance, and later produces documents at a station. Can the driver then claim disbursements and financial losses?

 

No.

[Conniff]

I can't see how anyone can incure a financial loss (and have to accept it) through anothers incompentance and not be compensated for it. If you have made a loss and asked to be reimbursed and they refuse, I would like to see their defence of such if challenged.

[JonCris]

When a driver is stopped and has his car impounded for having no insurance, and later produces documents at a station. Can the driver then claim disbursements and financial losses?

 

If your broker are negligent or delay placing your details on the data base & as a result you suffer a loss then you would have a claim for compensation against them..

 

If it happens to you I suggest sending a SAR to your broker before commencing any such action

[patdavies]

I can't see how anyone can incure a financial loss (and have to accept it) through anothers incompentance and not be compensated for it. If you have made a loss and asked to be reimbursed and they refuse, I would like to see their defence of such if challenged.

 

The law that allows Police to seize uninsured vehicles does not require the vehicle to actually be uninsured. It requires a Police Constable to believe that it is uninsured to provide valid grounds for seizure.

 

Once the vehicle is properly seized, then the motorist becomes liable for the associated costs.

[Conniff]

The law that allows Police to seize uninsured vehicles does not require the vehicle to actually be uninsured. It requires a Police Constable to believe that it is uninsured to provide valid grounds for seizure.

 

Once the vehicle is properly seized, then the motorist becomes liable for the associated costs.

 

So where is this laid down Pat??

 

It means that any vehicle, including those on SORN will need to be insured. This has been driven by the insurance industry mainly.

 

 

Thats not what it says here

 

1. There are a number of circumstances in which the registered keeper of a motor vehicle has no intention of driving or keeping the vehicle on the road and who therefore may assume that they have no need for insurance. Examples would include a vehicle that is off the road for repairs or restoration, or a vehicle which is laid up during the winter months. Providing that the keeper has made a Statutory Off Road Declaration (SORN) to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA), there would be no requirement for insurance to be in place.

[Guest 10110001]

No.

 

Is it legislated?

[Guest 10110001]

If your broker are negligent or delay placing your details on the data base & as a result you suffer a loss then you would have a claim for compensation against them.

 

I should have been more specific.

 

If I have fully comprehensive insurance on car A. I can drive car B with third party liability. I could potentially be ANPR stopped & impounded in car B for no insurance.

 

Its suggested that I the motorist, is liable for disbursements and financial losses in reclaiming the car and clearing the case up.

 

Pat, can you confirm that generally, a driver having a fully comprehensive insurance policy on his principle car, can drive another car of lesser value and performance with third party liability?

[JonCris]

If stopped & you claim to be insured on another vehicle which permits you to drive another they can check to see if that's correct