Insurance company system failure, car siezed £105 fine, potential 6 points £200 fine, advice needed�

[hasani007]

Hello, i will cut down my long story to make it easy for you to read,i brought insurance from "More Than" on Monday and recieved a thank you for buying email, i was stopped by traffic police Thursday last week who told me i had no insurance on the car, i assured them i did, they phoned my insurer who said no insurance was found on the system, the car was siezed, i phoned the insurance company who after several checks found that the quote did not change into a policy because of the incompetence of there system and no certificate of insurance was sent, they provided me with a letter of indemnity via fax which stated that i was insured on the day the car was siezed. i took this faxed letter to the police who rejected it as soon as seeing it was a fax and not a certificate,"More Than" cannot backdate the insurance and have asked me to buy a new quote wait for the certificate and take it along with the letter of indemnity which they will send by post and should reach me tomorrow, im being fined on a daily basis whilst the car is in the pound and i risk losing my license, i do not know what to do in this sticky situation. Hope you professionals can help. Thanks.

[Mossycat]

OK first off it is illegal to back date a cover note or a certificate of insurance, hence why you received a letter of indemnity.

 

The police will not release your vehicle until they see proof that it is insured, this is usually in the form of a cover note or a certificate of insurance. The letter of indemnity SHOULD have sufficed but perhaps the officer dealing with it was unaware of how to treat it.

 

My advice pay the bill as soon as you receive the correct paperwork and then claim against More Than, don't forget to add on loss of use and general inconvenience as well as out of pocket expenses (both of which are valid items of claim). The fact you have received a letter of indemnity bshows that More Than accept you were on cover, they may argue that the car should have been released when you attended with the letter of indemnity but you stick out and hold for what you had to pay, tell More Than that if they feel that the costs are too high then they should in turn take it up with Police as to why your car was not released earlier.

 

You should not lose your licence over this since that can only be done at Court and since you can show to the Court that you thought you were insured and that More Than have provided you with a letter of indemnity you should be OK, I doubt it will get to Court though.

 

Mossycat

[Fair-Parking]

This takes me to my early days of motor insurance in the late '60's. Officers very often don't know the law. I once remember a police sergeant phoning me and asking for confirmation that somebody one of his officer's had stopped had no insurance because he 'only had a cover note'. I asked him what what he thought a cover note was if it wasn't proof of insurance. He didn't know so I asked him to look at the bottom of the cover note and to read out the words 'Certificate Of Insurance'.

 

Similarly here we have a police station who do not seem to understand that being insured isn't about having a certificate/cover note or being on the insurance register, it's about being indemnified. Thus the letter of indemnity is sufficient and if they had any doubts, then they could at least match my old sergeant by phoning the insurers for advice and quoting whatever reference is written on the fax.

 

After the 40 years the question still begs - if the police don't think the document in front of them confirms that you are insured, what do they think it means?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Cross-reference to this thread.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/insurance-assurance-companies/149303-insurance-company-system-failure.html

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Similarly here we have a police station who do not seem to understand that being insured isn't about having a certificate/cover note or being on the insurance register, it's about being indemnified.

 

This is only part of the story. It is also about being in posession of a Certificate of Motor Insurance as required by the RTA.

[Fair-Parking]

This person doesn't seem to have been stopped for not having a Certificate Of Motor Insurance on their person, but for appearing to be driving whilst uninsured.

 

Many's the time someone will phone their insurers for cover on a new car. The cover note or new certificate is usually posted the same night. The car is insured and the policyholder is not breaking the law by driving off in his new vehicle before he receives his cover note/certificate.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

This person doesn't seem to have been stopped for not having a Certificate Of Motor Insurance on their person, but for appearing to be driving whilst uninsured.

 

Many's the time someone will phone their insurers for cover on a new car. The cover note or new certificate is usually posted the same night. The car is insured and the policyholder is not breaking the law by driving off in his new vehicle before he receives his cover note/certificate.

 

So why does S147 (1) of the RTA 1988 read as follows (my bold)?

 

147 Issue and surrender of certificates of insurance and of security

(1) A policy of insurance shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless and until there is delivered by the insurer to the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “certificate of insurance”) in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed.

 

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)

 

No one said it has to be "on your person".

 

Usually it is of little concern as if you cannot produce it when stopped you get a "producer" and seven days to pitch up at a police station. If you haven't received it you could expect it to arrive in the normal course of the post. If it doesn't for whatever reason you have a problem.

 

The case of the OP is complicated further.

 

It would be unfair to the OP nopt to warn of the possibilities here. Perpetuating myths is not helpful!

[JonCris]

A certificate is considered 'delivered' as soon as it's issued not when it arrives at the policy holders address

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

A certificate is considered 'delivered' as soon as it's issued not when it arrives at the policy holders address

 

Where do you get that from? The closest I get to is by reference to S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 which reads:

 

7. Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expression "give" or "send" or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

 

In the OP's case, however, a cert wasn't even issued!

[Fair-Parking]

What myth is being perpetuated?

 

I started in motor insurance in 1966. I've known many a conviction for 'driving without insurance' but never one for being insured and not having a valid certificate of insurance.

[JonCris]

So what your claiming Bernie is that if I purchase a car after p/ex my current one & phone my broker to change insurance details & as is normal he gives me the certificate/cover note no. I'm effectively not insured until I'm physically in receipt of the said paper work???

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

So what your claiming Bernie is that if I purchase a car after p/ex my current one & phone my broker to change insurance details & as is normal he gives me the certificate/cover note no. I'm effectively not insured until I'm physically in receipt of the said paper work???

 

No.

 

If your current insurance covers "any vehicle" for RTA requirements then you should be fine as you already have a certificate.

 

If it does not cover any vehicle or if this is a car purchased by someone who has no existing insurance then the position is different. The insurance is of no effect for the purposes of meeting the requirements of the RTA but there could be a perfectly valid contract of insurance in place. This could mean that following an accident that was "your" fault you could receive payment for the damage to your car, TPs could receive compensation for damage to their property and their injuries but you could still be prosecuted for uninsured driving.

 

It is a legal/insurance curiosity that has some merit. I have no idea if this has ever happened but it is a scenario that is covered in textbooks and professional examinations.

 

Quite rightly there is a clampdown on uninsured drivers at present so, but for the fact that ANPR and MID checks seem to be the favoured tool (ie getting people other than after an accident) it is possible that there may be.

 

The only safe advice is to advise people not to drive their new car until they have a certificate of motor insurance that applies to that vehicle.

[lamma]

isn't the indemnity already given by the insurer a security (as per section 146). You don'[t HAVE to have insurance you can have a security instead,

[Fair-Parking]

We could all cite insurance curiosities that have no practical value at all and which divert the thread from it's original intent. This thread commenced with a person wondering whether he was insured having been faxed a letter of indemnity because he had not received a cover note.

 

I gave my advice through many years experience and knowledge of the insurance industry. Having sent a few letters of indemnity in my time, I was satisfied that the OP was as fully insured as if he had received a cover note/certificate. I can also state that nobody who ever received a letter of indemnity from me was ever prosecuted.

 

No myth.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The OP could be prosecuted and found guilty.

IMHO the "indemnity" letter provided soes not satisfy the requirements of the RTA.

Also IMHO, it is entirely possible that a clued up police officer will not get to see this. This could work in the OPs favour or against the OP.

 

As an aside in my experience the Police also happen to be uninterested when they are presented with a certificate which appears to be valid but which has not been returned following cancellation of the policy.

 

Here the motorist, as well as driving uninsured if fraudulently presenting docs. However, the insurer is still liable to the third party as the "insurer of record".

 

The fact that you cannot see the practical value does not mean that there are none.

[Fair-Parking]

Clearly Bernie, the motor insurance industry has acted inappropriately for at least four decades and should approach you for advice.

 

Maybe the first question that should be asked is 'What is the point of a letter of indemnity if it has no validity?' closely followed by 'When was the last time you heard of somebody being successfully prosecuted after a letter of indemnity has been produced?

 

The third might ask you if you have ever worked in the industry.

[HSBCrusher]

keep on topic please folks.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

All that I am concerned for the OP to know is that as a result of what appears to be the negligence of their insurer they are exposed to the risk of a criminal conviction. It is a strict liability conviction (there is no need to prove mens rea). The indemnity from their insurer does not cover this.

 

The insurer can provide no protection against points on licence, the impact on other insurance applications, job aplications etc etc.

 

The motor insurance industry, for whatever reason, is not alive to this issue. It may be that commercially insurers know that if they tell clients that they are not "legal" with a phone call or the click of a mouse they will lose business to those that do not.

 

I am not in a position to make any comment on the likelihood of action being taken against the OP but then I rather suspect no-one else is as there is no data.

 

If I am a whistleblower on this issue, I make no apology.