Jump to content


Watchdog report on Car Insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4917 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

There was quite an interesting article on Wtchdog last night on the problem of Car Drivers who had pukka insurance ie paid for etc showing up on ANPR's as "uninsured" cos the slack Insurance providers hadnt updated the system. ok, they are supposed to do this within 7 days, I believe of a renewal or new policy, but the horroe stories od people having their cars seized was not funny, as usual AR when grilling a mealy mouthed person from the Insurers let him off the hhok, but i wonder if there is a validity to take the relevant insurance company to court if the propertly insured drivet is penalized with release charges and incidental expenses due to the slack aresed actions of insurers updating the data base?

 

I dont think its the rozzers fault, but perhaps a "producer" might be applied more frequently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a second car that my daughter and her partner are also covered to drive. He was driving it a while back and was stopped by the Police as it came up on their ANPR as uninsured. I always give them a copy of the insurance certificate to carry in case of incidents like this.

Give the Police credit they rang the insurance company and asked if the car was insured, It seems when they entered it on the database they hit the keys 622 instead of 623.

Easily remedied but could have been much worse as it was for some on watchdog,especially the poor guy and his family who were left at a service station without a car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily the two who stopped my car where, but I bet there are many who would just seize the vehicle.

 

I know some people wouldn't fancy carrying a copy of their certificate around, but the name, phone number, and policy number of your insurance on a card may save a car being seized.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckily the two who stopped my car where, but I bet there are many who would just seize the vehicle.

 

I know some people wouldn't fancy carrying a copy of their certificate around, but the name, phone number, and policy number of your insurance on a card may save a car being seized.

 

Even better if the police would acknowledge the system is flawed and not be so quick to seize a car just because "the computer says NO!"

Link to post
Share on other sites

A car is not seized because it is uninsured, it is seized because the officer beleives it to be uninsured and proof to the contrary cannot be provided, so as long as there are reasonable grounds such as no record on the database it can be lawfully seized. The most sensible option is to carry proof of insurance in the car this then prevents seizure under section (b)

 

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 (no insurance),

(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and

©the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I always carry my driving licence, plus my MOT and insurance certificates in a special designed wallet. It avoids any hassle if you do get stopped.

 

Should we have to? Last time I checked, we didn't live in a police state. (well not quite yet) :(

Edited by crem
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the cases on Watchdog did show their policy... But even so the car was seized, as the insurance company was shut and a certificate just shows that insurance was in force.. and not that it still is (although most cases it is still in force). For instance, if people get the certificate and then cancel the Direct debit etc.

 

The police still seize ! :(

 

It is literally a case of Computer Says No! if the insurers are closed :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point about the certificate, it shows up in incidents on the tv cop reality shows (!) that producing a cert does not neccessarily mean its valid, so yet again the legal motorist is probably damned if they do carry docs and damned if their insurers are shut for the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should we have to? Last time I checked, we didn't live in a police state. (well not quite yet) :(

 

A Police state would be relevant if you needed to carry papers with you all the time. DBC was I assume refering to when he was driving which is a different matter. If you drive a vehicle you are legally obliged to be able to prove you are licenced and insured to drive the vehicle. If you feel this is restrictive on your human rights you can always choose to walk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the cases on Watchdog did show their policy... But even so the car was seized, as the insurance company was shut and a certificate just shows that insurance was in force.. and not that it still is (although most cases it is still in force). For instance, if people get the certificate and then cancel the Direct debit etc.

 

The police still seize ! :(

 

It is literally a case of Computer Says No! if the insurers are closed :(

 

The key point is 'grounds to beleive' if you have a six month old policy certificate and the computer is saying you are uninsured then its most likely the policy is cancelled. If you had a policy taken out 3 days prior and a certificate to show this then grounds would not be established in my view and grounds for complaint against the Police for acting ultra vires.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key point is 'grounds to beleive' if you have a six month old policy certificate and the computer is saying you are uninsured then its most likely the policy is cancelled. If you had a policy taken out 3 days prior and a certificate to show this then grounds would not be established in my view and grounds for complaint against the Police for acting ultra vires.

 

 

Grounds to believe what they like, is more the case.

 

Its irrelevant if its 6 months old or 6 days old to be perfectly honest. The database should .. no MUST be correct. If the policy number on the certificate tallys with a live policy for that vehicle all should be good. The database should include all policy numbers, so they can do a manual check and not just rely on ANPR systems.

 

One of the people on watchdog was still showing as uninsured a a number of months after the original stop... to "assume" that the insurance had been cancelled because the certificate is months old is a very dangerous assumption.

A certificate that is a week old could of been cancelled if the insurers see fit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its irrelevant if its 6 months old or 6 days old to be perfectly honest. The database should .. no MUST be correct. If the policy number on the certificate tallys with a live policy for that vehicle all should be good. The database should include all policy numbers, so they can do a manual check and not just rely on ANPR systems.

 

 

This would not work; for the simple reason that there is no requirement in English Law to insure a vehicle. It is the driver who must be insured.

 

My policy allows me to drive any car - whether it is separately insured in its own right or otherwise - providing that I have the owner's permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cars are never insured. Drivers are.

 

Curious that you say that given that if an empty a parked car catches fire, insurance for fire will pay out.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the insurance company have 14 days to update MID

 

 

Insurance companys only have to supply 95% of their records within 7 days.

 

The cases I have seen, and there have been many, it can also be due to customer error supplying the wrong reg number etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cars are never insured. Drivers are.

 

So how come you can make a claim if your car is stolen then? Does the 'driver' have to be in it at the time?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how come you can make a claim if your car is stolen then? Does the 'driver' have to be in it at the time?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

You answered your own question, the insured person makes the claim as they are insured not the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such is the state of this horrid country that WE have to prove OUR innocense, And no there is no need to cease any car theres such a thing called a producer, Give someone powers and you can guarantee they will abuse them.

 

When are you required to prove your innocence? You are required by law to be able to provide proof of insurance when requested if you cannot then you are not innocent are you, since you have failed to comply with the law. Would you expect to board a plane without a ticket and expect the airline to 'trust you' when you say you have bought one, or travel on a train after forgetting to carry your season ticket and complain that they don't beleive you? Its a simple requirement you drive a car on the road and in return you are expected to comply with the law. I'm sure you would be well chuffed if your car had been written off by an uninsured driver that had been stopped 5 minutes before and sent on his way with a 'producer'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...