Computer says No

[Flat in Fifth]

Case currently in the spotlight where, quite frankly, our local lot cocked up big time.

Check on tax validity showed DVLA records said no. This was Friday before Christmas.

Vehicle displayed the correct and up to date tax disc. Driver had all particulars with him including the actual receipt for the VED.

Local 'bright spark' just kept saying "Computer says no!" .

No possibility to sort out as DVLA on holiday.

'Bright spark' continued with "Computer says no!" stance and summoned up recovery vehicle, the operator of which vehicle wanted to climb into a hole with embarrassment as the guy was forced to scramble together the £200 to keep his vehicle. £200 that was needed over Christmas.

Then he was advised not to use his vehicle over Christmas holiday until he could get it fixed by DVLA, he got his £200 back on the Wednesday.

The DVLA database has so many errors I would honestly advise people that it might be worth visiting online and checking your own vehicle(s).

DVLA tax check > click on vehicle enquiry
(You just need VRN and vehicle make)

VOSA test check > www.motinfo.gov.uk/html/home.html
(you need VRN and either test cert number or the V5C reference number)

Repeat, for the hard of hearing, actually having the VED disc or the test cert hard copy means nothing these days , if computer says no, you're screwed if you encounter a bright spark.

Sorry.

FiF



edited as link had timed out
and edited again for formatting DOH!

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 5th January 09:33

[GregE240]

The other aspect of this concerns the actual DVLA data.

BiB on here might like to correct me on this, but they only have a copy of the DVLA database, not access to the actual data. I say this because they pulled my partner over on 20th December stating they couldn't find her car "on the DVLA database", and also said they couldn't find any insurance.

So we got a producer at the local nick, and how refreshing that was to see that my hard earned is paying for miserable munter female officers to man the desk.

When I got there I politely asked why my partner had been pulled over - no reason as we don't need a reason to pull you over. Eh? Since when? So she goes off to check some paperwork and oh, it was a drink driving campaign, thats why. Ah, so it takes 8 officers to patronise people about drink driving, does it? Great!! So insurance details photocopied, and a polite suggestion from me that they might wish to ensure the validity of their data as I performed a DVLA check about an hour after the car was pulled over, and surprise surprise it was kosher. All I got for that was a scowl.

I bade her happy new year and left.

Nice one, Warwickshire Police

[tigger1]

Useless bar-stewards.

Interestingly (sort of!) - my car returns: -

The information contained on this page is correct at the time of enquiry.
Vehicle Excise Duty Rate for vehicle
6 Months Rate £0.00
12 Months Rate £50.00


I think next time I might try to claim 6 months free tax rather than paying £50 for 12 months - in a computer says no stylee!

[LongQ]

Flat in Fifth said:

'Bright spark' continued with "Computer says no!" stance and summoned up recovery vehicle, the operator of which vehicle wanted to climb into a hole with embarrassment as the guy was forced to scramble together the £200 to keep his vehicle. £200 that was needed over Christmas.

Then he was advised not to use his vehicle over Christmas holiday until he could get it fixed by DVLA, he got his £200 back on the Wednesday.

A few years ago at another web place a serving BiB proudly announced, to virtual applause from all, that of the 8 or so career burglars on his (large) patch, 5 had been locked up for Xmas on the basis of motoring infringements and that meant that a number of families would have been saved the distress of being burgled during the period and having all their presents nicked.

Happiness all round - other than the tea leaves of course.

Now it seems an opposite policy applies during the festivities.

God forbid that anyone relies exclusively on computer databases and certainly not those operated by government agencies.

The 'Bright Spark' involved should certainly be advised accordingly.

A complaint - all the way to the IPCC if necessary - would make sense even if only to help people understand, for purposes of policy making, that computer databases are far from idiot proof.

Edited by LongQ on Friday 5th January 12:24

[Hollywood Wheels]

Who are we actually talking about here FiF, Plod, Traffic Warden, PCSO, DVLA lot? I find it amazing that BiB would follow that course of action, but then again some haven't got one ounce of common sense.....

[Parrot of Doom]

Nooo, my old Audi A4 is no more That car was ace

[Flat in Fifth]

Hollywood Wheels said:

Who are we actually talking about here FiF, Plod, Traffic Warden, PCSO, DVLA lot? I find it amazing that BiB would follow that course of action, but then again some haven't got one ounce of common sense.....

Hi HW, sadly Plod, not going to mention the specific force obvious reasons.

[Tafia]

Flat in Fifth said:

Case currently in the spotlight where, quite frankly, our local lot cocked up big time.

Check on tax validity showed DVLA records said no. This was Friday before Christmas.

Vehicle displayed the correct and up to date tax disc. Driver had all particulars with him including the actual receipt for the VED.

Local 'bright spark' just kept saying "Computer says no!" .

No possibility to sort out as DVLA on holiday.

'Bright spark' continued with "Computer says no!" stance and summoned up recovery vehicle, the operator of which vehicle wanted to climb into a hole with embarrassment as the guy was forced to scramble together the £200 to keep his vehicle. £200 that was needed over Christmas.

Then he was advised not to use his vehicle over Christmas holiday until he could get it fixed by DVLA, he got his £200 back on the Wednesday.

The DVLA database has so many errors I would honestly advise people that it might be worth visiting online and checking your own vehicle(s).

DVLA tax check > click on vehicle enquiry
(You just need VRN and vehicle make)

VOSA test check > www.motinfo.gov.uk/html/home.html
(you need VRN and either test cert number or the V5C reference number)

Repeat, for the hard of hearing, actually having the VED disc or the test cert hard copy means nothing these days , if computer says no, you're screwed if you encounter a bright spark.

Sorry.

FiF



edited as link had timed out
and edited again for formatting DOH!

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 5th January 09:33

Excellent tip FiF. I have passed a few ANPR vans and have hoped the records were up to date.

Guy in N Wales had his car removed and was told he could not have it back even though he produced his documents. Plod said "According to the database, you are not insured"

[vonhosen]

Well it is possible to have a certificate & not be insured.

You know pay by instalments, pay the first one, get the certificate & then not pay any more.

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th January 15:59

[Tafia]

Any way of ensuring our insurance details are properly logged.

I haveseen roadwars type TV when plod refuses to accept an insurance certificate as proof of insurance saying, " you may have bought this then cancelled it and kept the certificate"

[spokey]

vonhosen said:

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Computers, eh? They cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be bargained with. And they absolutely WILL NOT STOP until they have browbeaten you into submission.


Just as well we have so much evidence of how good public sector IT is.

[Flat in Fifth]

I was looking for Motor Insurers database equivalent to the DVLA and VOSA links but account holders only it seems. I can do it for our vehicles but not available to public afaik. Interested to know if anyone else knows of a link.

I know what you are saying VH, but in this case with driver particulars all ok and checking out, the original hard copy docs and a receipt I think this bright spark let the side down tbh.

[eccles]

Tafia said:

Any way of ensuring our insurance details are properly logged.

I haveseen roadwars type TV when plod refuses to accept an insurance certificate as proof of insurance saying, " you may have bought this then cancelled it and kept the certificate"

sometimes they show the copper phoning up the insurance company, sometimes it confirms their suspicion that the driver is not insured, but sometimes the insurance company says yes they are.

it seems to me that there should be some kind of penalty for insurance companies or the DVLA
if they fail to keep their records accurate, and the driver sffers all the hassle of having to cough up to get his fully legal car back, then wait for a refund.

perhaps when they send out your insurance certificate, they can include a box on it that been signed by a human to say the data base has been updated, or soething else as proof.

[Smartie]

vonhosen said:

Well it is possible to have a certificate & not be insured.

You know pay by instalments, pay the first one, get the certificate & then not pay any more.

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th January 15:59

But surely by producing the certificate, then you have shown reasonable evidence of being insured, and as we are all inncocent until proven guilty (!) then the only way to "prove" the document was not valid would be to contact the insurance company in question? The fact that a government database does not agree is hardly proof, and I wouldn't have thought grounds for removing a vehicle? If the government told you to jump off a cliff.................??

[fluffnik]

Flat in Fifth said:

Hi HW, sadly Plod, not going to mention the specific force obvious reasons.

Name and shame; it protects the innocent.

[tigger1]

vonhosen said:

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Grossly unfair IMHO if the driver can produce a document to believe the computer over the driver. Now, what we do with people who use false documents, that's different.

[s2kuk]

Smartie said:

vonhosen said:

Well it is possible to have a certificate & not be insured.

You know pay by instalments, pay the first one, get the certificate & then not pay any more.

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th January 15:59

But surely by producing the certificate, then you have shown reasonable evidence of being insured, and as we are all inncocent until proven guilty (!) then the only way to "prove" the document was not valid would be to contact the insurance company in question? The fact that a government database does not agree is hardly proof, and I wouldn't have thought grounds for removing a vehicle? If the government told you to jump off a cliff.................??

I am currently going through the small claims court to recover my costs after a Polish driver bumped my car. He produced his insurance document but for some reason which I don't really know why, I thought it may be dodgey. Turned out he'd stopped paying in May (accident happened in July).

So I agree that the database isn;t infallable but in my experience neither is a piece of paper

[vonhosen]

Smartie said:

vonhosen said:

Well it is possible to have a certificate & not be insured.

You know pay by instalments, pay the first one, get the certificate & then not pay any more.

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th January 15:59

But surely by producing the certificate, then you have shown reasonable evidence of being insured, and as we are all inncocent until proven guilty (!) then the only way to "prove" the document was not valid would be to contact the insurance company in question? The fact that a government database does not agree is hardly proof, and I wouldn't have thought grounds for removing a vehicle? If the government told you to jump off a cliff.................??

Proof isn't required to seize the car, proof of no insurance is required to convict.
Reasonable grounds are sufficient to seize & that is a decision that the person seizing will have to justify in relation to all of the circumstances. As I say a certificate alone isn't evidence of insurance, it is a consideration when weighing everything up & may tip the balance in favour or not depending on all the other circumstances combined.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th January 17:23

[vonhosen]

tigger1 said:

vonhosen said:

They can seize the vehicle where they have reasonable grounds for believing it is uninsured or the driver has no licence.

Grossly unfair IMHO if the driver can produce a document to believe the computer over the driver. Now, what we do with people who use false documents, that's different.

They can search you with reasonable grounds, they can arrest you on suspicion of an offence with reasonable grounds, let alone seize property.
If it's unreasonable you can sue.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 5th January 17:53

[nigel_bytes]

and lets not forget, if youve done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about, welcome to Bliars perfect world