The regulations for enforcement can be found here Schedule 2Ai (erroneously referred to as 2A due to a drafting error) empowers the regulations to be made rather than being the applicable regulations themselves.

Regulation 9 deals with removal.


9.—(1) This regulation applies where an authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under section 144A of the 1988 Act—

(a) is being committed as regards a vehicle which is stationary on a road or other public place...


The word stationary suggests to me that the vehicle is left on the road and not stationary because a police officer has stopped the vehicle.

EXCEPT for the purpose of taking it to a pre arranged MOT test - which is what the OP wanted to do , perfectly legally .

I got bored of the arguing on page 1 so skipped here.

My story.

I have a car, insured with Flux, via Equity RedStar.

I have DOC cover, I called flux who told me the "other car" DOES NOT need its own policy, so in effect I can drive ANYTHING not owned by me. They would prefer the "other car" to have its own policy to avoid calls from the police to verify, but its not essential.

I then did this, got pulled by an ANPR police car for no insurance, they gave me a 7 day producer and sent me on my merry way.

I took my insurance certificate to the local police station, and never heard anything since. This was 3 months ago.

I took an MR2 for MOT this morning. This car had no TAX, no MOT and no separate insurance on it. I wasn't worried at all about being stopped.

Again , you do not take account of the fact that , in order to 'UN-SORN' a vehicle it requires an MOT and has to be taken to the test station . For those who do not happen to have car transporters THE LAW makes provision for such vehicles to be DRIVEN to the test station , provided that a test has been pre arranged and that insurance cover is in place .

Whilst a driver with valid DOC cover is at the wheel the legally required insurance cover IS in place ; as soon as he leaves the vehicle it may be uninsured - this is OK if off the public highway , for example , on the premises of the test station .

It is also permitted to drive away from the test station after the test has been concluded .

Your final statement reads as though you would rather not admit that your customer already has the neccessary cover , going by the text of your documents , but would prefer to extract further revenue from him .

The main culprit behind Quin has gone bust for hundreds of Millions. Used the Insolvency laws to keep his money, but I think the law has caught up with him, eventually. Whether the firm still trades in that name I do not know.

They *could* if they tried hard enough.

I do appreciate the information and the RBS comments. However, I am not sure the use if the word savvy is entirely appropriate. Less than honest might be. Too many small businessmen get caught by these wheeler dealers, as I know from trying to sort their problems out following big PLC collapses.

A document proves nothing. The policy could have been cancelled after it was made available. These days with email delivery and self printing anything could happen. Hence the check.


Several years ago under a different set of rules that existed then the slightly wayward lad of a former neighbour set fire to a car parked off the road at a nearby house. The car was worth a few thousand at the time - for relative reference a BMW worth about half its original list price.

The car was off the road pending sale or something and was untaxed and uninsured to save a few bob. The lad was a teenager with no income.

The owner, so far as I am aware, had to accept the almost total loss. I seem to recall that the lad wad told to pay compensation but how much that amounted to over how long I don't recall. It may never have been paid of course.

Thus the need for at least fire and theft cover for the car as property even if not used on the road became very obvious, especially if the the property is not a banger of some kind (and so worth less than the insurance premium.)

Ironically the pyromaniac's father was, at that time, an airport based specialist fireman.

I also think there was such a post.

I have no doubt that, if the insurance certificate says that the insurer can drive other vehicles on the policy, that cover is legally enforceable.

If the wording includes the caveat that the other vehicle must be separately insured at the time then that caveat will apply. No caveat: no restriction.

The reason why I regularly check my other cars insurance, before driving, is that I have been pulled several times bu the Police. Insurance was always confirmed, either by phone call or certificate if I had it with me.

But being stopped is boring and time wasting I could do without. I have never been stopped by the Police for an insurance check if the MID database showed insurance on that car.

My concern is the dithering by Adrian Flux. Clearly the staff do not know the facts accurately or the legal requirements in detail. Look at the posts and draw your own conclusions.

I want a simple "Yes he is insured by us to drive any vehicle" reply to any inquiry to Mid from the Police.

Not a " Oh he might be, Dearie Me, I need to ask a supervisor. Oh Dear, this is complicated, I am not sure, can I call you back?", nonsense from AF.

This is NOT a difficult subject. The AF replies make it so. I do not need that complexity.

Wrong information by the call handler at Saga led to seizure in Pryor v GMP which has already been mentioned in this thread, The Court of Appeal ruled that the seizure was not lawful. I am not aware of any subsequent case which overturns that judgement.

The crux of it is in paragraph 17. This highlights the risks posed to both the police (Pryor sued for wrongful interference with goods) and the motorist (who is seriously inconvenienced and put to unnecessary expense) by call centre staff who get it wrong. Whether that be because they are ignorant, incompetent, lazy, or simply poorly trained makes no difference. The end result is the same.

Given that the driver also risks
- a conviction
- an IN10 endorsement on their licence
- penalty points
- a fine
- subsequent increased premiums
it seems only fair to me that the organisation whose employee provides the incorrect information be subject to some sort of sanction as a deterrent and a reminder of their obligations.