repeatedly pulled for no insurance on national database...

[hornetrider]

Sheepshanks said:

It's definitely the insurance industry's fault - they have a lot to answer for in many areas of the way they do business.

And if they all have the attitude that Loon does there won't be much progress either. Bunch of fking dinosaurs.

[randlemarcus]

I don't work for the insurance industry, but I can see as a customer that they are constantly under price pressure from us as consumers, even with the veneer of the price comparison oddities. If it works according to the agreements, why change it, as it's enormously unlikely to cost no money to change systems that work. Most of the insurers update MID in good time, the OP has struck unlucky, so is there really a huge desire amongst most people to change stuff, just because? As I say, the most obvious solution is to put a third party in between the insurers systems and the public face, a bit like BACS etc. That would charge the insurer on a transactional basis, the insurer would add that to their pricing, and all of a sudden the admin charges are non-negotiable. It would significantly benefit the insurers in terms of all of a sudden having sparklingly good information about previous claims etc, enable them to move a lot faster towards an individual risk model, which would benefit the careful/lucky and price a proportion of people off the road. Obviously we are all good careful drivers, so we stand to benefit, right?

[Mr2Mike]

LoonR1 said:

Ok. How many mistakes do we have? Anyone else having or had problems recently? Show me a system that never makes mistakes and I'll show you system that doesn't exist.

Hang on a minute, you can't be suggesting that insurance companies make cock ups? I need to sit down.

[Hackney]

What I'm finding amazing is that the OP got pulled over twice in 4 days and was warned of further pulls.

This would imply that there are lots of police out there pulling offenders all the time. I'm just amazed that there are any empty spaces on the hard shoulders of the country's motorways given the number of pulls this would mean.

The reality seems to be speed cameras, sorry, smart motorway road safety cameras every mile and no-one being pulled over at all.

(Please note OP I am not questioning the validity of your post)

[Variomatic]

randlemarcus][... said:

the most obvious solution is to put a third party in between the insurers systems and the public face, a bit like BACS etc.

No, since the database itself apparently can be updated individually and in real time, but various insurers don't do this and choose to use some (or all) of their 7 day "target", the simplest solution would be to change the legal requirement to have policies on there within (say) 24 hours and apply a penalty for any insurer who failed to do so.

A (legally mandated) 10% premium refund on any policy that's not on there in time, increasing by 10% for every day they're late, should get them updating pretty quickly - and provide some sort of compensation for those innocent motorists who get buggered about by them. It would also cost them absolutely nothing as long as they did their jobs right.

[hedgefinder]

Hackney said:

What I'm finding amazing is that the OP got pulled over twice in 4 days and was warned of further pulls.

This would imply that there are lots of police out there pulling offenders all the time. I'm just amazed that there are any empty spaces on the hard shoulders of the country's motorways given the number of pulls this would mean.

The reality seems to be speed cameras, sorry, smart motorway road safety cameras every mile and no-one being pulled over at all.

(Please note OP I am not questioning the validity of your post)

it was 3 times in 5 days actually.... not been pulled today as it happens ..


Still not had any reply at all from the insurance company and their "complaints team"...... and still not on MiD - I will be checking everyday just to see how long it takes to be added to the database.

Edited by hedgefinder on Wednesday 15th April 15:38

[surveyor]

hornetrider said:

LoonR1 said:

You do know that evening f the MId was real time, that the police systems aren't don't you. Nothing to do with MId, the police don't have real time capability in there vehicles, so it's a weekly upload from a disc. Time for a rant about the police amd that we should be paying more tax to improve their real time capability?

Jesus wept. Are you telling me every copper hasn't got a smartphone and access to the internet. It's all on askmid you know!

There are large swathes of the country with no realistic mobile data service....

[talksthetorque]

Yet you can text your reg to a company and get a text back with its value.

[randlemarcus]

talksthetorque said:

Yet you can text your reg to a company and get a text back with its value.

For money. In this case, there is no economic argument for the insurer to spend money making a fairly rare problem utterly vanish. Where do you draw the line?

I would be in favour of a 2017 deadline to have changed done within 24 hours, but see no benefit in rushing people when t won't improve anything for 99.9% of customers.

[andygo]

The insurance companies charge £20 admin fee to update your details. I'm not suggesting they make a lot of money on that transaction, but it can only take pennies to update MID in a timely manner. To suggest that it's acceptable to take a week, with the clear risks that involves to the driver is a bit naughty really.

[Variomatic]

randlemarcus said:

For money. In this case, there is no economic argument for the insurer to spend money making a fairly rare problem utterly vanish.

There doesn't need to be an economic argument.

The whole system was something they said they wanted and they lobbied parliament to introduce and put legal backing behind (including assuring parliament that they could implement it effectively).

To now turn round and complain that doing it properly is too expensive is absolutely their (and their shareholders') problem.

[randlemarcus]

Variomatic said:

randlemarcus said:

For money. In this case, there is no economic argument for the insurer to spend money making a fairly rare problem utterly vanish.

There doesn't need to be an economic argument.

The whole system was something they said they wanted and they lobbied parliament to introduce and put legal backing behind (including assuring parliament that they could implement it effectively).

To now turn round and complain that doing it properly is too expensive is absolutely their (and their shareholders') problem.

So Parliament is reduced to the same status as a local newspaper, just churning out copy based on press releases? Sounds to me like godawful legislation then.

[Variomatic]

randlemarcus said:

So Parliament is reduced to the same status as a local newspaper, just churning out copy based on press releases? Sounds to me like godawful legislation then.

Unfortunately Parliament has been swayed by the voice of big business for a long time. There's lots of legislation out there that's of more benefit to the financial sector than the ordinary man on the street / behind the wheel.

Sadly, in this case, they missed the opportunity to put perfectly reasonable conditions on it (such as penalties for slow updating) which - if we must have the system in the first place - would at least give some benefit to the motorist and to the use of the DB by law enforcement.

Allowing 7 days (14 for commercial / trade policies) is too long, and allowing 7 days with no sanction if they miss that target is meaningless!

[randlemarcus]

Variomatic said:

Unfortunately Parliament has been swayed by the voice of big business for a long time. There's lots of legislation out there that's of more benefit to the financial sector than the ordinary man on the street / behind the wheel.

Sadly, in this case, they missed the opportunity to put perfectly reasonable conditions on it (such as penalties for slow updating) which - if we must have the system in the first place - would at least give some benefit to the motorist and to the use of the DB by law enforcement.

Allowing 7 days (14 for commercial / trade policies) is too long, and allowing 7 days with no sanction if they miss that target is meaningless!

See, that last bit makes absolute sense to me. I'm not of the "must be in place by the weekend" camp, as I think it's a tiny issue (except for the OP, who is now doing 68mph Just In Case), but some form of "here's a date a good long way away, make sure you have got your act together by then" would have been a Good Idea. Sometimes I envy Belgium the chance to prove that a functional Government is entirely optional. Somalia, not so much

Anyway, Loon, you've got two years. Sort it out, will you?

[ZOLLAR]

Not sure if it's been covered, there seems to be a lot of moaning, arguing etc
Typical of a PH insurance Thread.

Anyway,

MID sets the time limit of 7 days, this is set out by the department of transport.

Question 13 I believe
http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/...

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/...

Insurance companies aren't going to spend more money to make it instantaneous unless it benefits them, yes that's the truth.
A for profit organisation will base much of their decisions on cost.
If you wish the update to be real time then lobby DfT or your local MP, if the rulings are changed insurance companies will abide by this.
However be in no doubt the cost will be passed along, sometimes in life it's just easier to accept there inconveniences like being stopped by the police.

The OP situation is rare, in his position I'd be making a complaint by now so they can put some resource into identifying the cause of the delay.

[hedgefinder]

ZOLLAR said:

Not sure if it's been covered, there seems to be a lot of moaning, arguing etc
Typical of a PH insurance Thread.

Anyway,

MID sets the time limit of 7 days, this is set out by the department of transport.

Question 13 I believe
http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/...

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/...

Insurance companies aren't going to spend more money to make it instantaneous unless it benefits them, yes that's the truth a for profit organisation will base much of their decisions on cost.
If you wish the update to be real time then lobby DfT or your local MP, if the rulings are changed insurance companies will abide by this.
However be in no doubt the cost will be passed along, sometimes in life it's just easier to accept that in life there inconveniences like being stopped by the police.

The OP situation is rare, in his position I'd be making a complaint by now so they can put some resource into identifying the cause of the delay.

that would be the complaint made on Friday night to their "complaints department" followed by another complaint made on Monday night which was followed up by a phone call on Tuesday.... all of which produced no answers what so ever regarding how this situation had occured and in the case of their "complaints department" not even a reply to date.
The only statement that was made was that it may take up to 14 days to update on MiD....

[ZOLLAR]

hedgefinder said:

that would be the complaint made on Friday night to their "complaints department" followed by another complaint made on Monday night which was followed up by a phone call on Tuesday.... all of which produced no answers what so ever and in the case of their "complaints department" not even a reply.

So the car still isn't showing on MID, have the insurer or you contacted MID to discuss this?
There could be many reasons why the information isn't being sent or why it isn't being received by MID.

[hedgefinder]

ZOLLAR said:

So the car still isn't showing on MID, have the insurer or you contacted MID to discuss this?
There could be many reasons why the information isn't being sent or why it isn't being received by MID.

they alledgedly sent the information to the MiD on Monday, but then changed that story to having done it on Friday immediately after they were contacted by the police... after I questioned as to why it haddnt been done immediately.
They then stated that it could take up to 14 working days to be updated.

[BertBert]

I think this crusade has got too much of its own momentum. There are lots of places for mistakes to happen in all systems, manual and automated. The problem the OP has is some kind of issue along the way, something has gone wrong. Could be one of loads of things. From looking at the number of times these issues get complained about on here, it's not a terribly frequent problem. So you could easily contend that the system is fit for purpose. Also the problem is unlikely to be a "not updated in real time" problem. So that solution might not even solve this problem.

Bert

[hedgefinder]

I did ask the insurance company for a contact number for the Mid and was told there wasnt one...

I was also told that the MiD would only update the database at the request of the insurance company and not myself.

Edited by hedgefinder on Thursday 16th April 13:57