repeatedly pulled for no insurance on national database...
Discussion
LoonR1 said:
Once again. That's your business it's what you do. Without it you'd look daft hence why you will spend a small fortune to get it right. This is not an insurer's core business, it is a bolt on to their operating model and one that will not receive funding beyond the bare minimum.
This may not be their core business, but neither is it burden imposed on them. It was the insurance industry that lobbied long and hard to have CI introduced. Since the system was instigated at their behest, they have an obligation to implement it properly, not cheaply. If they didn't want to pay anything on it they should have kept their mouths shut in the first place
Sheepshanks said:
I have to say that bearing in mind I can hardly remember when I last saw a Police car, you must live in a right dodgy area!
...or perhaps it's a very nice area and the Police have got nothing better to do?
funnily enough, if your read what I posted earlier its only in the last 2 weeks that I have been driving out of the area in which I live and driving up the A1 that this has started happening!...or perhaps it's a very nice area and the Police have got nothing better to do?
Variomatic said:
This may not be their core business, but neither is it burden imposed on them. It was the insurance industry that lobbied long and hard to have CI introduced.
Since the system was instigated at their behest, they have an obligation to implement it properly, not cheaply. If they didn't want to pay anything on it they should have kept their mouths shut in the first place
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. Since the system was instigated at their behest, they have an obligation to implement it properly, not cheaply. If they didn't want to pay anything on it they should have kept their mouths shut in the first place
hedgefinder said:
I would agree with that , but on the flip side....
show me a mistake that has been made and I will show you an industry insider who will deny it ever happened, or could possibly have happened....
I think it's totally feasible that your data hasn't uploaded to MID, although I think it has been mis keyed by your broker, rather than the data not worked, as it would've worked on subsequent uploads. I am confused by the lack of letters chasing your uninsured vehicle though. show me a mistake that has been made and I will show you an industry insider who will deny it ever happened, or could possibly have happened....
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.
I'm not talking about mistakes, Loon.I'm talking about a system that regularly takes several days to update - on a fairly small number of transactions (in computing terms)- and which, when it doesn't update, leaves perfectly innocent people liable to be inconvenienced at best or have cars seized (possibly when they least need it) at worst.
All done because the insurance industry wanted the system but wasn't willing to invest what little would be needed to give real-time updates so persuaded the DfT to allow them 7 days to get round to it each time a policy is created or changes. Honestly - [/i]7 days[/i] is the legal requirement for updates as negotiated by the industry! You could do it faster than that by sodding mail coach!!!!
I really don't care how you, as an insider, tries to defend it, or to evade the issue with strawmen. It simply isn't acceptable or competent!
Variomatic said:
I'm not talking about mistakes, Loon.
I'm talking about a system that regularly takes several days to update - on a fairly small number of transactions (in computing terms)- and which, when it doesn't update, leaves perfectly innocent people liable to be inconvenienced at best or have cars seized (possibly when they least need it) at worst.
All done because the insurance industry wanted the system but wasn't willing to invest what little would be needed to give real-time updates so persuaded the DfT to allow them 7 days to get round to it each time a policy is created or changes. Honestly - [/i]7 days[/i] is the legal requirement for updates as negotiated by the industry! You could do it faster than that by sodding mail coach!!!!
I really don't care how you, as an insider, tries to defend it, or to evade the issue with strawmen. It simply isn't acceptable or competent!
Ranty rant rant.I'm talking about a system that regularly takes several days to update - on a fairly small number of transactions (in computing terms)- and which, when it doesn't update, leaves perfectly innocent people liable to be inconvenienced at best or have cars seized (possibly when they least need it) at worst.
All done because the insurance industry wanted the system but wasn't willing to invest what little would be needed to give real-time updates so persuaded the DfT to allow them 7 days to get round to it each time a policy is created or changes. Honestly - [/i]7 days[/i] is the legal requirement for updates as negotiated by the industry! You could do it faster than that by sodding mail coach!!!!
I really don't care how you, as an insider, tries to defend it, or to evade the issue with strawmen. It simply isn't acceptable or competent!
Are you as passionate about better social housing, better state schools, a better NHS and so on, until the potential tax increases come through and all of a sudden things go very quiet.
There's nothing I can say or do to change your mind. The insurance industry is one great big scam and the world would be so much better off without it. Is that what you what to hear? Either way, I don't care. I don't own the insurance industry, I'm not a spokesperson for it. I do understand it, but it's not worth trying to educate.
One question though. Why does this 7 days matter so much to you?
It's ok, Loon, if you want t live up to your username by going off on such a tangent then we'll all understand that it's really just a case of not having any real answer to the criticisms raised.
As to why is the 7 day target a problem:
When I take out insurance to drive my taxed and MOTd car legally on the road, I should not then risk being inconvenienced by being pulled over (possibly repeatedly) during the next week because the insurance industry hasn't got around to updating the database which law enforcement uses to pull people over.
I accept that this sort of thing is their "core business" but the banks (not renown for unnecessary expenditure) manage to handle around 8 million LINK transactions, 2 million FPS transfers, 3 million cheque and other credit transfers, and around 22 million BACS transactions every single day with an almost 100% accuracy rate and mostly within seconds of being initiated for the 10 million or so LINK and FPS transactions.
For the insurance industry to lobby (hard) to have this database written into law (they obviously saw a benefit to themselves in it)and then agree a target of a WEEK to clear the (maybe) couple of hundred thousand daily transactions involved demonstrates incompetence, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, to guarantee being safe from hassle, you have to wait until your policy shows up before driving even though you're legally entitled. You can't possibly justify that.
As to why is the 7 day target a problem:
When I take out insurance to drive my taxed and MOTd car legally on the road, I should not then risk being inconvenienced by being pulled over (possibly repeatedly) during the next week because the insurance industry hasn't got around to updating the database which law enforcement uses to pull people over.
I accept that this sort of thing is their "core business" but the banks (not renown for unnecessary expenditure) manage to handle around 8 million LINK transactions, 2 million FPS transfers, 3 million cheque and other credit transfers, and around 22 million BACS transactions every single day with an almost 100% accuracy rate and mostly within seconds of being initiated for the 10 million or so LINK and FPS transactions.
For the insurance industry to lobby (hard) to have this database written into law (they obviously saw a benefit to themselves in it)and then agree a target of a WEEK to clear the (maybe) couple of hundred thousand daily transactions involved demonstrates incompetence, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, to guarantee being safe from hassle, you have to wait until your policy shows up before driving even though you're legally entitled. You can't possibly justify that.
Variomatic said:
It's ok, Loon, if you want t live up to your username by going off on such a tangent then we'll all understand that it's really just a case of not having any real answer to the criticisms raised.
As to why is the 7 day target a problem:
When I take out insurance to drive my taxed and MOTd car legally on the road, I should not then risk being inconvenienced by being pulled over (possibly repeatedly) during the next week because the insurance industry hasn't got around to updating the database which law enforcement uses to pull people over.
I accept that this sort of thing is their "core business" but the banks (not renown for unnecessary expenditure) manage to handle around 8 million LINK transactions, 2 million FPS transfers, 3 million cheque and other credit transfers, and around 22 million BACS transactions every single day with an almost 100% accuracy rate and mostly within seconds of being initiated for the 10 million or so LINK and FPS transactions.
For the insurance industry to lobby (hard) to have this database written into law (they obviously saw a benefit to themselves in it)and then agree a target of a WEEK to clear the (maybe) couple of hundred thousand daily transactions involved demonstrates incompetence, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, to guarantee being safe from hassle, you have to wait until your policy shows up before driving even though you're legally entitled. You can't possibly justify that.
And there we have it. A complete lack of understanding. You can drive when you want as long as you know you're insured. You may get pulled, but you may not. Has anyone in here, ever spleen pulled excluding the OP?As to why is the 7 day target a problem:
When I take out insurance to drive my taxed and MOTd car legally on the road, I should not then risk being inconvenienced by being pulled over (possibly repeatedly) during the next week because the insurance industry hasn't got around to updating the database which law enforcement uses to pull people over.
I accept that this sort of thing is their "core business" but the banks (not renown for unnecessary expenditure) manage to handle around 8 million LINK transactions, 2 million FPS transfers, 3 million cheque and other credit transfers, and around 22 million BACS transactions every single day with an almost 100% accuracy rate and mostly within seconds of being initiated for the 10 million or so LINK and FPS transactions.
For the insurance industry to lobby (hard) to have this database written into law (they obviously saw a benefit to themselves in it)and then agree a target of a WEEK to clear the (maybe) couple of hundred thousand daily transactions involved demonstrates incompetence, pure and simple.
Meanwhile, to guarantee being safe from hassle, you have to wait until your policy shows up before driving even though you're legally entitled. You can't possibly justify that.
As before. I do t understand IT. I think the banks are far from perfect looking at recent history and transactions.
What can insurers possibly have to gain when motor insurance is already compulsory? You can't make people buy it more frequently, or more expensively, or more whatever.
randlemarcus said:
Be careful what you wish for. BACS is a separate entity. Wouldn't it be nice and convenient to not have to remember difficult things like points and claims and NCD, but to have a single entity that does all that for you, and better still, updates everything in real time?
It's all coming. randlemarcus said:
Be careful what you wish for. BACS is a separate entity. Wouldn't it be nice and convenient to not have to remember difficult things like points and claims and NCD, but to have a single entity that does all that for you, and better still, updates everything in real time?
No, it would be nice for people to realise that all these things like uninsured drivers are really NOT a big enough "threat" (or even problem) to surrender basic liberties for. 1984 was a warning not a blueprint.
LoonR1 said:
And there we have it. A complete lack of understanding. You can drive when you want as long as you know you're insured. You may get pulled, but you may not. Has anyone in here, ever spleen pulled excluding the OP?
As before. I do t understand IT. I think the banks are far from perfect looking at recent history and transactions.
What can insurers possibly have to gain when motor insurance is already compulsory? You can't make people buy it more frequently, or more expensively, or more whatever.
No lack of understanding at all. I'm fully aware that you can legally drive as soon as the policy is active.As before. I do t understand IT. I think the banks are far from perfect looking at recent history and transactions.
What can insurers possibly have to gain when motor insurance is already compulsory? You can't make people buy it more frequently, or more expensively, or more whatever.
What you seem incapable of understanding is that, until the insurer gets around to updating MID, you're liable to get pulled over (possibly repeatedly like to OP) and even quite likely to have your car seized if the policeman concerned can't confirm your insurance - and we've seen often enough that they don't necessarily accept a printed certificate now even though they should.
I've had my last 4 policies take between 3 days and a week to register, I haven't got pulled because they don't have many ANPR cars around here. But, if I'd happened to be seen by one, I would have been. As ANPR becomes more common the chance of that happening increases dramatically.
As a fully legal driver, abiding by the rules, and entitled to go about my legal business without interruption, I don't see that as acceptable in any way shape or form.
LoonR1 said:
And there we have it. A complete lack of understanding. You can drive when you want as long as you know you're insured. You may get pulled, but you may not. Has anyone in here, ever spleen pulled excluding the OP?
As before. I do t understand IT. I think the banks are far from perfect looking at recent history and transactions.
What can insurers possibly have to gain when motor insurance is already compulsory? You can't make people buy it more frequently, or more expensively, or more whatever.
Its all well and good knowing youre insured- tell the cop stopping you that as they seize your carAs before. I do t understand IT. I think the banks are far from perfect looking at recent history and transactions.
What can insurers possibly have to gain when motor insurance is already compulsory? You can't make people buy it more frequently, or more expensively, or more whatever.
Variomatic said:
No lack of understanding at all. I'm fully aware that you can legally drive as soon as the policy is active.
What you seem incapable of understanding is that, until the insurer gets around to updating MID, you're liable to get pulled over (possibly repeatedly like to OP) and even quite likely to have your car seized if the policeman concerned can't confirm your insurance - and we've seen often enough that they don't necessarily accept a printed certificate now even though they should.
I've had my last 4 policies take between 3 days and a week to register, I haven't got pulled because they don't have many ANPR cars around here. But, if I'd happened to be seen by one, I would have been. As ANPR becomes more common the chance of that happening increases dramatically.
As a fully legal driver, abiding by the rules, and entitled to go about my legal business without interruption, I don't see that as acceptable in any way shape or form.
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?What you seem incapable of understanding is that, until the insurer gets around to updating MID, you're liable to get pulled over (possibly repeatedly like to OP) and even quite likely to have your car seized if the policeman concerned can't confirm your insurance - and we've seen often enough that they don't necessarily accept a printed certificate now even though they should.
I've had my last 4 policies take between 3 days and a week to register, I haven't got pulled because they don't have many ANPR cars around here. But, if I'd happened to be seen by one, I would have been. As ANPR becomes more common the chance of that happening increases dramatically.
As a fully legal driver, abiding by the rules, and entitled to go about my legal business without interruption, I don't see that as acceptable in any way shape or form.
Bigends said:
Its all well and good knowing youre insured- tell the cop stopping you that as they seize your car
I'm sure someone will be able to post the test case around that amd the outcome in favour of the public, that mean seizure is only done where plod really do suspect something dodgy now and that is t relying exclusively on a database. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff