ANPR Operation today
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
To all those who doubt what I said about driving a car not owned by you....
I strongly urge you to ASK your insurer before you venture out in a car not owned by you and not having its own policy.....
Why should I ask them? I have read the policy and it doesn't include the clause you insist is there. How else can I determine the scope of the policy if not by reading the policy document's terms and conditions, along with the certificate and schedule? What other secret terms and conditions do you think apply to car insurance policies? Did you note that I used to work for an Insurance Co and I was telling people the same thing you are now? It's a commonly held misconception, IMO.
I asked for concrete evidence of your belief that the other vehicle must be insured, but so far all you have done is say it just does, ok!
I thought this discussion was familiar, and it appears that it's already been done on Safe Speed. See this post www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=33902#33902 It appears that the
s were happy to accept the DOC extension in the case here, although I agree that this is also hearsay 
In the scenario I described earlier (taking my brother's uninsured car from his house to mine) if I am stopped by trafpol I will show my certificate of insurance. It says I "may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement" Will the
accept this as proof of insurance or will he/she need to see another document relating to the specific vehicle? You say the additional document will be required, I say it isn't. The Safe Speed thread appears to support my argument; I am yet to be convinced by yours. Section 143(1) of the Road Traffic Act merely specifies that a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of the act My certificate gives third party cover and complies with this requirement.
MrsMiggins said:
To all those who doubt what I said about driving a car not owned by you....
I strongly urge you to ASK your insurer before you venture out in a car not owned by you and not having its own policy.....
Why should I ask them? I have read the policy and it doesn't include the clause you insist is there. How else can I determine the scope of the policy if not by reading the policy document's terms and conditions, along with the certificate and schedule? What other secret terms and conditions do you think apply to car insurance policies? Did you note that I used to work for an Insurance Co and I was telling people the same thing you are now? It's a commonly held misconception, IMO.
No, I didn't know you were an insider, and I was addressing everyone, not just you. I brought the same points up more than thirty years ago. I tested three insurance companies and they all said the car must be insured by its owner before your cover could be effective. Their line was that, if not, I could buy a Robin Reliant for myself and a Ferrari for my wife, then drive the Ferrari on my thirty quid Robin policy, and my policy could be used to tax an infinite number of cars. They never did explain away the absense of specific wording to that effect in the policy. I can't suggest or explain why. Do you think there is something tucked away in legislation that covers their stance? I do, but I don't know where.
MrsMiggins said:
I asked for concrete evidence of your belief that the other vehicle must be insured, but so far all you have done is say it just does, ok!
I'm sorry you took it like that. I didn't read all the posts. I was just trying to help everybody avoid grief by suggesting they talk to their insurers for clarification of something I'm sure has been enshrined in motor cover for decades. This is the first time I've encountered the views expressed here.
MrsMiggins said:
I thought this discussion was familiar, and it appears that it's already been done on Safe Speed. See this post www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=33902#33902 It appears that the
Thanks, I'll have a look at that.
MrsMiggins said:
In the scenario I described earlier (taking my brother's uninsured car from his house to mine) if I am stopped by trafpol I will show my certificate of insurance. It says I "may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement" Will the
Fair enough, that's up to you, but I wouldn't like to put my neck on the block to test it.
MrsMiggins said:
Section 143(1) of the Road Traffic Act merely specifies that a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third-party risks as complies with the requirements of this part of the act My certificate gives third party cover and complies with this requirement.
Yes. But remember the cover we're discussing is Road Traffic Act only. It doesn't go as far as standard third party cover, does it? I believe it covers only injuries to third parties, but I'm not sure. If I'm right, it leaves you exposed to coughing up for third party damage if you have a fault accident.
And all this will soon be irrelevant. Norwich Union is eliminating such cover, and my new insurer has followed suit. I resent this because the cover is useful in emergencies, but I took the new policy because it was considerably less costly than other quotes. I was fortunate to get one of my sons down as a named driver at no extra cost, and he's going to put me down on his policy. It looks as though this will soon be the only option available.
MrsMiggins said:
take that, you cur
I said:
>> Edited by mybrainhurts on Saturday 4th February 04:18
Sorry if I came off a bit strong, no offence intended 
.
IMO, NU are using the scenario you have described with the Reliant and the Ferrari because they see a business opportunity - why give away for free cover you can charge an additional premium for? Like you I resent it and will not be doing business with them.
As far as third party cover is concerned, I understand and accept the risks involved in using the DOC extension and have no intention of using the cover to defraud anyone; it's just a convenient way of managing the situation if I ever have to drive someone else's car unexpectedly. I'm fairly sure that's within the spirit of the clause when it was first introduced.
What's interesting is that these 2 points appear to contradict each other - essentially falsifying a risk vs TP cover only. If you bought your wife a ferrari would you really want to drive it with TP cover only? Particularly with the number of uninsured drivers around these days? Me neither! So what is the real basis of NU's claim? Makes the profit motive seem even more likely. Can't for the life of me think why I got out of the Insurance Biz
. IMO, NU are using the scenario you have described with the Reliant and the Ferrari because they see a business opportunity - why give away for free cover you can charge an additional premium for? Like you I resent it and will not be doing business with them.
As far as third party cover is concerned, I understand and accept the risks involved in using the DOC extension and have no intention of using the cover to defraud anyone; it's just a convenient way of managing the situation if I ever have to drive someone else's car unexpectedly. I'm fairly sure that's within the spirit of the clause when it was first introduced.
What's interesting is that these 2 points appear to contradict each other - essentially falsifying a risk vs TP cover only. If you bought your wife a ferrari would you really want to drive it with TP cover only? Particularly with the number of uninsured drivers around these days? Me neither! So what is the real basis of NU's claim? Makes the profit motive seem even more likely. Can't for the life of me think why I got out of the Insurance Biz
MrsMiggins said:
...if I am stopped by trafpol I will show my certificate of insurance. It says I "may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement" Will the
Hmmm...the
may want to know more about this matter than proof of insurance.... the early bird catches the worm 'n all that
>> Edited by yoda954 on Saturday 4th February 09:14
If you get issued with a HORT/1 by the Police to produce documents, I don't remember there being 2 sections on the HORT/2 for the Police to fill in at the station. i.e, 1 section for insurance docs relating to you as a driver and another section for the insurance docs of the owner of the vehicle.
If it was the case that the car has to be under cover by the owner, surely the 3rd party provision would say, "Covers the policyholder for driving another vehicle not owned by them PROVIDING that said vehicle already has a current policy in place by its owner"
I am in agreement with Mr's M.
If it was the case that the car has to be under cover by the owner, surely the 3rd party provision would say, "Covers the policyholder for driving another vehicle not owned by them PROVIDING that said vehicle already has a current policy in place by its owner"
I am in agreement with Mr's M.
yoda954 said:
...if I am stopped by trafpol I will show my certificate of insurance. It says I "may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement" Will the
Hmmm...the
I would imagine that my knowing the RK's name, address, DOB and having a plausible explanation for driving the car would be acceptable. Now, if the
asked me to get out of the car to have a chat, would he be 'causing or permitting an offence', since the vehicle arguably becomes uninsured when I stop driving it? 
oh no, here we go again!
>> Edited by MrsMiggins on Saturday 4th February 18:08
The point about car insurance in the UK is it is the DRIVER that is insured NOT the car. Why on earth then, would an insurance company have a requirement for a car to be insured by someones else in order to use DOC cover? The simple answer is they don't, and never (AFAIK) have done. This appears to be one of the misconceptions that appears time and gain, with people spreading incorrect information as fact.
mybrainhurts said:
.......... I brought the same points up more than thirty years ago. I tested three insurance companies and they all said the car must be insured by its owner before your cover could be effective. Their line was that, if not, I could buy a Robin Reliant for myself and a Ferrari for my wife, then drive the Ferrari on my thirty quid Robin policy, and my policy could be used to tax an infinite number of cars. They never did explain away the absense of specific wording to that effect in the policy. I can't suggest or explain why. Do you think there is something tucked away in legislation that covers their stance? I do, but I don't know where.
As I recall, thirty ish years ago it was common NOT to have the VRM on your Certificate of Insurance and it was therefore possible to buy a 'Reliant and drive a Ferrari' as you could tax both with the one certificate.
That practice stopped somewhere around 30 years back and VRM's were added to the Certificate thus preventing the scenario you describe - at some point you'd HAVE to insure the Ferrari to get tax for it.
Onto a slightly different angle on insurance. Some time back my wife was issued a 'producer' for MOT and Insurance (she had her licence with her) and is a named driver on my policy.
We took the docs along to the local station and presented them. BiB inspected them and pronounced everything fine. Then I asked him how he knew the Mrs BigBob named on the policy was actually the Mrs BigBob that had been stopped and was presenting the docs (we have a very common surname for this part of the world).
Lots of Uhmmming and Arrrrghing and a disrete withdrawal to attend to more important business - never did get an answer and still wonder how many 'spouses' out there get away with it
purpleheadedcerb said:
Having been the victim of an uninsured loss accident, I wish this was done more regularly.
Well done.
As mentioned in another thread, I am (innocently) on the wrong side of this - I have been accused of being uninsured. I was in fact insured and have proven so, but it took 2 years for the MIB to get in touch with me, and so far has taken a further six months with no result. If I was on the other side of that, waiting for the money from the MIB, i would be most unimpressed!
IMHO ANPR is not a bad thing. If it gets uninsured, untaxed and unsafe cars off the raod, then surely it is no bad thing? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
wd* said:
IMHO ANPR is not a bad thing. If it gets uninsured, untaxed and unsafe cars off the raod, then surely it is no bad thing? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
It is a good thing for sure, but as Safespeed said, it'll take years to catch just the currently uninsured drivers. I've only ever seen 1 ANPR operation and given the roads I use, am unlikely to see another. I could have no tax or insurance and be driving a stolen car and my chances of being caught are practically nil.
busa_rush said:
IMHO ANPR is not a bad thing. If it gets uninsured, untaxed and unsafe cars off the raod, then surely it is no bad thing? If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about.
It is a good thing for sure, but as Safespeed said, it'll take years to catch just the currently uninsured drivers. I've only ever seen 1 ANPR operation and given the roads I use, am unlikely to see another. I could have no tax or insurance and be driving a stolen car and my chances of being caught are practically nil.
So its crap quality, it doesn't work, even if it did it would take years to catch its target group. The police powers in use to sieze vehicles are dubious and depend on the permission of motorists anyway and you still think its a good thing? Intersting definition of good. Shall we reintroduce Thalidamide as a good thing cos after all it did provide women with pleasant pregnacies? There are not too many things in this world which are black an white but ANPR is one of them. The only purposes it will serve is to keep some useless people employed and to annoy the general public. These bits of technology are badly thought out and collectively will serve to annoy the general public. I sincerelyt hope that very soon the general public will start hunting these facilities in gangs and smashing them. Now that would be a good thing.
Parrot of Doom said:
Can I just add that its possible to get a policy which allows you to drive any car you like. Its just more expensive.
Are you sure that is true?
I enquired with our brokers about getting cover to drive any cars not owned by me, but I was told this was not possible unless I happened to be a motor trader etc. This didn't really seem to make sense to me but I haven't yet checked further.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Admiral does a multi car policy.
Hate to promote them because one of their policy holders whacked me with a fraudulent claim a couple of years ago, and I'm a bitter sod, but here goes....
www.admiral.com/yourPolicy/pdf/multicar.pdf
Hate to promote them because one of their policy holders whacked me with a fraudulent claim a couple of years ago, and I'm a bitter sod, but here goes....
www.admiral.com/yourPolicy/pdf/multicar.pdf
Nii said:
Hi Tony rec,
Someone recommend me to you. I'm doing a TV documentary in London about speed cameras, I wonder if you could give an interview about your opinion? We need a police officer to balance the story. Thank you.
That's interesting.
Who / or from what areas do you have representatives to provide the balance?
When will this be aired?
Richard C said:
Richard,
I dont know the exact legal power act and section that allows the cars to be seized by Police but i will find out when im back at work.
I prefer to give you the correct answer so i will leave that until then.
Thanks Tonyrec
earlier I said:
You might find it useful to check with South Yorkshire police.
Idris Francis has had them in knots for months over this.
It is now the subject of a formal complaint against the Chief Constable.
It seems they are unable to define the source of the power they purport to possess and it's getting very messy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff