Driving no insurance

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Are you really this stupid, or just deliberately refusing to accept things. I've got a mental picture of you sitting there with your fingers in your ears, saying "la,la, la, not listening" over & over again, as if that somehow makes you right.

Crikey R1Loon thats the image I have of you too

Have you assumed a lot about what he tried to do there?

Anyway how does it help the OP or anyone else due for 6 points?

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

Crikey R1Loon thats the image I have of you too

Have you assumed a lot about what he tried to do there?

Anyway how does it help the OP or anyone else due for 6 points?

Bingo, based on this in my last post:

R1 Loon said:

I'll sit back now and await your next question, that conveniently ignores the whole of this post, instead trying to make another spurious point.

As always, your latest post ignores the points I've made and tries to make yet another spurious point.

And as always, I'll answer your question with facts.

• It doesn't help the OP.
• He did not have insurance
• He had not renewed his insurance
• He had not paid the premium
• He had not ensured that he was correctly insured to drive the vehicle he was in
• The OP has no loophole to rely on, he is "bang to rights" and will need to throw himself at the mercy of the court to see if he canget away with the minimum punishment

[skwdenyer]

R1 Loon said:

You seem to be viewing driving as a right, rather than a privilege though. If someone can not afford to own, run & maintain a car legally, then they should not have the rest of society fund it for them.

Hmm. That's OK, as far as it goes. However, if they cannot afford to operate a car, they must instead depend upon a range of state-funded or state-subsidised services. Public transport, of all kinds, is state-subsidised to an enormous degree. Much of it is so inefficient that the greater the number of passengers, the greater the required subsidy (contrary to what one might imagine for a reasonable business model).

I'm not asking for the state to "fund" the driving of a car. What I'm saying is that, for something as widespread as car ownership, it is just woefully inefficient and needless to use the existing system to provide the indemnity insurance required for the benefit of society at large.

This is, in the modern context, "the British way". Unlike many other countries, we have a long history of ensuring that suitable insurance is organised by the state on our behalf. We do not have to self-insure for health, unemployment, sick-pay, and so on. Instead, we pay taxes or levies related to our participation, not to our individual risk profile, in return for the benefit. The widespread belief - which I share - is that such an arrangement is of wider benefit to society than the (uninsured) alternative.

The obvious example is, of course, health: our participation in the health system is funded by taxes, not priced according to risk. An alternate example is the financial protection afforded to our bank savings: the return we receive is reduced by the levy (premium) paid on our behalf by the banks through which insurance is provided for our savings.

Banking is quite a similar situation to the extant one: not everybody has savings, those with savings might arguably be able to afford their own insurance, but society is (it is argued) better off as a result of ensuring that consumers' savings are protected in the event of a bank default.

The most recent example is pension provision; the government is getting closer and closer to mandatory private pensions. From my point of view, the only logical conclusion to that process is a "re-imagining" of SERPS, with managers competing for the bulk business rather than fighting over individual pensions.

R1 Loon said:

After all there will always be another loophole for them to exploit, eg, I know I'll be covered, so I'll just steal the petrol, or the car, or not bother with a driving licence in the first place.

Yes, but from society's point of view, the really important thing is to ensure that these drivers are insured, come what may. In this case IMHO the end justifies the means.

Those people who would steal a car, or the petrol, or dispense with the need for a licence will always exist. However I believe they are a smaller constituency than those who are - deliberately or inadvertently - uninsured.

R1 Loon said:

Society is safe from uninsured drivers, due in no small part to the MIB.

That's a very sweeping statement. What is the cost of enforcement? How is society "safe from uninsured drivers"?

R1 Loon said:

However, we should continue to catch, punish** and make life harder for the criminal, not simply give up and change the rules, so that their actions are no longer crimminal.

Well, we've already got to the "give up and change the rules" stage in so many ways, in the face of mass disobedience/illegality/protest or just plain common sense; just picking a few at random:

• votes for women;
• legalisation of homosexuality;
• legalisation of CB radios;
• abolition of poll tax (and, being frank, I was - and am - pro poll tax);
• legalisation of silly flashing lights for bicycle riders;
• legalisation of unionisation;
• equal pay legislation;
• allowing cyclists to ride the "wrong" way along one-way streets;
• granting of degrees to women;
• (re)allowing protests in and around Parliament.

There is a long list of such examples in the UK alone.

I'm afraid that society is an ever-changing construct, and one which requires continual review of the legal and regulatory framework surrounding it in order to ensure fitness for purpose; it is not the role of the state to make life needlessly difficult for everybody. There is an implicit social contract between the population and the state; it must constantly be adjusted to ensure that it does not irrevocably break down.

R1 Loon said:

I do not believe that all drivers should be treated equally, just as I don't believe in communism, or any of the other left-wing politics.

I've historically been referred to, politically, as "further right-wing than Attila the Hun". This has nothing to do with communism and everything to do with the state being the enabler of a fairer and more efficient society. I'd like the (finite) resources in society to be used to grow a strong economy, not mess about with needless waste. I don't believe in a great many of the state benefits provided nowadays, and I don't believe that the state should subsidise insurance overall, but I do believe that it is in the best interests of society and of the economy for car liability insurance to be organised in the way I have suggested.

If you don't like that approach, oh Capitalist one, can I exempt you and your family from the NHS, state benefits, state schools and Universities, and so on?

R1 Loon said:

There will always be those who can afford better cars than others, irrespective of age, just as there will always be those who can afford better houses, better holidays etc. I applaud these people as most of them are the risk takers who employ the non-risk takers.

I've no problem with risk-taking or entrepreneurial endeavour. However that doesn't mean society can't be better, safer and fairer, does it?

R1 Loon said:

**IMO punshment should be far worse than it currently is. The fines may seem small, but at least we now confiscate cars on the spot, which makes it bloody expensive to keep driving uninsured.

The penalty isn't really the problem, IMHO. There is IMHO no more excuse for the state not sorting this mess out than there would be for issuing huge penalties for the completing of taxpayers in the wrong coloured ink.

[R1 Loon]

skwdenyer said:

Too much to quote

All of the examples you quote are either failed, failing or constantly under review and being outsourced to the private sector. Public Transport is not as inefficient as people would like to believe, not since the private sector took it on, albeit with vast subsidies. It's far from perfect, but I travel daily by train, a journey that would take in excess of an hour by car takes 20 mins and the trains are never anymore than 5 minutes late, on the rare occurrence that they are late. I can get to central London in just over 2 hours for a journey of c200miles.

Car ownership remains a privilege not a right and I see no reason why I should be expected to fund others ownership of any car they fancy driving.

Our "long history" is gradually, and rightly, being eroded as subsequent governments realise the folly of these systems. Social Security in its many guises has been reduced significantly and does not provide a safety net for the majority, it provides a lifestyle for the lazy.

The NHS should be funded by our National Insurance, it isn't that mmoeny is used elsewhere, ditto for SERPS and all the other failed pension schemes, where governments simply spent the money themselves and left it to someone else to sort out the mess eg The Graduated Pension Scheme.

Banking covers a maximum of £50,000 (rising to £100,000 on 31/12/2010) per person across all deposits and after that it's up to what's left from the sale of proceeds under the insolvency rules. Hardly a good safety net.

I wonder if we did the same for state provided TP cover what would happen? £50,000 is not that difficult a figure to exceed with two or more vehicles involved.

Your pension prediction is a bit weak, especially as the coverage was quite widespread of the idea of a social pot as per Holland & some of the US States this week. Your own ideas would be better, rather than regurgitating what's in the News.

Anyone affected by an uninsured / untraced driver is effectively protected, so I fail to see your point.

Cost of enforcement averages at £33 per insured driver in the UK and this is falling as more & more uninsured drvers are taken off the roads.

Society in terms of those affected are safe, as the MIB is there as an insurer of last resort. Society, as a whole, is less secure, but then that's true of all aspects of society as the underclasses become the majority.

Those examples are farcical, are you truly suggesting that uninsured drivers have a right to exist as much as women of homosexuals deserve to be treated as equals? The other examples are weak, I fail to see how the bottom few are comparable to those avoiding paying their way in society.

Your statements do not reflect someone with your claimed political leanings. The State does not need to be an Enabler, the State should be there to reflect the wishes of the majority (this is the risk of the underclasses exponential growth).

You can exempt me from the NHS (Private Care and Private Doctor & Dentist), I have never claimed State Benefits and currently don't qualify for any, even if I were to be jobless, I have too much in savings / investments to pass means-testing. I don't have children, but even when the time comes, they will be paying thir way at Uni anyway and are likely to be educated privately. My only demand in return is that I no longer have to pay Income Tax, Council Tax, VAT, fuel duty, Road Tax, IPT, NI etc.

The State has "sorted this mess out", or at the very least is in the process of doing so. The MIB is there as a safety net for the law abiding majority, but also allows the guilty to still be punished. More and more investment is finally going into catching offenders rather than making offenders of all

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

As always, your latest post ignores the points I've made and tries to make yet another spurious point.

And as always, I'll answer your question with facts.

• It doesn't help the OP.
• He did not have insurance
• He had not renewed his insurance
• He had not paid the premium
• He had not ensured that he was correctly insured to drive the vehicle he was in
• The OP has no loophole to rely on, he is "bang to rights" and will need to throw himself at the mercy of the court to see if he canget away with the minimum punishment

ADoh that's what this thread is all about!
We're not talking about someone who has deliberately decided to drive without insurance.
A mistake's been made leaving OP without insurance.
Very similar to your Freeman post (who managed to get away with it) and has happened to previous posters here and no doubt future posters too.
There's an easy way to solve it but have you said anything other than to confirm insurers carry on as they are and let a mistake result in 6 points?

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

ADoh that's what this thread is all about!
We're not talking about someone who has deliberately decided to drive without insurance.
A mistake's been made leaving OP without insurance.
Very similar to your Freeman post (who managed to get away with it) and has happened to previous posters here and no doubt future posters too.
There's an easy way to solve it but have you said anything other than to confirm insurers carry on as they are and let a mistake result in 6 points?

And again you have completely missed the point and for clarity whist we may not be "talking about someone who has deliberately decided to drive without insurance", we are talking about somebody who was driving without insurance, because of their actions and their actions alone.

There is NO comparison between the Freeman situation and the OP's one here are the reasons why.

• Nick Freeman (NF), contacted his broker, arranged his insurance, paid for it and left it with them.
• NF checked his insurance with his broker when he couldn't find his certificate.
• NF rang his broker to ask for confirmation that he was covered
• NF asked for a letter of indemnity given that the mistake lies exclusively with the insurer / broker
• NF did not get stopped by the Police

• The OP didn't contact his broker, didn't arrange his insurance, didn't pay for it, so by default he did not leave it with his broker / insurer
• The OP didn't check his insurance with his broker and obviously didn't have a certificate to lose / not receive in the first place
• The OP has nobody to ask for confirmation that he was covered because he wasn't
• The OP has no grounds to ask for a letter of indemnity, as the mistake lies exclusively with him
• The OP got stopped by the Police

There is no honest mistake when it comes to insurance, the RTA is absolutely clear on where an offence has been committed and then how the person can be found not guilty if they provide certain evidence after the fact. NF could do this, the OP can not.

There is no issue here for the insurers, unelss you believe they should phone everyone who does not renew and ask for absolute proof that the person has taken insurance elsewhere. Just for info, this cost would be added to your premium of you think it is worthwhile pursuing.

So I've now posted the relevant RTA links, the clear definitions of the offence(s), the allowances where the offence can be overturned and the differences between the two cases. Yet you continue to pursue this as if the OP is not at fault.

As always, I continue to post facts, you continue to draw incorrect conclusions, ignore the facts and post your personal opinions, which have no basis.

I await your next ridiculous comment.

BTW, I'm not getting wound up, just astonished at your social inadequacy.

[Engineer1]

Look it is really easy for this sort of thing to happen, it happened to my wife the auto renewal came through she rang to query a couple of items and was assured it wouldn't alter the price or the renewal. 3/4 weeks later the insurance now having expired for 2 weeks I asked her if she had received her certificate, she hadn't and upon ringing the insurer it seems the policy hadn't been auto renewed at all, being pay monthly it would have been atleast another 2/3weeks before the lack of payment would have been noticed on a bank statement and if the statement date is before the assumed payment date then the issue could have run on for a month or two.

The insurer admitted it was their error and they would have provided cover if required.

All it takes is an assumption that an Auto-renewal letter saying you don't need to do anything can be trusted. To have paid in such a way that a failed or returned payment isn't immediately obvious lets say monthly payment or on a credit card so it shows as paid on one statement and returned the following month. For a couple of people to have access to your post, or have issues where it is obvious some post isn't arriving on time so you can't be sure if the certificate has arrived.

I had an issue a few years before this with a policy alteration where I rang up made the change the insurer then tried to use an out of date card to take payment, despite me double checking they had an indate card. I was abroad for the subsequent 3 weeks during which time the insurer got to a week away from withdrawing cover, so a slightly longer holiday and delayed post could have seen me without insurance.

[R1 Loon]

Engineer1 said:

Look it is really easy for this sort of thing to happen, it happened to my wife the auto renewal came through she rang to query a couple of items and was assured it wouldn't alter the price or the renewal. 3/4 weeks later the insurance now having expired for 2 weeks I asked her if she had received her certificate, she hadn't and upon ringing the insurer it seems the policy hadn't been auto renewed at all, being pay monthly it would have been atleast another 2/3weeks before the lack of payment would have been noticed on a bank statement and if the statement date is before the assumed payment date then the issue could have run on for a month or two.

The insurer admitted it was their error and they would have provided cover if required.

All it takes is an assumption that an Auto-renewal letter saying you don't need to do anything can be trusted. To have paid in such a way that a failed or returned payment isn't immediately obvious lets say monthly payment or on a credit card so it shows as paid on one statement and returned the following month. For a couple of people to have access to your post, or have issues where it is obvious some post isn't arriving on time so you can't be sure if the certificate has arrived.

I had an issue a few years before this with a policy alteration where I rang up made the change the insurer then tried to use an out of date card to take payment, despite me double checking they had an indate card. I was abroad for the subsequent 3 weeks during which time the insurer got to a week away from withdrawing cover, so a slightly longer holiday and delayed post could have seen me without insurance.

Both of these assume auto-renewal, which actually isn't relevant to the OP. There is no auto-renewal on this threaad, just the one that saaby and jonny threw in as a red herring early on.

However, as I have stated numerous times, the insurer has provided a letter on indemnity, so no harm, no foul at your end.

Sits back and awaits saaby, to ask another irrelevant question.

[ZOLLAR]

OP is in court today, hopefully he'll post with the outcome.

[saaby93]

Engineer1 said:

The insurer admitted it was their error and they would have provided cover if required.

Wow- you were lucky?
Don't they usually say it's your mistake, you should have checked and we're only covering you from today? (You wont get a certificate today of course - so you're still in the lap of the gods until it arrives)

R1 Loon said:

However, as I have stated numerous times, the insurer has provided a letter on indemnity, so no harm, no foul at your end.

I may have missed it but was the OP promised a letter of indemnity?

ZOLLAR said:

OP is in court today, hopefully he'll post with the outcome.

Yup

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

Wow- you were lucky?
Don't they usually say it's your mistake, you should have checked and we're only covering you from today? (You wont get a certificate today of course - so you're still in the lap of the gods until it arrives)

Why is he lucky? The insurer accepted they were in the wrong. It happens quite often, although no doubt, you neither want to accept that, or believe it. So no, they don't "usually say it's your fault", they check the calls, check other records and take it on the chin, where appropriate.

saaby93 said:

I may have missed it but was the OP promised a letter of indemnity?

You "may have missed it", read the posts on the thread before commenting again. How many times do we have to go over and over and over the same old ground? It has been covered at least 8 times on this thread so far.

It's clear that the OP can not request one, as he did not arrange insurance. The insurace he had expired, he didn't renew.

End of.

[Biker's Nemesis]

R1 Loon said:

saaby93 said:

I may have missed it but was the OP promised a letter of indemnity?

You "may have missed it", read the posts on the thread before commenting again. How many times do we have to go over and over and over the same old ground? It has been covered at least 8 times on this thread so far.


End of.

I think saaby93 has caught an R1 Loon sized fish here.

[R1 Loon]

Biker's Nemesis said:

I think saaby93 has caught an R1 Loon sized fish here.

I think you're giving him a bit too much credit, he does this on pretty well every insurance thread. He even did it on a level crossing one, where he decided he knew more than the guys who design, build and operate them.

The guy just has a bee in his bonnet about insurance. I think this is because he works for an Accident Management Company and as been blatantly recommending them for months on every thread where he thinks he can earn a few quid.

Edited by R1 Loon on Monday 13th December 19:59

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

It's clear that the OP can not request one, as he did not arrange insurance. The insurace he had expired, he didn't renew.

Out of interest if like many people you accept that your insurance will autorenew and then it doesn't, is that your mistake or the insurer's mistake?

[Biker's Nemesis]

R1 Loon said:

The guy just has a bee in his bonnet about insurance. I think this is because he works for an Accident Management Company and as been blatantly recommending them for months on every thread where he thinks he can earn a few quid.

Aren't accident management company's one of the reasons for ever increasing insurance premiums.

[R1 Loon]

Biker's Nemesis said:

R1 Loon said:

The guy just has a bee in his bonnet about insurance. I think this is because he works for an Accident Management Company and as been blatantly recommending them for months on every thread where he thinks he can earn a few quid.

Aren't accident management company's one of the reasons for ever increasing insurance premiums.

[boobles]

R1 Loon said:

Biker's Nemesis said:

R1 Loon said:

The guy just has a bee in his bonnet about insurance. I think this is because he works for an Accident Management Company and as been blatantly recommending them for months on every thread where he thinks he can earn a few quid.

Aren't accident management company's one of the reasons for ever increasing insurance premiums.

But they make the claim so much easier....

I would use one again without a doubt.

[mel]

ZOLLAR said:

saaby93 said:

ZOLLAR said:

It means most mainstream insurers won't touch him with a bargepole.

so what does he do?
What's the usual defence when this happens after a mistake by the insurer?

Well as i said if the insurer is at fault they will provide indemnity but if the courts ignore that and still give an IN10 he will have to still declare it, perhaps the insurer he is with would pay a certain amount of compensation perhaps it will go to the FSO or FSA not really sure TBH i've never come across that occurance as its pretty rare.

I have an IN10 conviction and have cars insured with Direct Line & Admiral plus bikes with Bennetts ( underwritten by Norwich Union from memory) I'd say those three are pretty "mainstream" and happily take my money in exchange for insurance with no inflated premium. The reason I was convicted was due to a clerical error by Direct Line which was proven in court, the conviction was due to the offence being an absolute offence where you are either insured or not, blame is not questioned just yes or no, in my case the answer was no I wasn't insured so I was convicted. However I was given an absolute discharge (but still a conviction) this means that under the magistrates sentencing act it is illegal for anybody to take this conviction into account for any reason other than the sentencing court at the time of conviction, so if an insurer declines to offer me insurance or inflates my premium due to my IN10 conviction then they commit an offence, as does anybody else who takes it into consideration.

[saaby93]

mel said:

I have an IN10 conviction and have cars insured with Direct Line & Admiral plus bikes with Bennetts ( underwritten by Norwich Union from memory) I'd say those three are pretty "mainstream" and happily take my money in exchange for insurance with no inflated premium. The reason I was convicted was due to a clerical error by Direct Line which was proven in court, the conviction was due to the offence being an absolute offence where you are either insured or not, blame is not questioned just yes or no, in my case the answer was no I wasn't insured so I was convicted. However I was given an absolute discharge (but still a conviction) this means that under the magistrates sentencing act it is illegal for anybody to take this conviction into account for any reason other than the sentencing court at the time of conviction, so if an insurer declines to offer me insurance or inflates my premium due to my IN10 conviction then they commit an offence, as does anybody else who takes it into consideration.

I think that's the type of thing the OP was looking for before going to court.

However unless you know of some instruction given to magistrates in these circumstances which can be quoted it's still in the lap of the gods which way they will go. (It still feels as though you've had to prove your innocence)
There's also the minor matter of what happens if you have an accident meantime. I think Noger's said there will be RTA cover but isn't that still dependent on convincing the insurer that they should have insured you? - can they still say no?
(And why not full cover?)

Although it's the most helpful post so far
It's not as useful as being able to reinstate insurance as if no mistake had been made

Edited by saaby93 on Monday 13th December 23:04

[Jesus TF Christ]

R1 Loon said:

Car ownership remains a privilege not a right

bks.
Car ownership is open to the vast majority of people, therefore not a privilege.
It irks me when people say that (on here, I've never heard a "normal" person describe car ownership as a privilege).