Uninsured drivers
Discussion
ITV 8pm last night. I didn't see all of it.
One women has been driving uninsured for over 30 years and only been caught once - £100 fine!!!
Police stopped a young girl in a fairly new Corsa as their database showed no insurance against the vehicle. She insisted she was insured but didn't have prove with her. Police insisted their database was correct and arranged for car to be confiscated. Her sister arrived with the insurance certificate just before car was put onto a low-loader!
As it is not a legal requirement for a driver to carry their insurance details it seems very heavy handed of the police to take the car without giving the driver time to produce their insurance (a Producer?). The car was taxed and she did have a license.
The rest of the programme highlighted the problem of uninsured drivers - 2 million? The offical line seemed to be to rely on cameras to catch them (what if car is unregistered?) and higher penalties as a deterrant.
One women has been driving uninsured for over 30 years and only been caught once - £100 fine!!!
Police stopped a young girl in a fairly new Corsa as their database showed no insurance against the vehicle. She insisted she was insured but didn't have prove with her. Police insisted their database was correct and arranged for car to be confiscated. Her sister arrived with the insurance certificate just before car was put onto a low-loader!
As it is not a legal requirement for a driver to carry their insurance details it seems very heavy handed of the police to take the car without giving the driver time to produce their insurance (a Producer?). The car was taxed and she did have a license.
The rest of the programme highlighted the problem of uninsured drivers - 2 million? The offical line seemed to be to rely on cameras to catch them (what if car is unregistered?) and higher penalties as a deterrant.
Given that the average insurance certificate contains address and possibly further personal details on it, its actually recommended to NOT have your insurance with you! As for the V5 as well, well a combination of the two together is a nightmare and throw in your driving license and you run the risk of having your life stolen from under your feet if your car gets broken into.....
Unless there is a major change in what is required, I dont see the requirement to carry ID, insurance or anything else changing quickly.
Oh, hang on.... ID .... isnt the government trying to do something about this? Pants.... more money up the wall then?
Unless there is a major change in what is required, I dont see the requirement to carry ID, insurance or anything else changing quickly.
Oh, hang on.... ID .... isnt the government trying to do something about this? Pants.... more money up the wall then?
I think the lady who has driven for thirty years and paid only £100 in "insurance" for that time shows the crux of the problem. It's just too easy to get away with, and even being caught is cheaper than paying for insurance.
(As a contrast, I'm 24, and already I've paid over £4,500 to insure my cars since I started driving.)
I'd like to see the following structure:
* First offence - three points, plus a fine which is the maximum of the following: {Twice insurance premium cost of car, 10% annual gross income, £1000}
* Second offence - six points, double above fine, car taken and sold or crushed as appropriate.
* Third offence - Driving ban. Other punishments as above. If on "taxpayer-augmented" income, benefits witheld for a minimum of one year, further at discretion of court.
* Further offences - Permanently banned from driving or car ownership, for ever. Unconditional, six month no-questions-asked jail sentence minimum for each time caught behind the wheel of a car.
I've tried to make the first offence a reasonable deterrent while still being not too bad for people who get caught up accidentally. If it's too light I'd expect people to drive around without insurance until the first time they're caught and "go legal" thereafter.
Proceeds would be split evenly between the treasury, the fund that pays for damages arising from uninsured drivers, and the police force that manages to catch the uninsured driver. Drivers caught uninsured while also on cloned plates, unregistered vehicle or similar would "skip" a level; in other words would go from nothing straight to the second offence penalty.
-
I admit, I'm being a bit draconian, but too many relatives of mine have suffered at the hands of uninsured drivers, and there really isn't an excuse. Either you can afford to run a car on the road with everything legal and above board, or you can't.
(As a contrast, I'm 24, and already I've paid over £4,500 to insure my cars since I started driving.)
I'd like to see the following structure:
* First offence - three points, plus a fine which is the maximum of the following: {Twice insurance premium cost of car, 10% annual gross income, £1000}
* Second offence - six points, double above fine, car taken and sold or crushed as appropriate.
* Third offence - Driving ban. Other punishments as above. If on "taxpayer-augmented" income, benefits witheld for a minimum of one year, further at discretion of court.
* Further offences - Permanently banned from driving or car ownership, for ever. Unconditional, six month no-questions-asked jail sentence minimum for each time caught behind the wheel of a car.
I've tried to make the first offence a reasonable deterrent while still being not too bad for people who get caught up accidentally. If it's too light I'd expect people to drive around without insurance until the first time they're caught and "go legal" thereafter.
Proceeds would be split evenly between the treasury, the fund that pays for damages arising from uninsured drivers, and the police force that manages to catch the uninsured driver. Drivers caught uninsured while also on cloned plates, unregistered vehicle or similar would "skip" a level; in other words would go from nothing straight to the second offence penalty.
-
I admit, I'm being a bit draconian, but too many relatives of mine have suffered at the hands of uninsured drivers, and there really isn't an excuse. Either you can afford to run a car on the road with everything legal and above board, or you can't.
Edited by timberwolf on Tuesday 14th November 14:03
So what do people think of the police action of taking a person's car without giving them the change of proving that they have insurance? Bearing in mind that there is no legal requirement to carry insurance document. Remember with the current state of the databases it could happen to you! - if you don't carry the insurance doc.
Philbes said:
So what do people think of the police action of taking a person's car without giving them the change of proving that they have insurance? Bearing in mind that there is no legal requirement to carry insurance document. Remember with the current state of the databases it could happen to you! - if you don't carry the insurance doc.
I didn't watch the show, so I'm not sure of the circumstances. However, I think this is one of those "within reasonable doubt" type of things, and if the girl was in a well-maintained car with ticks in all the other boxes (tax, MoT, driving license) a producer would have been more appropriate.
What would be quite good is if the insurance companies were to offer a card similar to the AA type ones; with your name, policy number, policy type and telephone number of the insurance company on it. Then you wouldn't need all the policy documentation, and in cases of doubt could hand the card to the police - one quick call to the insurance company and all would be sorted. Since it's not full of personal details it would be more palatable for it to be a legal requirement that this is kept about your person whenever you're driving a car.
'Course, you're still stuffed if you're knocking about in an old car registered halfway across the country that's insured with a tiny insurance company the police have never heard of and you then fail to turn up on the database, but then we're getting into the realm of discussing the way people who abuse lenient rules only end up screwing everything up for all of us, eventually themselves included.
The police phoning the insurance company for confirmation is fine betwen 9.00 and 17.30, but at 21.00? Where do they get the number from? If it was my wife driving my car (she is a named driver) I doubt she would remember who the car was insured with.
This has made me think. Both my wife and I carry the insurance certifcate for our own cars, driving license and MOT (when necessary). In future I will make sure that we also carry a copy of the cert. for each other's car. Could save some hassle if stopped.
But didn't an ex-policeman once give the advice that you should never offer your docuemnts if stopped? Can't remeber why.
If the young girl in the programme had her car confiscated and then turned up with a valid insurance certificate would she then had to pay to get her car back? Could she claim back from the police all her expenses and was it wrongful 'arrest'!
This has made me think. Both my wife and I carry the insurance certifcate for our own cars, driving license and MOT (when necessary). In future I will make sure that we also carry a copy of the cert. for each other's car. Could save some hassle if stopped.
But didn't an ex-policeman once give the advice that you should never offer your docuemnts if stopped? Can't remeber why.
If the young girl in the programme had her car confiscated and then turned up with a valid insurance certificate would she then had to pay to get her car back? Could she claim back from the police all her expenses and was it wrongful 'arrest'!
It is an offence not to show your driving license, insurance and mot certificates when required to do so by a police officer.
So when you are asked for these docs at the roadside and you dont have them with you, you have commited an offence.
The only defence is producing them at a police station within 7 days hence the producer.
Bear in mind you dont have to be given the producer and can just be sumonsed to court where you can produce them there.
When dealing with no insurance at the roadside a number of checks are carried out including insurance DB checks which if held show the policy details, policy holder, insured persons to drive etc.
This will sometimes come back as Not Held but doesnt always mean there is no insurance in force.
A number of questions can be asked to ascertain if the driver is telling the truth.
Some insurance co's have 24hr claims lines we can call to verify details.
There are factors which will make the officer decide wether to issue a producer or seize the vehicle.
If they have no license then there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is no insurance either.
Also if we seize a vehicle and the driver produces an insurance cert for the date and time stopped then there are no costs involved to the driver.
So when you are asked for these docs at the roadside and you dont have them with you, you have commited an offence.
The only defence is producing them at a police station within 7 days hence the producer.
Bear in mind you dont have to be given the producer and can just be sumonsed to court where you can produce them there.
When dealing with no insurance at the roadside a number of checks are carried out including insurance DB checks which if held show the policy details, policy holder, insured persons to drive etc.
This will sometimes come back as Not Held but doesnt always mean there is no insurance in force.
A number of questions can be asked to ascertain if the driver is telling the truth.
Some insurance co's have 24hr claims lines we can call to verify details.
There are factors which will make the officer decide wether to issue a producer or seize the vehicle.
If they have no license then there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is no insurance either.
Also if we seize a vehicle and the driver produces an insurance cert for the date and time stopped then there are no costs involved to the driver.
^Slider^ said:
It is an offence not to show your driving license, insurance and mot certificates when required to do so by a police officer.
So when you are asked for these docs at the roadside and you dont have them with you, you have commited an offence.
The only defence is producing them at a police station within 7 days hence the producer.
Bear in mind you dont have to be given the producer and can just be sumonsed to court where you can produce them there.
When dealing with no insurance at the roadside a number of checks are carried out including insurance DB checks which if held show the policy details, policy holder, insured persons to drive etc.
This will sometimes come back as Not Held but doesnt always mean there is no insurance in force.
A number of questions can be asked to ascertain if the driver is telling the truth.
Some insurance co's have 24hr claims lines we can call to verify details.
There are factors which will make the officer decide wether to issue a producer or seize the vehicle.
If they have no license then there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is no insurance either.
Also if we seize a vehicle and the driver produces an insurance cert for the date and time stopped then there are no costs involved to the driver.
So when you are asked for these docs at the roadside and you dont have them with you, you have commited an offence.
The only defence is producing them at a police station within 7 days hence the producer.
Bear in mind you dont have to be given the producer and can just be sumonsed to court where you can produce them there.
When dealing with no insurance at the roadside a number of checks are carried out including insurance DB checks which if held show the policy details, policy holder, insured persons to drive etc.
This will sometimes come back as Not Held but doesnt always mean there is no insurance in force.
A number of questions can be asked to ascertain if the driver is telling the truth.
Some insurance co's have 24hr claims lines we can call to verify details.
There are factors which will make the officer decide wether to issue a producer or seize the vehicle.
If they have no license then there are reasonable grounds to suspect that there is no insurance either.
Also if we seize a vehicle and the driver produces an insurance cert for the date and time stopped then there are no costs involved to the driver.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.
I trust that a 60-year-old in a 1-year-old Civic doesn't fit the profile of 'driving without insurance'. However, will now make sure wife and I carry (photo) license, insurance (for both cars) and MOT.
Philbes in original post accurately describes the scenario.
It would have pissed me off to be continually told, as the young girl was, to calm down and no need to be obstreporous (sp?), I forget the actual wording they used. In fact from what we saw she was not being bolshie but what I would call firm and plain speaking.
She was damn lucky that her sister was contactable, could find the documents, and could get them there as the tow truck was there ready to lift her vehicle. No cameras and it would have been lifted I bet.
Until the point that she produced the docs, I'm not all that sure that GMP came out of it with flying colours either.
As soon as they had the docs they did ask the data to be amended. We never saw an apology to young girl but I expect one will have been offered, if not a disgrace.
Regarding carying documents, remember re MOT cert that actually carrying the document means absolutely nothing. It says so on the leaflets they hand out nowadays. It is the record n the VOSA computer which determines if your vehicle has a valid MOT or not, and ONLY the computer, the actual cert issued means nothing.
On the other hand I'm sure plod have heard it all before, and we saw it on programme, scrotes giving false names, nominating an insurance company only to cough that it is all a fabrication when they see that checks are made.
During the programme, like Philbes, it made me think. For my own 'company' car the fleet insurance does not make any nomination of VRN, merely any vehicle of type **** (we have different certs depending upon what types of vehicles we are allowed to drive) owned, on hire or loan to X etc etc. Now how do I prove that a) I work for X, b) I have permission from X.
In my case it's easy to prove both points but maybe not so for everyone.
But I drive Mrs FiF's car and don't have the insurance and MOT docs with me, even though as said above MOT cert means square root of bugger all. Tried to remember insurance company it's insured with without looking in files. Total blank. That's without any pressure of the situation. Eventually remembered after some while.
Ladyman had no real answer when challenged by Count Quentula about data quality.
Might be making some copies of my documents for all cars. No doubt that is to be made illegal under Road Safety Bill 2008 Section 7, para 123 b (iv) Appendix 4 Schedule 67(b) as amended. (Completely made up forthcoming legislation..... I hope)
Edited for typos
It would have pissed me off to be continually told, as the young girl was, to calm down and no need to be obstreporous (sp?), I forget the actual wording they used. In fact from what we saw she was not being bolshie but what I would call firm and plain speaking.
She was damn lucky that her sister was contactable, could find the documents, and could get them there as the tow truck was there ready to lift her vehicle. No cameras and it would have been lifted I bet.
Until the point that she produced the docs, I'm not all that sure that GMP came out of it with flying colours either.
As soon as they had the docs they did ask the data to be amended. We never saw an apology to young girl but I expect one will have been offered, if not a disgrace.
Regarding carying documents, remember re MOT cert that actually carrying the document means absolutely nothing. It says so on the leaflets they hand out nowadays. It is the record n the VOSA computer which determines if your vehicle has a valid MOT or not, and ONLY the computer, the actual cert issued means nothing.
On the other hand I'm sure plod have heard it all before, and we saw it on programme, scrotes giving false names, nominating an insurance company only to cough that it is all a fabrication when they see that checks are made.
During the programme, like Philbes, it made me think. For my own 'company' car the fleet insurance does not make any nomination of VRN, merely any vehicle of type **** (we have different certs depending upon what types of vehicles we are allowed to drive) owned, on hire or loan to X etc etc. Now how do I prove that a) I work for X, b) I have permission from X.
In my case it's easy to prove both points but maybe not so for everyone.
But I drive Mrs FiF's car and don't have the insurance and MOT docs with me, even though as said above MOT cert means square root of bugger all. Tried to remember insurance company it's insured with without looking in files. Total blank. That's without any pressure of the situation. Eventually remembered after some while.
Ladyman had no real answer when challenged by Count Quentula about data quality.
Might be making some copies of my documents for all cars. No doubt that is to be made illegal under Road Safety Bill 2008 Section 7, para 123 b (iv) Appendix 4 Schedule 67(b) as amended. (Completely made up forthcoming legislation..... I hope)
Edited for typos
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 14th November 15:37
Why can't the government adopt the practice of Jersey? abolish road tax and put the price onto petrol, replace the road tax disc with an insurance certificate.
I know that the insurance disc has flaws, like people could be paying in instalments and have a years disc in their screen, then lapse payments after a month.
But I'm sure that as with vehicle off the road certificates they could run in tandem with insurance certificates. we might then see a reduction in the law abiding motorists policies and costs, as there would be no road tax dodgers, and certainly more people driving with insurance.
Regards,
James Sim.
Oh I forgot to add that, when Jersey adopted this policy, road tax varied from @£18 per year - @£80 dependant on vehicle size and engine capacity.
the sum put on fuel was @19p per litre, the average annual mileage for Jersey is 6k per annum, therefore
6000 miles @ ave 30mpg = 200 gallons per year x 4.54ish = 909litres x .19 = £172.00, this got through the Jersey States without any real protest. But I'm sure the Westminster bunch wouldn't try anything like this?
I know that the insurance disc has flaws, like people could be paying in instalments and have a years disc in their screen, then lapse payments after a month.
But I'm sure that as with vehicle off the road certificates they could run in tandem with insurance certificates. we might then see a reduction in the law abiding motorists policies and costs, as there would be no road tax dodgers, and certainly more people driving with insurance.
Regards,
James Sim.
Oh I forgot to add that, when Jersey adopted this policy, road tax varied from @£18 per year - @£80 dependant on vehicle size and engine capacity.
the sum put on fuel was @19p per litre, the average annual mileage for Jersey is 6k per annum, therefore
6000 miles @ ave 30mpg = 200 gallons per year x 4.54ish = 909litres x .19 = £172.00, this got through the Jersey States without any real protest. But I'm sure the Westminster bunch wouldn't try anything like this?
This is very interesting. Could I possibly clear up a few things. The legislation in respect of insurance is covered under section 143 RTA 1988. It applies to all UK.
I'll put it in laymens terms off the top of my head I don't have the books in front of me.
Basically if you are using or keeping a mpv on a road or other public place you are required to have in place for that vehicle a certificate of insurance covering 3rd party risks as respects part v of the act. (never worked out why that bit is always in Roman numerals)
You are required to produce that certificate to a constable if asked.
There is an exception which in law is not the same as a defence (so no offence committed if you don't have them on you..This is important to note)
The exception is you have deposited x amount of money with the supreme court...(Read it folks it says that)(there are others but my mind is rusty)
or
You are required to produce said certificate at a police station OF YOUR CHOICE (thats another bit to remember bibs usually tell you what station they think but thats unlawful you tell them) within 7 days. failure to do so then is an offence. UNLESS you can provide a reason for failing to produce the docs within that time.(That covers folk who take ill or who are going abroad on holiday for two weeks or who get stopped when on holiday.If you tell the bib this at the time they will grant an extention)
Now do we all know that there is no requirement for the person who was stopped to attend at the station with the docs? That catches out a lot of bibs too.
Fact. The only doc you have to produce in person is your driving licence because when you sign the HORT2 at the station they compare your signature and mug (if you have a photo licence)
Bibs get people to turn up at the office with insurance docs and the truth is they are not allowed to insist on this.
Another wee gem. If its just insurance log book mot then they cannot require you to sign the HORT2. They can only invite you to sign. Its actually written on the form in small print.
Also if the stop does not involve an accident or offence the requirement is to have your docs checked not recorded! The bibs always tick recorded because well they always do. Question? Why? Why are the recording your details when they only need to check them? Why are they keeping your data in a folder and then in a box room and then in a store room at Force HQ for up to 7 years? Why have that info? What are they doing with it? To be honest the answer is nothing. It sits and gathers dust and one day (you will never know when it will be burnt or as happened in Scotland a few moths back it will be dumped in a skip, found and passed on to the local press to ask red face bibs "Hey whats this all about"
Ok that sorted can I say this. Forget about photocopies to try and prove to a bib you have insurance but the real one is in the house. No bib will even look at them they are just bits of paper. I will not even glance at one.
Now the bit about the police checked their data base. Thats a naughty. The data base they are talking about is PNC. There is an insurance screen attatched to the vehicle details but it is for intelligence only...Never ever to be used as evidence under any circumstances. Why because it may not be accurate. It was put on as a tool to assist the police not to be used as evidence.
So in the matter discussed her the police are very wrong in what they did.
Wrong to have eluded to the fact they checked their data base.
Wrong not to issue an HORT1 (A producer in England)
Well bloody out of order to take the car. (If they did that on my shift and I was their gaffer I'd be peeing myself with fright)
What really gets me is not the fact they don't seem to know what they should have done. (its a comedy of errors and it looks as if they have winged it) its the fact that this is bread and butter policing and happens many times every day. Its not something new.
I mean scenario. 18 Year old son or daughter passes test and is delighted. Mum Dad can I use the car?
Its a common question across houses every day.
Mum Dad say yes be careful.
Your son daughter is driving up the road doing nothing wrong and gets stopped by bib as part of some road check. (No problems so far)
BIB: Is this your car. (We always say that)
DVR: No its my dads Ive just passed my test 3 months ago.
BIB: Does he know you are out in it
DVR: Yes I asked and he said that was ok.
BIB: Where are you going
DVR: I'm off to see my sick grandmother then I'm going to hand in a birthday card to my minister, when I'm not doing charity work I help out at the Sunday school. (Ok bit much but you get the idea)
BIB: Are you the policy holder of the insurance or a named driver?
DVR: Eh um err. To be honest I don't know my dad deals with all that kind of stuff. I suppose I must be but to be honest this is all new to me and Im afraid I don't realy fully understand the question.
Arrest, car lifted to the pound..........I BLOODY HOPE NOT.
Does this make sense? These bibs are well wrong. I have no idea what they were thinking about.
I'll put it in laymens terms off the top of my head I don't have the books in front of me.
Basically if you are using or keeping a mpv on a road or other public place you are required to have in place for that vehicle a certificate of insurance covering 3rd party risks as respects part v of the act. (never worked out why that bit is always in Roman numerals)
You are required to produce that certificate to a constable if asked.
There is an exception which in law is not the same as a defence (so no offence committed if you don't have them on you..This is important to note)
The exception is you have deposited x amount of money with the supreme court...(Read it folks it says that)(there are others but my mind is rusty)
or
You are required to produce said certificate at a police station OF YOUR CHOICE (thats another bit to remember bibs usually tell you what station they think but thats unlawful you tell them) within 7 days. failure to do so then is an offence. UNLESS you can provide a reason for failing to produce the docs within that time.(That covers folk who take ill or who are going abroad on holiday for two weeks or who get stopped when on holiday.If you tell the bib this at the time they will grant an extention)
Now do we all know that there is no requirement for the person who was stopped to attend at the station with the docs? That catches out a lot of bibs too.
Fact. The only doc you have to produce in person is your driving licence because when you sign the HORT2 at the station they compare your signature and mug (if you have a photo licence)
Bibs get people to turn up at the office with insurance docs and the truth is they are not allowed to insist on this.
Another wee gem. If its just insurance log book mot then they cannot require you to sign the HORT2. They can only invite you to sign. Its actually written on the form in small print.
Also if the stop does not involve an accident or offence the requirement is to have your docs checked not recorded! The bibs always tick recorded because well they always do. Question? Why? Why are the recording your details when they only need to check them? Why are they keeping your data in a folder and then in a box room and then in a store room at Force HQ for up to 7 years? Why have that info? What are they doing with it? To be honest the answer is nothing. It sits and gathers dust and one day (you will never know when it will be burnt or as happened in Scotland a few moths back it will be dumped in a skip, found and passed on to the local press to ask red face bibs "Hey whats this all about"
Ok that sorted can I say this. Forget about photocopies to try and prove to a bib you have insurance but the real one is in the house. No bib will even look at them they are just bits of paper. I will not even glance at one.
Now the bit about the police checked their data base. Thats a naughty. The data base they are talking about is PNC. There is an insurance screen attatched to the vehicle details but it is for intelligence only...Never ever to be used as evidence under any circumstances. Why because it may not be accurate. It was put on as a tool to assist the police not to be used as evidence.
So in the matter discussed her the police are very wrong in what they did.
Wrong to have eluded to the fact they checked their data base.
Wrong not to issue an HORT1 (A producer in England)
Well bloody out of order to take the car. (If they did that on my shift and I was their gaffer I'd be peeing myself with fright)
What really gets me is not the fact they don't seem to know what they should have done. (its a comedy of errors and it looks as if they have winged it) its the fact that this is bread and butter policing and happens many times every day. Its not something new.
I mean scenario. 18 Year old son or daughter passes test and is delighted. Mum Dad can I use the car?
Its a common question across houses every day.
Mum Dad say yes be careful.
Your son daughter is driving up the road doing nothing wrong and gets stopped by bib as part of some road check. (No problems so far)
BIB: Is this your car. (We always say that)
DVR: No its my dads Ive just passed my test 3 months ago.
BIB: Does he know you are out in it
DVR: Yes I asked and he said that was ok.
BIB: Where are you going
DVR: I'm off to see my sick grandmother then I'm going to hand in a birthday card to my minister, when I'm not doing charity work I help out at the Sunday school. (Ok bit much but you get the idea)
BIB: Are you the policy holder of the insurance or a named driver?
DVR: Eh um err. To be honest I don't know my dad deals with all that kind of stuff. I suppose I must be but to be honest this is all new to me and Im afraid I don't realy fully understand the question.
Arrest, car lifted to the pound..........I BLOODY HOPE NOT.
Does this make sense? These bibs are well wrong. I have no idea what they were thinking about.
I for one fully take your point GB about photocopies being worth square root of beggar all, but from my perspective it's more of an aide memoire.
Far better I would think to be in a position to say it's insured with X and here is a photocopy, certificate number xxxxxxxxxx, expiry dd/mm/yy, yes I know I will have to produce original, but here it is fwiw.
Otherwise it's a case of
You; silence... ah um, It's Zurich.
Bib: I've checked and no it isn't.
You: Odd sure it is,.. oh yes that was last year, now it's ah um, I went through AA brokers, but I can't remember the company err ...
BiB nose twitching as you do at this point sound like a wrong un.
Comments about you can nominate which police station, and it doesn't have to be you for Test cert etc. Yes that is correct. I recall one lease company sends instructions to users that in the event of a stop and their vehicle is > 3yrs old they have to nominate a particular nick for presentation of MOT. Don't recall seeing that instruction for some time as not many fleet vehicles over 3 years plus VOSA computer record being the be all and end all as mentioned earlier.
Now turning to the question of lifting vehicles. It might be different in bonny Scotland but there is legislation in England which allows this. One of first trial areas was South Yorkshire force area, and extended out now.
Our lot, started this a few months ago and literally hundreds of vehicles have been lifted. Not aware of any cock ups to be honest, but recall 200 being lifted in one week.
Doesn't make it right I accept, might be legal but not necessarily right if you know what I mean?
Might have said this before but this smacks of quite a few bits of legislation in recent years. HMG spots a situation in which most people would apply common sense and say "yes I can see that is a problem"
HMG legislates. By the time it gets on statute books thing has grown like topsy and it ends up with a number of possible scenarios and permutations thereof.
To mention a few possible scenarios.
People who were not the original problem, like girl being discussed this case, are suddenly (hate that word) potentially criminalised or put into conflict with plod. Alienation.
Meanwhile for various reasons, possibly the legislation is unenforceable due to resource or other issues, the original problem children carry on as before and flick the Vs at the rest of us.
People see this behaviour carrying on, further disrespect for plod, the system, law and order etc etc.
Long post, I'll shut up now.
Off to pay some bills.
Far better I would think to be in a position to say it's insured with X and here is a photocopy, certificate number xxxxxxxxxx, expiry dd/mm/yy, yes I know I will have to produce original, but here it is fwiw.
Otherwise it's a case of
You; silence... ah um, It's Zurich.
Bib: I've checked and no it isn't.
You: Odd sure it is,.. oh yes that was last year, now it's ah um, I went through AA brokers, but I can't remember the company err ...
BiB nose twitching as you do at this point sound like a wrong un.
Comments about you can nominate which police station, and it doesn't have to be you for Test cert etc. Yes that is correct. I recall one lease company sends instructions to users that in the event of a stop and their vehicle is > 3yrs old they have to nominate a particular nick for presentation of MOT. Don't recall seeing that instruction for some time as not many fleet vehicles over 3 years plus VOSA computer record being the be all and end all as mentioned earlier.
Now turning to the question of lifting vehicles. It might be different in bonny Scotland but there is legislation in England which allows this. One of first trial areas was South Yorkshire force area, and extended out now.
Our lot, started this a few months ago and literally hundreds of vehicles have been lifted. Not aware of any cock ups to be honest, but recall 200 being lifted in one week.
Doesn't make it right I accept, might be legal but not necessarily right if you know what I mean?
Might have said this before but this smacks of quite a few bits of legislation in recent years. HMG spots a situation in which most people would apply common sense and say "yes I can see that is a problem"
HMG legislates. By the time it gets on statute books thing has grown like topsy and it ends up with a number of possible scenarios and permutations thereof.
To mention a few possible scenarios.
People who were not the original problem, like girl being discussed this case, are suddenly (hate that word) potentially criminalised or put into conflict with plod. Alienation.
Meanwhile for various reasons, possibly the legislation is unenforceable due to resource or other issues, the original problem children carry on as before and flick the Vs at the rest of us.
People see this behaviour carrying on, further disrespect for plod, the system, law and order etc etc.
Long post, I'll shut up now.
Off to pay some bills.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 16th November 22:35
You have made a good point re photocopy of docs. I have never seen that from that angle before and I will adopt that as a practice now.
As per the lifting of cars. Fair point again we don't have that up here.
It seems wrong that they can do that. So they take the car off the 18 year old. What about that persons safety now? Its up to them they can't just take the car and drive off. So thet drive the person home in the patrol car. Hey lets see those docs......5 mins later. Ah here they are! Now what about my car???? Eh well its in the pound. Dho Keystone plods!!!!
Ronnie Barker (god bless him) used to write stuff like this.
As per the lifting of cars. Fair point again we don't have that up here.
It seems wrong that they can do that. So they take the car off the 18 year old. What about that persons safety now? Its up to them they can't just take the car and drive off. So thet drive the person home in the patrol car. Hey lets see those docs......5 mins later. Ah here they are! Now what about my car???? Eh well its in the pound. Dho Keystone plods!!!!
Ronnie Barker (god bless him) used to write stuff like this.
^Slider^ said:
Also if we seize a vehicle and the driver produces an insurance cert for the date and time stopped then there are no costs involved to the driver.
Really? You refund all the costs incured by the driver during the 7 days they've got to bring their docs in? I should imagine the first thing will be the taxi bill for the trip to wherever they were going when their car was lifted......
I can understand the police wanting to hold onto the uninsured cars because if they let them go they'd never see them again.
Strangely, the show's compere, admitted that half of the many cars impounded were subsequently collected by just a few people with insurance certificates that covered anybody to drive any car. So they got away scot free anyway.
Strangely, the show's compere, admitted that half of the many cars impounded were subsequently collected by just a few people with insurance certificates that covered anybody to drive any car. So they got away scot free anyway.
Just to add my two cents: PNC and the insurance database are two different databases. 90% of insurance type companies are on the insurance database so if an Officers does a check and it comes back insurance not held it will either be 1) uninsured or 2) one of the 10% of companies not on the database. For here the Officer should question the driver as to whether there is insurance held.
If the Police get it wrong, and speaking to a TVP Traffic Bod, he states that this year TVP have seized nearly 2000 unisured cars and of those only two were wrongly seized with all costs covered by TVP for those two motorists.
If the Police get it wrong, and speaking to a TVP Traffic Bod, he states that this year TVP have seized nearly 2000 unisured cars and of those only two were wrongly seized with all costs covered by TVP for those two motorists.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff