Certificate of Motor Insurance trumps all...
Discussion
I’ve always been lead to believe that when you are in possession of a valid certificate of motor insurance, when stopped by Police, they must work in the basis that it is valid unless they have evidence to the contrary.
So if someone is stopped at 3am and they have their certificate on them but the vehicle is not showing on the MID, the Police must presume the vehicle is insured because there is a certificate and the insurers cannot be called at that time to verify whether the certificate is valid or not. Not showing on the MID does not mean the vehicle is uninsured.
Similarly, the Police cannot dismiss a physical certificate of motor insurance by saying that the policy may have been cancelled or payments stopped unless they have evidence from the insurer. If they can’t contact the insurer to prove this, they haven’t produced evidence to back up their assertions.
Is this right?
So if someone is stopped at 3am and they have their certificate on them but the vehicle is not showing on the MID, the Police must presume the vehicle is insured because there is a certificate and the insurers cannot be called at that time to verify whether the certificate is valid or not. Not showing on the MID does not mean the vehicle is uninsured.
Similarly, the Police cannot dismiss a physical certificate of motor insurance by saying that the policy may have been cancelled or payments stopped unless they have evidence from the insurer. If they can’t contact the insurer to prove this, they haven’t produced evidence to back up their assertions.
Is this right?
I believe that there is a central database that all Authorised Insurers subscribe to, and it is available to BiB 24/7.
The paper certificate is somewhat outdated now. Same with MOT and of course VED. All on same database.
The OP should work on the principle that BiB are always right........until proven wrong, which would probably not happen until you got to court.
The paper certificate is somewhat outdated now. Same with MOT and of course VED. All on same database.
The OP should work on the principle that BiB are always right........until proven wrong, which would probably not happen until you got to court.
nutsyH said:
I believe that there is a central database that all Authorised Insurers subscribe to, and it is available to BiB 24/7.
The paper certificate is somewhat outdated now. Same with MOT and of course VED. All on same database.
The OP should work on the principle that BiB are always right........until proven wrong, which would probably not happen until you got to court.
I’ve already alluded to the MID database which the Police have access to but that database should not be the factor which determines whether a vehicle is insured or not. Sometimes mistakes happen and a vehicle may not get entered onto the database or there is a delay. Perhaps the vehicle is in a trade policy. In these circumstances, the certificate should prevail.The paper certificate is somewhat outdated now. Same with MOT and of course VED. All on same database.
The OP should work on the principle that BiB are always right........until proven wrong, which would probably not happen until you got to court.
KungFuPanda said:
I’ve already alluded to the MID database which the Police have access to but that database should not be the factor which determines whether a vehicle is insured or not. Sometimes mistakes happen and a vehicle may not get entered onto the database or there is a delay. Perhaps the vehicle is in a trade policy. In these circumstances, the certificate should prevail.
Sometimes people have dodgy certificates, sometimes they get insurance and then cancel it but retain the certificate even though it’s no longer valid.A paper certificate isn't going to be the "gold standard" for proof any more. Most are delivered as PDF's, easily tampered with and printed at home.
And of course, you can still have a proper paper certificate from your insurer, but your insurance may have been subsequently revoked. "not showing on MID" is probably reasonable evidence to question the legitimacy of any paper document at 3AM.
And of course, you can still have a proper paper certificate from your insurer, but your insurance may have been subsequently revoked. "not showing on MID" is probably reasonable evidence to question the legitimacy of any paper document at 3AM.
nutsyH said:
I believe that there is a central database that all Authorised Insurers subscribe to, and it is available to BiB 24/7.
The paper certificate is somewhat outdated now. Same with MOT and of course VED. All on same database.
The OP should work on the principle that BiB are always right........until proven wrong, which would probably not happen until you got to court.
Operate on the basis plod are always right? Jeez, as if. I operate on the basis they are wrong unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt otherwise. That way, I never ever get speeding tickets, which is awesome, and they don’t dare issue tickets for anything else as they know I’m going to want to see chapter and verse and make them sweat. The paper certificate is somewhat outdated now. Same with MOT and of course VED. All on same database.
The OP should work on the principle that BiB are always right........until proven wrong, which would probably not happen until you got to court.
When it comes to the insurance database, if an insurance isn’t on there, it would be ultra-rare, so in that case, I think plod would have to make a judgement based on why you are out at 3am, whether you seem shifty or not, and other factors, and I could understand them issuing a ticket on the basis you could challenge it IF you subsequently prove the car was insured. I suppose the main problem is that if you aren’t insured, can’t they take the car off you immediately these days?, I could be wrong, as never had the insurance questioned
The law requires there be a policy of insurance in force covering the use a vehicle on a road or other public place. Whether such a policy exists at a given time is a matter of fact and is not determined by the existence/production of a certificate or whether or not a vehicle appears on the MID (although either, along with lots of other factors, may be indicative of whether or not there is such a policy).
Seizing a vehicle for no insurance requires there to be a reasonable grounds to believe that it was being used without insurance. Whether or not grounds for seizing a vehicle are sufficient to justify a reasonable belief would ultimately be for a court to decide and would likely depend on a variety of factors and not simply be determined by a single factor such as the production or otherwise of a piece of paper.
Cat
Seizing a vehicle for no insurance requires there to be a reasonable grounds to believe that it was being used without insurance. Whether or not grounds for seizing a vehicle are sufficient to justify a reasonable belief would ultimately be for a court to decide and would likely depend on a variety of factors and not simply be determined by a single factor such as the production or otherwise of a piece of paper.
Cat
daytona355 said:
Operate on the basis plod are always right? Jeez, as if. I operate on the basis they are wrong unless they can prove beyond reasonable doubt otherwise. That way, I never ever get speeding tickets, which is awesome, and they don’t dare issue tickets for anything else as they know I’m going to want to see chapter and verse and make them sweat.
When it comes to the insurance database, if an insurance isn’t on there, it would be ultra-rare, so in that case, I think plod would have to make a judgement based on why you are out at 3am, whether you seem shifty or not, and other factors, and I could understand them issuing a ticket on the basis you could challenge it IF you subsequently prove the car was insured. I suppose the main problem is that if you aren’t insured, can’t they take the car off you immediately these days?, I could be wrong, as never had the insurance questioned
Are you suggesting that the police are scared to deal with you?When it comes to the insurance database, if an insurance isn’t on there, it would be ultra-rare, so in that case, I think plod would have to make a judgement based on why you are out at 3am, whether you seem shifty or not, and other factors, and I could understand them issuing a ticket on the basis you could challenge it IF you subsequently prove the car was insured. I suppose the main problem is that if you aren’t insured, can’t they take the car off you immediately these days?, I could be wrong, as never had the insurance questioned
The MID thing is a joke.
I have motor trade insurance and as part of that the broker manages the MID entries for us. They ask that we let them know when there are changes - which sometimes happen when they’re not at work.
That automatically means that there can be an admin time lag on the changes and thus, the occasional letter in the post “your vehicle isn’t on the MID” if you go past an ANPR device or whatever.
I have to say though that on the one occasion when someone was stopped from my company driving a car not on the MID the officer concerned was happy with sight of email confirmation of insurance.
I have motor trade insurance and as part of that the broker manages the MID entries for us. They ask that we let them know when there are changes - which sometimes happen when they’re not at work.
That automatically means that there can be an admin time lag on the changes and thus, the occasional letter in the post “your vehicle isn’t on the MID” if you go past an ANPR device or whatever.
I have to say though that on the one occasion when someone was stopped from my company driving a car not on the MID the officer concerned was happy with sight of email confirmation of insurance.
Julian Thompson said:
I have to say though that on the one occasion when someone was stopped from my company driving a car not on the MID the officer concerned was happy with sight of email confirmation of insurance.
Mate of mine got stopped driving a garage vehicle - cop gave him a fixed penalty but let him continue, and said he would cancel the penalty if he could show he was insured. Turned out he wasn't, and the garage insurer wouldn't confirm they'd be held laible.
ks Sheepshanks said:
Julian Thompson said:
I have to say though that on the one occasion when someone was stopped from my company driving a car not on the MID the officer concerned was happy with sight of email confirmation of insurance.
Mate of mine got stopped driving a garage vehicle - cop gave him a fixed penalty but let him continue, and said he would cancel the penalty if he could show he was insured. Turned out he wasn't, and the garage insurer wouldn't confirm they'd be held laible....except that they won’t cover certain types of cars, cars up to a value, cars with conditions like trackers and such - so why on earth does the insurance certificate basically lie that “any” motor vehicle is covered!
KungFuPanda said:
I’ve always been lead to believe that when you are in possession of a valid certificate of motor insurance, when stopped by Police, they must work in the basis that it is valid unless they have evidence to the contrary.
So if someone is stopped at 3am and they have their certificate on them but the vehicle is not showing on the MID, the Police must presume the vehicle is insured because there is a certificate and the insurers cannot be called at that time to verify whether the certificate is valid or not. Not showing on the MID does not mean the vehicle is uninsured.
Similarly, the Police cannot dismiss a physical certificate of motor insurance by saying that the policy may have been cancelled or payments stopped unless they have evidence from the insurer. If they can’t contact the insurer to prove this, they haven’t produced evidence to back up their assertions.
Is this right?
Legally yes. The courts have said so.So if someone is stopped at 3am and they have their certificate on them but the vehicle is not showing on the MID, the Police must presume the vehicle is insured because there is a certificate and the insurers cannot be called at that time to verify whether the certificate is valid or not. Not showing on the MID does not mean the vehicle is uninsured.
Similarly, the Police cannot dismiss a physical certificate of motor insurance by saying that the policy may have been cancelled or payments stopped unless they have evidence from the insurer. If they can’t contact the insurer to prove this, they haven’t produced evidence to back up their assertions.
Is this right?
But as you me and a lot of other people have noticed the system(due to technology) has changed which has enabled the police to contact insurance companies. In particular at road side.
It is a minefield at present but the law is, once the certificate is produced the vehicle is insured and the burden then lies with the police to prove otherwise.
Unless the police are placed in a position that could give rise to civil action for carrying out their fishing exercies after a certificate has been produced, I cannot see anyway of maintaining the courts previous rulings regarding the production of a certificate.
At the courts the ruling would be supported but the circumstances that would give rise to such a case are difficult to envisage.And the police know it.
There appears to be little that the motorist can do at the side of the road if the police go on a fishing exercise after a certificate has been produced.
Some motorists/riders may try and enforce the courts ruling by producing a certificate, then if the police start to carry out a fishing exercies just drive off as they are not under arrest and have complied with all the relevant road traffic legislation.
Then it begins, policemans ego v civilains rights.
There is also the issue of the information being supplied over a telephone to the police by Shaz at the office, and its accuracy and the legal consequences. IE just because something has not been declared it does not mean the vehicle is not insured.
Insurance law and what constitues a policy being invalid is debatable(plenty of case law). I doubt very much if the police or Shaz at the office has the legal knowledge to decide if a signed certificate of insurance is invalid.
But again how does one deal with Shaz or the police getting it wrong.
The problem is the police. They have taken it upon themselves to say a certificate of insurance is not valid until I have demeed it to be so. Which is wrong in law.
When the courts made the certificate of motor insurance rule there were to major factors that were not in play at that time , but are now.
The ability to contact the insurance company and MID
and the big one!
The ability to remove the persons car from them. It is this change in the law that drives the police to fish around for defects in an insurance policy above all else.
The government or courts are not going to pass a statutory law or court ruling that the police cannot fish around to see if there are defects in the validity of certificates of insurance. The courts and government want motorists insured.
So...
Keep the window up put your keys on the dash and give your name, address and DOB.
Place your driving licence on the side window in clear view. Then place your certificate of motor insurance on the side window. Let the police examine them.
Then say "I am going now". Thank you.
And drive off.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff