Not my lucky day
Discussion
A week last Friday I transferred ownership of one of my cars to my father for personal and financial reasons. The MOT has run out so I was taking it for one yesterday morning when I got caught speeding - totally my fault.
Anyway, the police ran a check on the car and it came up as no insurance. This I expected because my dad hasn't insured it yet - he's been in Spain since the transfer last week - and I've cancelled my insurance policy for it. However I do have a policy for my other car that covers me to drive ANY vehicle third party, even if it has no other insurance policy covering it. I double and triple checked this was the case before driving the car.
So I explained this to the officer, and he told me that the car had to have its own insurance policy for my policy to cover it. Eventually I convinced him to contact my insurer, who confirmed that I was covered. He was quite taken aback by this - quite worrying as he told me he'd been in traffic for a long time so knew I was incorrect. Then he started quizzing the insurance company and discovered that the car had to NOT be in my name. The DVLA record showed it to be in my name. I explained the transfer to him, even finding the tear-off slip in my diary. But he said the fact is that the DVLA shown me being the owner so I'm not insured.
They then seized my car. I got dropped off at the next junction, then had to get a taxi home.
I've had to get temporary insurance cover to collect the car this morning (at cost) plus pay the recovery company £117. I'm told that the no-insurance case against me will more than likely be dropped, especially when the V5 comes back from DVLA confirming the date of transfer.
So what can I do about this mess? I believe the DVLA are at fault for being so damm slow, and I suppose the officer was only doing his job, but this had cost me about £200! Not a huge amount of money, but I'd rather use it for other things, and the whole thing just feels unfair.
And yes, I know that if I hadn't been speeding this would never have started, but I was just unlucky - there were 3 cars in front that I was traveling at the same speed as.
And on the way back from the recovery company a sodding stone cracked the windscreen!!!!
Anyway, the police ran a check on the car and it came up as no insurance. This I expected because my dad hasn't insured it yet - he's been in Spain since the transfer last week - and I've cancelled my insurance policy for it. However I do have a policy for my other car that covers me to drive ANY vehicle third party, even if it has no other insurance policy covering it. I double and triple checked this was the case before driving the car.
So I explained this to the officer, and he told me that the car had to have its own insurance policy for my policy to cover it. Eventually I convinced him to contact my insurer, who confirmed that I was covered. He was quite taken aback by this - quite worrying as he told me he'd been in traffic for a long time so knew I was incorrect. Then he started quizzing the insurance company and discovered that the car had to NOT be in my name. The DVLA record showed it to be in my name. I explained the transfer to him, even finding the tear-off slip in my diary. But he said the fact is that the DVLA shown me being the owner so I'm not insured.
They then seized my car. I got dropped off at the next junction, then had to get a taxi home.
I've had to get temporary insurance cover to collect the car this morning (at cost) plus pay the recovery company £117. I'm told that the no-insurance case against me will more than likely be dropped, especially when the V5 comes back from DVLA confirming the date of transfer.
So what can I do about this mess? I believe the DVLA are at fault for being so damm slow, and I suppose the officer was only doing his job, but this had cost me about £200! Not a huge amount of money, but I'd rather use it for other things, and the whole thing just feels unfair.
And yes, I know that if I hadn't been speeding this would never have started, but I was just unlucky - there were 3 cars in front that I was traveling at the same speed as.
And on the way back from the recovery company a sodding stone cracked the windscreen!!!!
When you get the V5 in your fathers name he will be listed as the owner from the date you wrote on the transfer form. Take it to the Police and show them the car wasn't in your name at the time therefore the car was insured and ask them for your money back. Traffic officers who don't know their stuff really p*ss me off.
Edited by Swoxy on Tuesday 5th June 11:25
I shat myself at the time because the officer told me I was looking at £200 & 6 points, plus the £60 & 3 points for speeding! I knew I was in the right - I'm no ASBO scally - but he made me feel like a bloody criminal!
People make mistakes - that's life. But this guys mistake could cost people a lot of money. The other officer in the car was on his first day in traffic, and was also being told be the senior officer that there was no possible way I could be insured to drive any car.
People make mistakes - that's life. But this guys mistake could cost people a lot of money. The other officer in the car was on his first day in traffic, and was also being told be the senior officer that there was no possible way I could be insured to drive any car.
What a bit of a mad story. It is a pain that people dont understand the insurance company rules, but the insurance company explained that you were covered, so that sorted that out. (With driving other cars third party, you have to be over 21, not work in the motor trade, and the car not belong to you, but some insurers dont offer driving other cars now!)
So, probably peevd that he was proven wrong, he pursued you because it was owned by you. So, you provided the tear off slip (which is what the thing is for) to prove you are now not the legal owner, and he disregarded it. I would be pursuing that line, and that the car was illegaly taken and want to recover the costs.
Just goes to show how crap the system is, if its ot up to date, how can it be relied on????
So, probably peevd that he was proven wrong, he pursued you because it was owned by you. So, you provided the tear off slip (which is what the thing is for) to prove you are now not the legal owner, and he disregarded it. I would be pursuing that line, and that the car was illegaly taken and want to recover the costs.
Just goes to show how crap the system is, if its ot up to date, how can it be relied on????
An interesting aspect here is that it has always been accepted that the person or company named as the keeper is not necessarily the owner. Ownershiop is confirmed by other documentation like a sales receipt, transfer of title, deed of gift, or something else acceptable as a transfer of asset in law. The actual wording on the insurance certificate says 'not woned by the insured or hired to him under a hire purchase agreement.
Personally, I would just go for the Chief Constable, after making a formal complaint to the PCA.
Personally, I would just go for the Chief Constable, after making a formal complaint to the PCA.
Swoxy said:
When you get the V5 in your fathers name he will be listed as the owner from the date you wrote on the transfer form. Take it to the Police and show them the car wasn't in your name at the time...
It may work like that, which would be in the OP's favour, however filling in the form is simply the start of a process that is not complete until you get the new V5 back correctly changed.So in this case he got stopped while the process was still running its course and the Bib was correct.
The DOC cover does seem to be a very grey area - I guess technically, as soon as he steps out of the car, then it becomes uninsured.
We have several threads going on at the moment which are all essentially talking about the same issue. The police are relying on numerous data keys (registrations, VIN, etc) and sources (DVLA, insurance, etc) to effect summary justice, when we know that any part of the chain may be out of date, inaccurate or simply wrong.
What I mean by "summary justice" is that punishment is levied first and the innocent party has to get reparations later. Having your car taken away from you just because their record on one of the above is incorrect is just plain wrong.
At my daughter's primary school there is a policy that no child can be taken out of school for a holiday without approval from the Head. The Head doesn't usually give permission, because the child must be in school to learn. The penalty is a hefty fine. There is no consideration that the holiday may teach more than being in school, nor does the regular imposition of teacher training days forcing children to be at home seem to be considered. Worse than that, the policy on truancy is that the school and LEA works with the parents, supports them, helps them, etc, etc, etc, and only as a last resort imposes punishment.
Sorry for the long description but I see a parallel with our problem. The wilfully negligent get away with everything while those of us who try to be law-abiding get summary justice and treated as criminals. There may come a time when the general public has had enough.
What I mean by "summary justice" is that punishment is levied first and the innocent party has to get reparations later. Having your car taken away from you just because their record on one of the above is incorrect is just plain wrong.
At my daughter's primary school there is a policy that no child can be taken out of school for a holiday without approval from the Head. The Head doesn't usually give permission, because the child must be in school to learn. The penalty is a hefty fine. There is no consideration that the holiday may teach more than being in school, nor does the regular imposition of teacher training days forcing children to be at home seem to be considered. Worse than that, the policy on truancy is that the school and LEA works with the parents, supports them, helps them, etc, etc, etc, and only as a last resort imposes punishment.
Sorry for the long description but I see a parallel with our problem. The wilfully negligent get away with everything while those of us who try to be law-abiding get summary justice and treated as criminals. There may come a time when the general public has had enough.
Cooperman said:
An interesting aspect here is that it has always been accepted that the person or company named as the keeper is not necessarily the owner. Ownershiop is confirmed by other documentation like a sales receipt, transfer of title, deed of gift, or something else acceptable as a transfer of asset in law. The actual wording on the insurance certificate says 'not woned by the insured or hired to him under a hire purchase agreement.
Personally, I would just go for the Chief Constable, after making a formal complaint to the PCA.
All of my insurance docs show 3rd party cover for vehicles not 'owned' or 'hired' to you - I don't remember any stating registered keeper. Technically being the registered keeper and having a family member as the legal owner of the vehicle in my view should cover you on that vehicle with your 3rd party cover shouldn't it?Personally, I would just go for the Chief Constable, after making a formal complaint to the PCA.
Windymiller said:
I'm also concerned that if I try to push things, they may upgrade my speeding ticket (which they've already given me) to a summons, and possibly push the no MOT issue?
Don't know about the speeding ticket, but you are allowed to drive to an MOT station for a pre-arranged MOT test.Trax said:
So, probably peevd that he was proven wrong, he pursued you because it was owned by you. So, you provided the tear off slip (which is what the thing is for) to prove you are now not the legal owner, and he disregarded it. I would be pursuing that line, and that the car was illegaly taken and want to recover the costs.
Agreed.You complied with everything required of you under law, the TrafPol was just applying a very perverse interpretation of the law.
Make a formal complaint about him too...certainly once you've got your money back!
Big Rod said:
Peter Ward said:
There may come a time when the general public has had enough.
I think that time has already come. What I'm worried about is what G.Public is going to do about it. I don't think it's gonna be pretty.I mean:-
- Writing to your MP is a joke...do they really care?!?
- Can no longer protest anywhere near parliament;
- IIRC there's an act which CAN be used to break up large groups of people;
- The 'petition the PM' website is clearly being ignored...yet another route to 'whinge' while the government gets on with ignoring us;
- Petitions get dumped out the back of Westminster straight after receipt...so they're pointless too!
...so what can be done?
Deva Link said:
Swoxy said:
When you get the V5 in your fathers name he will be listed as the owner from the date you wrote on the transfer form. Take it to the Police and show them the car wasn't in your name at the time...
It may work like that, which would be in the OP's favour, however filling in the form is simply the start of a process that is not complete until you get the new V5 back correctly changed.So in this case he got stopped while the process was still running its course and the Bib was correct.
The DOC cover does seem to be a very grey area - I guess technically, as soon as he steps out of the car, then it becomes uninsured.
When you get the new V5 back it's dated from the date you filled in the form. Hence he was not the registered keeper at the time he was stopped but his Dad was, enabling him to drive the car insured rendering the over zealous d*ckhead that stopped him wrong and Windymiller entitled to his money back.
Going O/T but I really hate traffic cops who act like judge, jury and executioner but are completely wrong. For example, I was stopped for having illegal tints when only my rear three windows were tinted. The idiot that wasted my time proceeded to recite the part of the RTA on tinted windows to me, before I congratulated him on his near perfect rendition but reminded him of the part stating the legislation only apply to windows from the B-post forwards. And did anyone see the episode of Road Wars where a bloke was stopped for riding a motorbike without any lights, which is permitted during daylight hours? The cop made the rider wait for hours whilst he got a massive file, checked the law and realised he was wrong and the rider was perfectly entitled to do so. By that time it was dark and the rider had to organise a trailer to take the bike home!
Edited by Swoxy on Tuesday 5th June 13:29
Deva Link said:
Swoxy said:
When you get the V5 in your fathers name he will be listed as the owner from the date you wrote on the transfer form. Take it to the Police and show them the car wasn't in your name at the time...
It may work like that, which would be in the OP's favour, however filling in the form is simply the start of a process that is not complete until you get the new V5 back correctly changed.So in this case he got stopped while the process was still running its course and the Bib was correct.
The DOC cover does seem to be a very grey area - I guess technically, as soon as he steps out of the car, then it becomes uninsured.
If I sell a car, am I still responsible for any speeding or parking tickets until the wheels of the DVLA complete a revolution - NO! because I have the tear-off slip to prove the vehicle has been transferred.
This is just a "computer says no" response.
was not only wrong, but a bit of an arse too 
Cooperman said:
An interesting aspect here is that it has always been accepted that the person or company named as the keeper is not necessarily the owner. Ownershiop is confirmed by other documentation like a sales receipt, transfer of title, deed of gift, or something else acceptable as a transfer of asset in law. The actual wording on the insurance certificate says 'not woned by the insured or hired to him under a hire purchase agreement.
That's a very good point.As I mentioned earlier, though, the DOC thing while driving a car that otherwise uninsured has been a known grey area for some time (I'm sure there have been threads about it on here before).
Even if it is held to be OK, the car becomes uninsured the moment the driver leaves it, either on the road or in any place the public has general access to.
DOC was only ever intended to (for example) allow you to move another car, with the owners permission, if it was blocking yours in.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff