ASK MID

[bite-me]

Hi,

I've just checked one of my 2 cars on the below site and its not on there, DVLA shows it has tax?

insurance is through Carole Nash got it around 2-3 weeks ago after having car garaged for about a year

should worry ?

thanks

http://www.askmid.com/askmid.aspx

[somouk]

2-3 weeks is nothing. It probably won't even be in the police database as being insured at the moment.

I wouldn't worry!

Mart

[Trax]

I would worry though, the Police have been seen to take these cars away in their ANPR operations if its not showing on their database, and you cannot prove insurance at the roadside.

[bite-me]

I'll ring Carole Nash...

however am I likly to find my car towed for that , say if I'm poarked up somonewhere (not at home) ?

[FiveStar]

Trax said:

I would worry though, the Police have been seen to take these cars away in their ANPR operations if its not showing on their database, and you cannot prove insurance at the roadside.

Exactly.

To the OP it does take a few weeks for it to appear on databases so make sure you carry your insurance docs with you (although i've heard they dont accept these anymore???) as proof or you risk having your car siezed.

[Trax]

bite-me said:

I'll ring Carole Nash...

however am I likly to find my car towed for that , say if I'm poarked up somonewhere (not at home) ?

I think its highly unlikely to ever get towed, I was just comenting that it can happen, and did on the police program last week (it was more about bailifs actually).

Usually if you get pulled via ANPR, if they can talk to the insurance company and confirm its insured, then you are OK. They tend not to take the policy document as a fact, as people can cancel the policies and still keep the cover note.

[PaulW21781]

This happened to a mate of mine in June...

He had insurance cover to drive other cars, and his own car (obviously) but a few days prior, he got sideswiped by a council bus, so he was driving another car while his other was being repaired (we checked the policy and it plainly said includes driving other cars)

2 days later, he got pulled in his uncles car, as it didn't have a policy to the vehicle. He had all his docs with him, but the police didn't even care what it said, as far as they were concerned, if its not on there system, its not insured - end of. Car got impounded...

Took nearly 2 weeks to finally get the police to release the car (if it reached 2 weeks the car would of been crushed) as even after countless letters from the insurance company to say he was covered on the car in question, etc etc, they finally dropped charges and let him on his way (aswell as wavering the release and impound fee's)...

So 2 weeks of being arsed about, you'd think that was it?? Think again...

He got a letter through from Liverpool Magistrates saying the police are pressing charges for him driving with no insurance for the above farce... Even though they accepted he was insured, and everything was ok. The police seem to have 'lost' any record of him having it sorted and recovering the vehicle, which they say, would of been crushed as it was never released (no its parked in a locked garage back in Yorkshire)

Needless to say this is still going on... And as for trying to take any action against the police, both citizens advice AND his solicitor said its not even worth bothering as no matter what they can and will twist things so he is in the wrong (reassuring aswell considering that came from the CAB)

So...

Norwich Union - useless as they didn't update the MID correctly (not including he had other car cover on it when he does)

Liverpool Police - useless for being an utter farce and treating him like he killed a thousand kittens and 2 school buses of children.

Operation 'Tango' - such a joke in itself also (reason his car was impounded) - completely UNSOCIABLE system and impossible to see anyone in any sensible amount of time...

And he is still being arsed about by Liverpool's finest...

[bluepolarbear]

pah nothing to hide nothing to fear

[anonymous-user]

Whenever we check a car through it will show 'insurance not held ON THE SYSTEM'.

To seize a car you must believe (not suspect) that it has no insurance.

The database is not updated immediately. If you ring your insurance company at 11am and insure a vehicle from midday and are stopped at 12:05pm then it will not be on the system. If you cannot remember who you're with and don't have the number (unlikely yes but stupider things have happened) then the police cannot call them. As a result if the driver says it is insured then we are not allowed to seize it regardless of what the database says. We can issue an HORT/1 and then examine documents back at the nick within 7 days.

For a long time CIS did not submit any data to the MIB full stop so everyone insured with them would show up 'insurance not held (on the system)'

At the end of the day if you're not insured you'll still get done because you'll not have the necessary documentation to produce.

[BMWBen]

I've been stopped a couple of days after buying my car - luckily I'm a nice chap and the officers believed me. :O

[Raify]

Who'd a thunk it? A database that's innaccurate.

Just checked my new company car, insurance certificate is sitting on my desk. This website shows it as uninsured.

[jwo]

I just checked a car I physically took to a scrap yard 3 years ago (and had the scrap yard guy do all the correct bits with the V5 etc.), the car is shown as insured.

Reg no 4321go is now on ferrari! (used to be on a lotus!)

[blueyes]

3 of the four vehicles I checked aren't on the database.

Their ages are:1 month, 1 year, 2 years and 4 years old.

The only one that's on the database is 2 years old.

What a crock of shite!

n.b. they've all been past an ANPR site in the last month without problems.

[iaha]

I watched the programme last week where the police seized the car from a lass whose car showed no insurance, she couldnt recall who her husband had insured the car with, although she was convinced she was insured.

The officer stated that he was 'duty bound' or some similar phrase to seize the car if she couldn't show that she was insured.

She couldn't and the car was seized. Of course she got herself home, produced the insurance later that day, paid her £105 and got her car straight back.


I have a bit of a problem with this eagerness to seize, especially with the level of inconvenience we can impose on someone for what is only a suspected summary offence.

We must have the 'belief' that a car is uninsured. That cannot come from the database alone, because it is full of holes. It must include some supporting evidence to change our 'suspicion' to 'belief'. 'Belief' is held to mean 'almost certain', so the officer has to be almost certain that a car is not insured before he has a legal power to seize. Questioning a suspect can easily raise the suspicion to belief and the suspect should be thoroughly questioned about their insurance status before seizing. If they are falsely pleading that they are insured, it's very easy to prod holes in their excuses. If they manage to convince us that they are insured, but in fact they are not, it can be mentioned on the report as an aggravating factor that the offender lied about possession of insurance and drove off despite being warned.

But we do have to use this seizure power very carefully. It's an important useful power to have, but MPs and govt are going to respond unfavourably when faced with letters from respectable members of the public who have had to seek public transport to take them hundreds of miles back home because their car was seized, then have to pay for the recovery of their car with little or no avenue for compensation, despite having done absolutely nothing wrong.

Edited by iaha on Wednesday 28th November 12:29

[aw51 121565]

If the lady is producing her insurance later the same day, why is she paying the £105?

As an aside, I believe the ANPR databases used to target people like this lady are not 'live' but downloaded in the recent past from the PNC and other sources as appropriate. This can cause 'issues' when one has just insured and taxed a car after it's been off the road for a while, for example.

[SLCZ3]

ajstephe said:

Some forces do have the ability to check with the Motor Insures Bureau to see if there is valid insurance and I have done this on many if the cars I have stopped where it says there is no insurance shown as held.

As I have been taught, there is an offence of driving a motor vehicle on a road without the necessary documents, those being, driving license, Insurance and MOT (if applicable). Hence why we can give producers.

As to being summonsed to court, the paperwork was probably already through the system at the time and wasn't binned in time. Has he sent a letter to the adminstrator of justice at his local station asking if the prosecuton is still valid? Was he given a producer at the time the car was impounded. If he failed to produce the documents within 7 days from midnight when the producer was issued he would be guilty of failing to produce his documents

It is not a requirement to have documentation in the vehicle at the time of travel. It is to have documentation that can be produced when requested which is why the producer exists, this is a requirement to produce the required documentation at Blah,blah, blah.

[tvrgit]

SLCZ3 said:

ajstephe said:

Some forces do have the ability to check with the Motor Insures Bureau to see if there is valid insurance and I have done this on many if the cars I have stopped where it says there is no insurance shown as held.

As I have been taught, there is an offence of driving a motor vehicle on a road without the necessary documents, those being, driving license, Insurance and MOT (if applicable). Hence why we can give producers.

As to being summonsed to court, the paperwork was probably already through the system at the time and wasn't binned in time. Has he sent a letter to the adminstrator of justice at his local station asking if the prosecuton is still valid? Was he given a producer at the time the car was impounded. If he failed to produce the documents within 7 days from midnight when the producer was issued he would be guilty of failing to produce his documents

It is not a requirement to have documentation in the vehicle at the time of travel. It is to have documentation that can be produced when requested which is why the producer exists, this is a requirement to produce the required documentation at Blah,blah, blah.

You're right, but technically (to be pedantic for a moment), under the RTA, it is an offence not to produce your documents to the police on request. The next subsection of the Act then says that it will be a reasonable defence (ie you won't be charged) if you produce them within 7 days - but for those 7 days you have, in law, committed the offence of "failure to produce".

[Swoxy]

Yellabowley said:

For a long time CIS did not submit any data to the MIB full stop so everyone insured with them would show up 'insurance not held (on the system)'

So that's why I got stopped so many times!
The conversations often went like this:

Police: You don't have insurance so I'm going to seize your car.
Me: I do have insurance and you're not going to seize my car.
Police: You don't have insurance so I'm going to seize your car.
Me: I do have insurance and you're not going to seize my car.

You get the idea

Edited by Swoxy on Thursday 29th November 10:21

[SLCZ3]

tvrgit said:

SLCZ3 said:

ajstephe said:

Some forces do have the ability to check with the Motor Insures Bureau to see if there is valid insurance and I have done this on many if the cars I have stopped where it says there is no insurance shown as held.

As I have been taught, there is an offence of driving a motor vehicle on a road without the necessary documents, those being, driving license, Insurance and MOT (if applicable). Hence why we can give producers.

As to being summonsed to court, the paperwork was probably already through the system at the time and wasn't binned in time. Has he sent a letter to the adminstrator of justice at his local station asking if the prosecuton is still valid? Was he given a producer at the time the car was impounded. If he failed to produce the documents within 7 days from midnight when the producer was issued he would be guilty of failing to produce his documents

It is not a requirement to have documentation in the vehicle at the time of travel. It is to have documentation that can be produced when requested which is why the producer exists, this is a requirement to produce the required documentation at Blah,blah, blah.

You're right, but technically (to be pedantic for a moment), under the RTA, it is an offence not to produce your documents to the police on request. The next subsection of the Act then says that it will be a reasonable defence (ie you won't be charged) if you produce them within 7 days - but for those 7 days you have, in law, committed the offence of "failure to produce".

So if there is no offence committed by producing the documents, how can there be an offence if they are not produced.
If the documents are not produced at the time of request at that site, it is an offence not to produce them at an appointed place within 7 days, as requested.
There is no requirement which can cause an offence, by not producing documents at that initial first request.
If you have a defence against an offence then no offence has been committed!!!