askMID is red

[mike42]

Hello All

I changed my insurance provider a couple of weeks ago with the new insurance to be effective from Sep 1.

Just checked askMID and it says my car is not insured. Double checked certificate of insurance etc and all looks good.

So as I understand it, I'm paying the new insurer for a service that might get me stopped by the police ?

Is this normal and the askMID will go green in a day or two? Should it be normal in the digital age?

[Solocle]

mike42 said:

Hello All

I changed my insurance provider a couple of weeks ago with the new insurance to be effective from Sep 1.

Just checked askMID and it says my car is not insured. Double checked certificate of insurance etc and all looks good.

So as I understand it, I'm paying the new insurer for a service that might get me stopped by the police ?

Is this normal and the askMID will go green in a day or two? Should it be normal in the digital age?

My understanding is that the database can take a few days to update.

Just make sure payment has been taken, and you should be golden. Maybe ensure you're carrying your documents, though!

[anonymous-user]

Yeah can take a few days. After that, call the insurers. Mine hadn't updates for two weeks once before. Turned out they had put an extra space in the reg number.

[LosingGrip]

Can take up to seven days.

[Debbiesd]

Don’t mention database updates , was on my way home from mot station in my 996 gt3 , fresh mot and taxed it at the mot station ( even though I could have driven home without ) stopped at fuel station , went in to pay , came out to find an unmarked x3 along side, saying I had no mot or tax, I replied I do, here is mot on pass seat and receipt for tax screenshot on my phone.

Point blank refused to look at either physical copy, kept me there for 20 mins
Then, good evening madam, sorry to have detained you,

[sonnenschein3000]

As others have said, it can take a few days to update
Keep your insurance docs with you in your car in case you're pulled over

[Richard-D]

Debbiesd said:

Don’t mention database updates , was on my way home from mot station in my 996 gt3 , fresh mot and taxed it at the mot station ( even though I could have driven home without ) stopped at fuel station , went in to pay , came out to find an unmarked x3 along side, saying I had no mot or tax, I replied I do, here is mot on pass seat and receipt for tax screenshot on my phone.

Point blank refused to look at either physical copy, kept me there for 20 mins
Then, good evening madam, sorry to have detained you,

You failed to account for the 'has chip on shoulder' policeman who had to show you how powerful/impressive he was. A small but (self) important minority of the force.

I think if you're a decent, law abiding person you're unlikely to ever have much to do with the police. Are the 1% that go around on a power trip more likely to badger those just going about their day?

Edited by Richard-D on Sunday 3rd September 08:00

[fridaypassion]

The actual updating of the database is instant (I have access) so feel free to badger the insurers.

[Colonel Cupcake]

ASKMID themselves state that the check is not proof of insurance or proof of no insurance. If you have a current certificate of insurance then surely it is up to the police to then prove the certificate is invalid.

[Nibbles_bits]

Colonel Cupcake said:

ASKMID themselves state that the check is not proof of insurance or proof of no insurance. If you have a current certificate of insurance then surely it is up to the police to then prove the certificate is invalid.

Nope. The burden of proof lies with YOU to prove you are insured.

If your vehicle is showing as not insured, and I can't contact MIB (they're not 24hr), I'd have a suspicion that your vehicle is not insured.

Then I'm left with a dilemma. Do I -
Seize your vehicle and report you for driving without insurance?
Or
Let you continue your journey and risk you having an accident and not being insured?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 11:55

[zbc]

Nibbles_bits said:

Nope. The burden of proof lies with YOU to prove you are insured.

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 11:55

But what more can you do than show them a current certificate of insurance. My daughter was stopped recently for no MOT, despite the fact that she had had it done three days ago. What excuse is there these days that these databases aren't live? I appreciate that the police stopped her, good to see them checking out people who show as no MOT or insurance but ultimately it's a huge waste of everyone's time.

[Zeeky]

Nibbles_bits said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

ASKMID themselves state that the check is not proof of insurance or proof of no insurance. If you have a current certificate of insurance then surely it is up to the police to then prove the certificate is invalid.

Nope. The burden of proof lies with YOU to prove you are insured.

If your vehicle is showing as not insured, and I can't contact MIB (they're not 24hr), I'd have a suspicion that your vehicle is not insured.

Then I'm left with a dilemma. Do I -
Seize your vehicle and report you for driving without insurance?
Or
Let you continue your journey and risk you having an accident and not being insured?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 11:55

That would be relevant where the driver has failed to produce a valid certificatre of insurance The power to seize a vehicle is dependant on both a failure to produce a valid certificate AND your reasonable belief that the vehicle isn't insured. If it transpires your suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, was incorrect then the seizure must be unlawful. That is a dilemma.

[peterperkins]

Seizure of a vehicle not showing on the database as insured where a reasonable driver produces an apparently genuine insurance document would be very much open to criticism and a potential abuse of the power.

This assumes there are no other suspicious circumstances.

i.e. Known felon,
Previous for bad docs.
No driving licence, no mot etc etc

[Nibbles_bits]

And that's why we have ASKMID and MIB.

Your insurance certificate isn't worth the paper it's written on. MIB was introduced to stop people taking out insurance, and then immediately cancelling it, thus being able to produce a valid certificate of insurance if stopped by the Police.

[Nibbles_bits]

Zeeky said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

ASKMID themselves state that the check is not proof of insurance or proof of no insurance. If you have a current certificate of insurance then surely it is up to the police to then prove the certificate is invalid.

Nope. The burden of proof lies with YOU to prove you are insured.

If your vehicle is showing as not insured, and I can't contact MIB (they're not 24hr), I'd have a suspicion that your vehicle is not insured.

Then I'm left with a dilemma. Do I -
Seize your vehicle and report you for driving without insurance?
Or
Let you continue your journey and risk you having an accident and not being insured?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 11:55

That would be relevant where the driver has failed to produce a valid certificatre of insurance The power to seize a vehicle is dependant on both a failure to produce a valid certificate AND your reasonable belief that the vehicle isn't insured. If it transpires your suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, was incorrect then the seizure must be unlawful. That is a dilemma.

Surely if I have reasonable suspicion, then the seizure isn't unlawful?

[ScoobyChris]

zbc said:

What excuse is there these days that these databases aren't live?

I was also surprised that this wasn’t an automated process and that, even buying the insurance a couple of weeks early so it was all in place when the current one ran out, askMID was still red for a couple of days after the change over. Apparently this is because the insurance companies batch up all the updates together and do them on a specific day.

MOT on the other hand is usually updated and I know the results before the chap calls to let me know the car is ready to pick up!

Chris

[Ian Geary]

Nibbles_bits said:

And that's why we have ASKMID and MIB.

Your insurance certificate isn't worth the paper it's written on. MIB was introduced to stop people taking out insurance, and then immediately cancelling it, thus being able to produce a valid certificate of insurance if stopped by the Police.

But the opening post proves that askmid is fallible.

I'm not sure if the mid is independent of, or linked to askmid, but my assumption is it's the same "dataset" underneath, just with different access channels.

So we have fallible paper documents, and fallible electronic data.

It seems we're left with the police being expected to make a reasonable decision, based on their judgement.

The mistake is the police de facto assuming mib is infallible.

[Solocle]

Nibbles_bits said:

Zeeky said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

ASKMID themselves state that the check is not proof of insurance or proof of no insurance. If you have a current certificate of insurance then surely it is up to the police to then prove the certificate is invalid.

Nope. The burden of proof lies with YOU to prove you are insured.

If your vehicle is showing as not insured, and I can't contact MIB (they're not 24hr), I'd have a suspicion that your vehicle is not insured.

Then I'm left with a dilemma. Do I -
Seize your vehicle and report you for driving without insurance?
Or
Let you continue your journey and risk you having an accident and not being insured?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 11:55

That would be relevant where the driver has failed to produce a valid certificatre of insurance The power to seize a vehicle is dependant on both a failure to produce a valid certificate AND your reasonable belief that the vehicle isn't insured. If it transpires your suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, was incorrect then the seizure must be unlawful. That is a dilemma.

Surely if I have reasonable suspicion, then the seizure isn't unlawful?

No.

Seizure of the vehicle is authorized under RTA 1988 § 165A.

Law said:

The second condition is that—
(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

If you produce evidence, the vehicle cannot be seized. Of course you could still be prosecuted if it didn't transpire that the vehicle was actually insured, but it takes a bit more than reasonable suspicion that is refuted by proffered evidence!

[Nibbles_bits]

MID - Motor Insurance Database

MIB - Motor Insurance Bureau

If it's not showing on MID, because the database hasn't been updated, then I'd contact the MIB.

It's not the fault of the police if MID isn't updated by your insurance company, and it's not your fault or that of the police if the MIB isn't open 24hrs

[Nibbles_bits]

Solocle said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Zeeky said:

Nibbles_bits said:

Colonel Cupcake said:

ASKMID themselves state that the check is not proof of insurance or proof of no insurance. If you have a current certificate of insurance then surely it is up to the police to then prove the certificate is invalid.

Nope. The burden of proof lies with YOU to prove you are insured.

If your vehicle is showing as not insured, and I can't contact MIB (they're not 24hr), I'd have a suspicion that your vehicle is not insured.

Then I'm left with a dilemma. Do I -
Seize your vehicle and report you for driving without insurance?
Or
Let you continue your journey and risk you having an accident and not being insured?

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 11:55

That would be relevant where the driver has failed to produce a valid certificatre of insurance The power to seize a vehicle is dependant on both a failure to produce a valid certificate AND your reasonable belief that the vehicle isn't insured. If it transpires your suspicion, reasonable or otherwise, was incorrect then the seizure must be unlawful. That is a dilemma.

Surely if I have reasonable suspicion, then the seizure isn't unlawful?

No.

Seizure of the vehicle is authorized under RTA 1988 § 165A.

Law said:

The second condition is that—
(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

If you produce evidence, the vehicle cannot be seized. Of course you could still be prosecuted if it didn't transpire that the vehicle was actually insured, but it takes a bit more than reasonable suspicion that is refuted by proffered evidence!

No.

If I seize the vehicle because I have reasonable grounds to believe that it is not insured, but it is in fact insured, then the seizure is not "unlawful", it's seized in error.

Edited by Nibbles_bits on Sunday 3rd September 14:02