Discussion
motorwise said:
emergency
I don't understand. This emotive word suggests that there are limitations on the use of this facility. I used to routinely drive my father's car happy in the knowledge that I would have been insured third party. There is nothing in my policy to suggest this provision is only of limited use.
Is there a legal definition of an "emergency"?
SM
Dwight VanDriver said:
Read your Certificate AND Policy carefully.
The wording should indicate whether there is any requirement that your friends car has to be covered by its own Insurance or not.
dvd
The wording should indicate whether there is any requirement that your friends car has to be covered by its own Insurance or not.
dvd
I will do that but your answer gives me the impression this isn't black and white... I'm 35 and in all the times I have ever been asked to produce my documents the police only ask for my certificate - not the associated policy wording.
Now I assume that the law must require some consistancy with 3rd party insurance cover. By that I mean that different insurance companies may ADD extra nice things in order to make their policy more attractive but they could not make the cover less than what everyone takes 3rd party cover to mean.
So surely if a vehicle is picked up by an ANPR check and I am carrying an insurance certificate giving me the right to drive a vehicle not owned my me with the owners permission then surely that will give me right of passage?
I guess my question really was - am I going to spend an afternoon in a police van and a load of ag or will my certificate make everything cool??
The Certificate of Insurance will define what you are legally covered for and should satisfy the BiB and ANPR provided the MIDS database is correct ( don't count on it ! so take your Cert Ins with you). The policy will cover any wrinkles the Ins co will have to wriggle out of paying up if there is an accident.
AFAIK only Norwich Union Cert ins wording excludes driving anothers vehicle except if loaned by a garage as a courtesy vehicle etc etc. ( which together with overt political lobbying for this continuous insurance grab is why my company refuses to deal with Norwich).
if your cert says you can drive another car not owned by the insured or loaned to him on a HP agreement then you can.
AFAIK only Norwich Union Cert ins wording excludes driving anothers vehicle except if loaned by a garage as a courtesy vehicle etc etc. ( which together with overt political lobbying for this continuous insurance grab is why my company refuses to deal with Norwich).
if your cert says you can drive another car not owned by the insured or loaned to him on a HP agreement then you can.
A work colleague was pulled just before christmas by two officers doing ANPR checks because the vehicle he was driving (a friends van which is covered under a traders policy) didn't appear on their database. He told the officers he was covered by his own insurance on this third party clause, they checked him out and agreed he had insurance on his own car but that he wasn't insured on this occasion and would be getting a summons for no insurance. They then had the vehicle towed away and left him at the side of the road to wait for a lift with his two children. He contacted his insurance company at the earliest opportunity to clarify the situation and they faxed him confirmation that he was insured to drive. On producing his documents at the local Police station including this confirmation fax he was told that he would still be prosecuted for driving without insurance, can someone tell me how this is posiible when there is proof of insurance? Also had to stump up the stat removal fee of £105 to get the van released from the compound! Is this standard procedure now?
KEET said:
A work colleague was pulled just before christmas by two officers doing ANPR checks because the vehicle he was driving (a friends van which is covered under a traders policy) didn't appear on their database. He told the officers he was covered by his own insurance on this third party clause, they checked him out and agreed he had insurance on his own car but that he wasn't insured on this occasion and would be getting a summons for no insurance. They then had the vehicle towed away and left him at the side of the road to wait for a lift with his two children. He contacted his insurance company at the earliest opportunity to clarify the situation and they faxed him confirmation that he was insured to drive. On producing his documents at the local Police station including this confirmation fax he was told that he would still be prosecuted for driving without insurance, can someone tell me how this is posiible when there is proof of insurance? Also had to stump up the stat removal fee of £105 to get the van released from the compound! Is this standard procedure now?
unfortunately this is standard procedure now - if the car not on the MID database and you have no docs with you they lift the car and charge you for the priviledge even if you have cover - in this case though cover can be proved so let them take it to court you'll be fine
supermono said:
motorwise said:
emergency
I don't understand. This emotive word suggests that there are limitations on the use of this facility. I used to routinely drive my father's car happy in the knowledge that I would have been insured third party. There is nothing in my policy to suggest this provision is only of limited use.
Is there a legal definition of an "emergency"?
SM
on most policies (maybe not all) the third party extension is for situations where you need to use another car on occasions where yours is unavailable (broken down etc) - the provision is only made available because two cars can't be driven at once so for instance if your wife was driving your car fully comp and you went out and drove another car on the third party extension at the same time then one of you wouldn't be insured (up to you which)
I don't know what a legal definition of an emergency would be - the discretion of the judge usually
Hang on this is rediculous - How many times have you used someone elses car and checked out their own insurance?? This is another case of people not living in the real world.
My insurance certificate states that I am entitled to driver another vehicle not owed by the policy holder. That is it end of story.
And when you have to produce your documents at a police station you never have to bring the policy booklet to give context to the certificate.
My insurance certificate states that I am entitled to driver another vehicle not owed by the policy holder. That is it end of story.
And when you have to produce your documents at a police station you never have to bring the policy booklet to give context to the certificate.
motorwise said:
supermono said:
motorwise said:
emergency
I don't understand. This emotive word suggests that there are limitations on the use of this facility. I used to routinely drive my father's car happy in the knowledge that I would have been insured third party. There is nothing in my policy to suggest this provision is only of limited use.
Is there a legal definition of an "emergency"?
SM
on most policies (maybe not all) the third party extension is for situations where you need to use another car on occasions where yours is unavailable (broken down etc) - the provision is only made available because two cars can't be driven at once so for instance if your wife was driving your car fully comp and you went out and drove another car on the third party extension at the same time then one of you wouldn't be insured (up to you which)
I don't know what a legal definition of an emergency would be - the discretion of the judge usually
As P490KVP says - this is ridiculous...and it perpetuates unhelpful myths that it seems even the police are starting to believe. A legal document is a legal document. The Cert of Ins is a legal document; it is not open to conjecture that maybe it means the third party extension is for situations where you need to use another car on occasions where yours is unavailable etc etc. That might be the wishful thinking of certain insurers but where it says your are "....insured may drive another vehicle not the property of the insured or loaned to him under a HP agreement...." that is what it means....period.
If that was the wording of the document that KEET's work colleague and his statement that the brokers faxed that wording to him seem to suggest that was correct, then the police were acted wrongfully and spitefully under the law as they had no reasonable cause to believe the vehicle was not insured and thereforefore they should not have siezed it.
I have tested this with N Wales Police as I have such a clause on my own car cert Insurance. I was given a producer for the company vehicle I was driving in Dec 2005 and although I could have produced the Co cert Ins under which I am insured to drive as any employee I chose to produce my own. Neither the police clerk nor presumably the reporting officer had any problem with this.
However motorwise is right that this seems to be standard practice and we have already seen television footage of an overzealous officer anxious to sieze an innocent young girls car " under Section 165.." meaning Sect 165 of the RTA 1988 as amended by sect 152 of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. If the police in Keets' work colleagues case are maintaining that he will be charged then they are either seriously mistaken or deliberately misleading him to head off action against them.
Had the events described by Keets happened to me I would have sued the police authority for damages.
I'd be interested in others views as to this procedure.
In the past, whenever i have been stopped, i would usually end up with a producer, so i'd trot off to local nick, the guy behind the desk would record the details and that would be it, in my colleagues case none of his license or insurance details were taken at the station, the guy just looked at them and said you'll still get a summons, goodbye!
KEET said:
A work colleague was pulled just before christmas by two officers doing ANPR checks because the vehicle he was driving (a friends van which is covered under a traders policy) didn't appear on their database. He told the officers he was covered by his own insurance on this third party clause, they checked him out and agreed he had insurance on his own car but that he wasn't insured on this occasion and would be getting a summons for no insurance. They then had the vehicle towed away and left him at the side of the road to wait for a lift with his two children. He contacted his insurance company at the earliest opportunity to clarify the situation and they faxed him confirmation that he was insured to drive. On producing his documents at the local Police station including this confirmation fax he was told that he would still be prosecuted for driving without insurance, can someone tell me how this is posiible when there is proof of insurance? Also had to stump up the stat removal fee of £105 to get the van released from the compound! Is this standard procedure now?
Come on a serving white top tell me this isn't right.......
Despite ANPR showing a hit, in relation to a DOC clause explanation but Cert not produced at roadside, would RT/1 be issued and allowed to drive off or is MIIB absolutely gospel?
Unless (note the reference to Trader) there is an exclusion from driving vehicles owned by a Trader.
Otherwise, from what stated it would appear he WAS covered and Police VERY naughty and if it was me more than a flea in their ear.
dvd
Keet
The insurance is based on contract law. Not having insurance to drive the vehicle is the criminal/motoring law point. Tell him to get a solicitor and if the contract law point is covered correctly, if he proided evidence to the PC that he was covered and this was ignored then go for compensation for wrongful seizure and also for the worry and sleepless nights he has suffered from this episode.
The practice of seizing vehicles when "computer says no" will only abate when there is a consequence for doing so despite clear evidence to the contrary. The evidence that speaks most loudly to government / his CC is accounting - ie the cost.
Once this response has become common enough for the cash cost to be noticed / hurt training will be improved to remind PC in the field not to be so silly.
The insurance is based on contract law. Not having insurance to drive the vehicle is the criminal/motoring law point. Tell him to get a solicitor and if the contract law point is covered correctly, if he proided evidence to the PC that he was covered and this was ignored then go for compensation for wrongful seizure and also for the worry and sleepless nights he has suffered from this episode.
The practice of seizing vehicles when "computer says no" will only abate when there is a consequence for doing so despite clear evidence to the contrary. The evidence that speaks most loudly to government / his CC is accounting - ie the cost.
Once this response has become common enough for the cash cost to be noticed / hurt training will be improved to remind PC in the field not to be so silly.
Thanks for the responses guys, it really does make you wonder how far this could go. Now, if he'd looked like an undesirable then maybe, just maybe their actions might have been justified and further investigations carried out but he's just another bloke picking some stuff up for christmas. It seems that, as stated above, that if the computer says you're not insured then thats it, final, you are obviously breaking the law and as a motorist, punished immediately! The bit that really puzzles me though is even after producing the fax from his ins co stating he WAS insured no-one seemed to acknowledge this piece of information or even record it!? Just thought i'd add he was 60+ miles from home!
KEET said:
On producing his documents at the local Police station including this confirmation fax he was told that he would still be prosecuted for driving without insurance, can someone tell me how this is posiible when there is proof of insurance? Also had to stump up the stat removal fee of £105 to get the van released from the compound! Is this standard procedure now?
I will become standard practice unless all those wronged make formal complaints and sue for damages.
KEET said:
Thanks for the responses guys, it really does make you wonder how far this could go. Now, if he'd looked like an undesirable then maybe, just maybe their actions might have been justified and further investigations carried out but he's just another bloke picking some stuff up for christmas. It seems that, as stated above, that if the computer says you're not insured then thats it, final, you are obviously breaking the law and as a motorist, punished immediately! The bit that really puzzles me though is even after producing the fax from his ins co stating he WAS insured no-one seemed to acknowledge this piece of information or even record it!? Just thought i'd add he was 60+ miles from home!
Not everyone wearing a suit with a wife and children are good people and insured to drive and not all 'hoody' wearing young males are law breaking un-insured drivers. Everyone has to be checked, just because he looks honest doesn't mean that he is now does it? As for the seizure - thats down to the individual officer to make a decision as to whether they are going to take the car. The power is there under the act to seize the car and unless the driver is able to IMMEDIATELY produce either a valid certifiact of insurance and/or current driving licence that covers them for the type of vehicle then the officers have a power to seize the vehicle. Not all would though given the circumstances outlined, depending on the day and time of day I often call the insurance company with the permission of the driver and clarify it there and then - no hassle for the driver, no HO/RT1 and no car seizure - unless it's not insured!!!!!
As for the fax - how did he get it and where did he get the copy of his insurance? I take it that he had a mobile fax with him? Faxed copies are not always accepted either as they can easily be doctored or forged. I always advise drivers to take an original as the enquiry office clerk might not accept the copy - unless it's company insurance held in a head office some miles away etc.
I would advise (and took my own advice when I purchased a new car) that anyone who intend to drive a car that is either not theirs, new to them or for any reason that there might not be insurance showing take their insurance cert with them for that journey. I did when I bought a new car - I carried it for a few months.
Just to clarify - this law isn't there to persecute the motorist - unlike some laws systems that are in place (and we all know what they are!!!) it's there to get un-insured cars off the road. Just imagine being out in your nice clean and insured car and some moron who has no insurance t-bones you, just how would you feel if an officer had just let him drive off? Me, I'd be gutted, angry and asking why! It's also a good indication as to whether the car is being driven by someone upto no good! There MUST be careful implementation though or there might be many insured motorists getting really cheesed off when their car is seized and thats not a good thing for police relations - and they're not that good anyway at the moment.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff