I got pulled for no insurance.
Discussion
Pulled over on the local bypass. Police claimed that the APRC? had flagged the car as having no insurance, I explained that I had only insured it from midday (this was 2:30).
So after half an hour of chat all was OK. Head office phoned main insurance company, they in turn phoned brokers who then phoned the local company.
So well done lads on keeping on top of things and also the T5 was nice as well and I must be getting older as they were much younger than me
(but not too many).
So after half an hour of chat all was OK. Head office phoned main insurance company, they in turn phoned brokers who then phoned the local company.
So well done lads on keeping on top of things and also the T5 was nice as well and I must be getting older as they were much younger than me
(but not too many).
wrinx said:
Exactly, whilst it doubtless does a lot of good I'm surprised the system has been introduced and allowed to run, with such an inherent problem.
wrinx
I suppose once you've got your cover note you'd b best keeping it with you when you drive,although this doesn't help you beforehand....wrinx
wrinx said:
Recent threads have stated you're not even legal until the CN is in your hand!!!
I agree wholy with the sentiment of the rules but the application is piss poor, and seems inflexible. To deprive a motorist of the use of their uninsured car is right, but there seem to be certain circumstances where this is mis applied.Firstly, like above, where the computers don't match the facts, the computers seem to win in the short term. I guess that makes it worth insuring with a company with 24hr support.
Secondly, admin errors seem to be punishable out of all propotion, though I accept that an admin error can be very serious. Should such an error occour, I could be properly insured over the phone in minutes, there fore I should be allowed to be on my way, not scott free, I broke the law, but at least this could be sorted out later rather than kerb side justice.
wrinx said:
But what if it had been after the office closed? This system bothers me...cars can be confiscated when the owner is not at fault.
wrinx
The seizing officer needs to have reasonable grounds to believe that there is no insurance in place to seize. This year in Thames Valley Police over 3000 vehicles were seized for no insurance and out of those only two were wrongly seized. Common sense must prevail and for TVP it seems it did.wrinx
For the two mis-seized cars TVP paid all expenses to the owners.
wasted years said:
For the two mis-seized cars TVP paid all expenses to the owners.
That's very good to read...although it still doesn't avoid all the hassle and distress caused by wrongful seizure and making the owners day/week a misery.Still a flawed system imho.
wrinx
Edited by wrinx on Tuesday 25th December 12:45
wrinx said:
wasted years said:
For the two mis-seized cars TVP paid all expenses to the owners.
That's very good to read...although it still doesn't avoid all the hassle and distress caused by wrongful seizure and making the owners day/week a misery.Still a flawed system imho.
wrinx
Edited by wrinx on Tuesday 25th December 12:45
herewego said:
Perhaps there needs to be some obligation on the insurance companies to maintain the MID accurately. So if the police impound your car when it is actually insured then you can get some compensation from the insurance co.
There is, and the time period is being shorted soon. herewego said:
wrinx said:
wasted years said:
For the two mis-seized cars TVP paid all expenses to the owners.
That's very good to read...although it still doesn't avoid all the hassle and distress caused by wrongful seizure and making the owners day/week a misery.Still a flawed system imho.
wrinx
Edited by wrinx on Tuesday 25th December 12:45
While there are errors such as this a system shouldn't be used imho. Recent thread of a woman being left at motorway services miles from home is a good example of what can go wrong. Innocent people should not suffer in the name of law enforcement (yes I know that's another story altogether!).
Sure, mistakes are made, but this isn't a case of mistakes...just a flawed computerised system which could easily be avoided in this technological era.
On a similar thread running atm, someone has suggested the system be updated as soon as payment is made...what a stroke of genius, why didn't someone else think of that?
Apart from the above...I fully support the system and have no time for uninsured drivers!
wrinx
Sure, mistakes are made, but this isn't a case of mistakes...just a flawed computerised system which could easily be avoided in this technological era.
On a similar thread running atm, someone has suggested the system be updated as soon as payment is made...what a stroke of genius, why didn't someone else think of that?
Apart from the above...I fully support the system and have no time for uninsured drivers!
wrinx
wrinx said:
While there are errors such as this a system shouldn't be used imho. Recent thread of a woman being left at motorway services miles from home is a good example of what can go wrong. Innocent people should not suffer in the name of law enforcement (yes I know that's another story altogether!).
Sure, mistakes are made, but this isn't a case of mistakes...just a flawed computerised system which could easily be avoided in this technological era.
It didn't go wrong. She was uninsured.Sure, mistakes are made, but this isn't a case of mistakes...just a flawed computerised system which could easily be avoided in this technological era.
herewego said:
wrinx said:
While there are errors such as this a system shouldn't be used imho. Recent thread of a woman being left at motorway services miles from home is a good example of what can go wrong. Innocent people should not suffer in the name of law enforcement (yes I know that's another story altogether!).
Sure, mistakes are made, but this isn't a case of mistakes...just a flawed computerised system which could easily be avoided in this technological era.
It didn't go wrong. She was uninsured.Sure, mistakes are made, but this isn't a case of mistakes...just a flawed computerised system which could easily be avoided in this technological era.
Simple answer is carry a copy of or the original document of insurance with you!
You will then more than likely be issued a producer (Ms100 form) if there is doubt at the scene. No evidence other than a drivers remonstrations that they are insured is likely to see the vehicle impounded especially if the brokers/MIB agents are shut because of out of office hours!
You will then more than likely be issued a producer (Ms100 form) if there is doubt at the scene. No evidence other than a drivers remonstrations that they are insured is likely to see the vehicle impounded especially if the brokers/MIB agents are shut because of out of office hours!
On one of those Police/Camera/Action/Road War/Wind me up type programmes a month back an ANPR was set up to stop for no insurance tax etc. Lady with kids got pulled for no insurance. Claimed she had insurance, her husband had just renewed it. She didnt know the company and he couldn't be contacted. Car impounded and bus home for woman. Follow up from narrator was that she was actually insured. Presumably it a human/admin process open to human error?
G
G
Had she bothered to know who she was insured with the recovery could have been negated. All BiB need is the belief no insurance in place. If she was involved in an injury collision she would need to pass her insurance details and not doing so is an offence and by the sounds of it she would be commiting it. Not difficult to know who you are insured with 
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff