Car not on MID, can't risk driving it on BH
Discussion
So, I insured and bought a car on friday. Ins co says is fine to drive. But I have not got the docs (takes them a while even without xmas) and it's not on the MID.
I guess that I can't really drive it till thursday as the insurance co is not open to verify the insurance should I get stopped. I assume the car would be taken away if that happened.
Isn't that a stupid system? How are the non-car/ph-geeks (such as my wife) to know about these things?
Bert
I guess that I can't really drive it till thursday as the insurance co is not open to verify the insurance should I get stopped. I assume the car would be taken away if that happened.
Isn't that a stupid system? How are the non-car/ph-geeks (such as my wife) to know about these things?
Bert
thought I might answer my own question about the situation where you haven't got docs etc by reading about it on directgov.
What it says is "The police have the power to seize and in appropriate cases, destroy vehicles that are being driven uninsured." Not that they can seize if it cannot be proven that the vehicle is insured.
Bert
What it says is "The police have the power to seize and in appropriate cases, destroy vehicles that are being driven uninsured." Not that they can seize if it cannot be proven that the vehicle is insured.
Bert
wrinx said:
BertBert said:
Not that they can seize if it cannot be proven that the vehicle is insured.
So how do they know it's insured if you can't prove it? I'd be prepared to argue the case...
wrinx
Bert
Hooli said:
id be tempted to use it if i needed too. being unable to use a legal car due to what is effectivly a fault in the system is a poor joke.
if you carry the new keeper part of the V5c to show when you brought it, that should help convince plod.
But I think that plod (esp on ANPR duty) has no leeway. If they cant show it insured, away it goes.if you carry the new keeper part of the V5c to show when you brought it, that should help convince plod.
BErt
BertBert said:
Hooli said:
id be tempted to use it if i needed too. being unable to use a legal car due to what is effectivly a fault in the system is a poor joke.
if you carry the new keeper part of the V5c to show when you brought it, that should help convince plod.
But I think that plod (esp on ANPR duty) has no leeway. If they cant show it insured, away it goes.if you carry the new keeper part of the V5c to show when you brought it, that should help convince plod.
BErt
I'm wondering what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Proven. Not 'suspected' or 'probably' or 'computer says'. Proven.
Confiscation and/or destruction of a vehicle should only happen as a result of a court order, not at the whim of a policeman advised by far-from-perfect databases (MID and DVLA both have issues). The law requiring the presence (somewhere) of a certificate of insurance isn't just out-of-date, it goes against the practices of British general insurance for over a century; namely, you are insured from the moment your broker agrees the policy, usually (these days) a few seconds after a card transaction is processed.
Confiscation and/or destruction of a vehicle should only happen as a result of a court order, not at the whim of a policeman advised by far-from-perfect databases (MID and DVLA both have issues). The law requiring the presence (somewhere) of a certificate of insurance isn't just out-of-date, it goes against the practices of British general insurance for over a century; namely, you are insured from the moment your broker agrees the policy, usually (these days) a few seconds after a card transaction is processed.
tyre_tread said:
When I insured online I printed off the confimation page as "proof".
If I purchased by phone I woild expect a faxed/emailed copy of docs immediately.
Not sure if these would suffice but better than nothing.
when i insured online the page of the website that gives me 10mins to download the docs before auto closing crashed so i couldnt get them. helpfully they cant email a copy instead If I purchased by phone I woild expect a faxed/emailed copy of docs immediately.
Not sure if these would suffice but better than nothing.
The Police are not using their own system correctly, in the good old of snail mail, if you were stopped and had no documentation to prove insurance then you were given a provider, which was a notice to provide proof of insurance, and license e.t.c within 7 days at your local police station.
Now there has, in reality, been no change, and you can argue that they should give you the opportunity to provide documenatation e.t.c. particularly as post now is collected and delivered once a day. Note posting to Scotland can take two days by first class.
Also note that large envelopes are now charged at higher rate and so insurance companies are sending them out by second class post.
Also say, as there is so much info/data lost by the government that you have refused to put the info into the database.
Let them sort that one out.
Now there has, in reality, been no change, and you can argue that they should give you the opportunity to provide documenatation e.t.c. particularly as post now is collected and delivered once a day. Note posting to Scotland can take two days by first class.
Also note that large envelopes are now charged at higher rate and so insurance companies are sending them out by second class post.
Also say, as there is so much info/data lost by the government that you have refused to put the info into the database.
Let them sort that one out.
Jasandjules said:
handpaper said:
I'm wondering what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Proven. Not 'suspected' or 'probably' or 'computer says'. Proven.
Yes, I'm wondering when someone with the money gets their car confiscated and takes it to court to get this law dealt with properly. ie if you know you are insured and your car is being taken couldn't you ring the police and (others) and claim your car is being stolen.
Aubrey said:
The Police do still give out HORT1's or better known as Producers. Most officers are reasonable and situations like this are not uncommon, if you are polite, friendly and explain the situation you shouldn't have any problems.
Shouldn't be put in the position in the fist place. Unless they can be 100% sure that they are right, thy shouldn't impound a vehicle. If they are so sure and do impound a vehicle, how about a 100% guarantee to refund all costs to the driver if insurance is found to be in place ? Power without accountability creates abuses and opens the door for political influence.
BertBert said:
So, I insured and bought a car on friday. Ins co says is fine to drive. But I have not got the docs (takes them a while even without xmas) and it's not on the MID.
I guess that I can't really drive it till thursday as the insurance co is not open to verify the insurance should I get stopped. I assume the car would be taken away if that happened.
Isn't that a stupid system? How are the non-car/ph-geeks (such as my wife) to know about these things?
Bert
What excuse did the insurance company give for not putting it on the MID?I guess that I can't really drive it till thursday as the insurance co is not open to verify the insurance should I get stopped. I assume the car would be taken away if that happened.
Isn't that a stupid system? How are the non-car/ph-geeks (such as my wife) to know about these things?
Bert
Edited by herewego on Tuesday 25th December 11:17
ajstephe said:
mark69sheer said:
Jasandjules said:
handpaper said:
I'm wondering what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Proven. Not 'suspected' or 'probably' or 'computer says'. Proven.
Yes, I'm wondering when someone with the money gets their car confiscated and takes it to court to get this law dealt with properly. ie if you know you are insured and your car is being taken couldn't you ring the police and (others) and claim your car is being stolen.
As for producers, although we do give them out there is nothing to say that we have to give them out. At the end of the day, people 'should' have their driving documents with them when driving. If there is a problem with insuracne then I usually get the driver to phone up their insurance company so I can have a chat with them to confirm there is insurance in effect
Edited by ajstephe on Tuesday 25th December 10:22
Also, if the car is impounded doesn't the owner have to pay costs? I'd be VERY annoyed if I knew I was insured and then had to pay out for storage/release fees for someone else's cock-up.
Sorry, but the whole "improved" system stinks imho, with innocent motorists being penalised...how does this help the Police or their public image?
wrinx
wrinx said:
ajstephe said:
mark69sheer said:
Jasandjules said:
handpaper said:
I'm wondering what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'. Proven. Not 'suspected' or 'probably' or 'computer says'. Proven.
Yes, I'm wondering when someone with the money gets their car confiscated and takes it to court to get this law dealt with properly. ie if you know you are insured and your car is being taken couldn't you ring the police and (others) and claim your car is being stolen.
As for producers, although we do give them out there is nothing to say that we have to give them out. At the end of the day, people 'should' have their driving documents with them when driving. If there is a problem with insuracne then I usually get the driver to phone up their insurance company so I can have a chat with them to confirm there is insurance in effect
Edited by ajstephe on Tuesday 25th December 10:22
Also, if the car is impounded doesn't the owner have to pay costs? I'd be VERY annoyed if I knew I was insured and then had to pay out for storage/release fees for someone else's cock-up.
Sorry, but the whole "improved" system stinks imho, with innocent motorists being penalised...how does this help the Police or their public image?
wrinx
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff