why do you still have to produce documents at police station

pianeet

my wife had an accident in our car last week ,and although according to the police datat base in the policemans car,he told her who we were insured with,that the car was mot'd,and the tax was fine,she also had here photo card liscence with her,she still had to produce liscence,mot certificate and insurance certificate at local police station,what is the point if he allready knows that everything is in order,even the desk clark said it is a waste of time but they still do it

Conor_3

Because it is still law that you have to carry your documents with you at all times to be produced upon demand at the request of a Police Officer. The 7 day producer (HORT/1) was brought in as a compromise donkeys years ago as a means of giving a bit of leeway due to the understanding that a high number of people that didn't carry them and because the law that requires you to carry the documents at all times when driving hasn't been repealed, they're still obliged to issue you with a HORT/1.

It's not likely to be repealed any time soon partly due to the fact that the Motor Insurance Database can take up to a week for a new policy to be registered on it, likewise the MOT database. Plus it's a hard copy confirmation as DVLA, for example, have proven that they can make cockups in their records.

London05

Yep i had to do the same, the person who crashed in to me did as well - she produced an insurance cert which turned out to have been cancelled, though the Police did not pick up on this until I rang them (as my insurance company found out when trying to process the claim).

What makes the system worse was it took 3 months for the paperwork from Feltham Police Station to arrive at their SW London processing centre.

She got taken to court and fined a mere £250 less than the cost of insurance, I ended up with an accident that was not my fault on my insurance record though did not lose my NCD as was protected.

As you say no logic to the system at all.

MX5huggy

pianeet wrote: »

my wife had an accident in our car last week ,and although according to the police datat base in the policemans car,he told her who we were insured with,that the car was mot'd,and the tax was fine,she also had here photo card liscence with her,she still had to produce liscence,mot certificate and insurance certificate at local police station,what is the point if he allready knows that everything is in order,even the desk clark said it is a waste of time but they still do it

Remember that the photocard is worthless without the the paper half aswell. I don't know why anybody bothers carrying the card only.

KeithP

MX5huggy wrote: »

Remember that the photocard is worthless without the the paper half aswell.....

Err... it has a picture of the driver on it with his/her date of birth.
I understand that this is accepted as proof of age for some things.... like purchasing alcohol.
Sounds quite useful to me. :beer:

hewhoisnotintheknow

the paper bit is pointless really, i know you need it but whats the point in the card if you need the paper too. i know car hire people etc like it as they can see what points you have.

MX5huggy

KeithP wrote: »

Err... it has a picture of the driver on it with his/her date of birth.
I understand that this is accepted as proof of age for some things.... like purchasing alcohol.
Sounds quite useful to me. :beer:

I wish I needed proof of age!!!! for anything driving related you need both bits.

big_gay_kirk

I steal your car.. I know your name from an envelope you carelessly left behind... the police stop me, check up on the computer, find everything in order, let me go... the idea of the producer is in some part a way of checking that the person in the car is who they say they are.... or so I'm told by a friendly policeman... who has actualy spotted the flaw in the argument, just as I'm sure you all have....

Lord_Lardington

MX5huggy wrote: »

Remember that the photocard is worthless without the the paper half aswell. I don't know why anybody bothers carrying the card only.

You are of, course, totally right. Sadly.

It drove me mad when they moved from the old licence to the 2 parter. It was a golden opportunity to do away with the inconvenient crease-prone paper and give us all a crease-free card to carry. But "no", lets have both. Muppetry.

I think the same guy whose idea it was was then moved to the post office and introduced the "large letter", "Small letter" etc. differentiation to complicate, rather than simplify, our lives.

cyclonebri1

Also the DVLA/ insurance databases are known to be wildly inacurate both ways ie showing you haven't got insurance when you have.

I was pulled up out of the outside lane of the MI by a patrol car doing ANPR checks.

70 MPH and typical full 3 lanes of traffic. Took me about a mile to pull over.

Got quite rough treatment and complained to Notts police about the reaction. This was all because the computer said I didn't have insurance when in fact I had held the policy for many months. Didn't help as I was a lttle fazed bt the experience and couldn't remember who I was insured with for a minute or 2.

Got quite comical though when the copper called Directline and they wouldn't talk to him without my permission:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: . Real change of attitude and apology when it was sorted.

Yes we should carry full documentation in the car but I for one never do, too many problems if the car gets turned over etc, so the physical paperwork check is still useful.;)

moonrakerz

MX5huggy wrote: »

Remember that the photocard is worthless without the the paper half aswell. I don't know why anybody bothers carrying the card only.

What I've never understood is why certain organisations demand both parts of your licence for ID purposes - Post Office for Mail redirection for one!

Do they really need to see if I have any points on my licence (I don't) before they can redirect my mail ?