Fined £270 Even Though I Had Car Insurance - Fighting Since June 2009!

Paradigm

Marv02 wrote: »

You are driving me insane, you know that? I came here for peace of mind, not to be hammered by someone who can't read.

O.K. For the last time, and I'm not sure how else I could put this:

Once upon a time...

1) Mr X calls up insurance company.
2) Mr X pays by debit card.
3) Mr X is assured that his car is now fully insured.
4) Mr X is pulled over 7 hours later.
5) Mr X can't provide insurance "documents" on the road side due to the fact that it was purchased the same morning and would take up to 5 working days for the welcome pack along with the CoMI to come through by mail.

And everyone lived happily ever after. The end.

You get used to it after a while

It might be worth contacting the Motor Insurers Bureau http://www.mib.org.uk/Home/en/default.htm & ask for advice.

raskazz

All that the officer requires in order to seize the vehicle is reasonable belief that the vehicle was being used without insurance.

The officer would have been faced with a vehicle for which no positive result was given on on MID and a driver who has no documents whatsover. Clearly something about the OP's behaviour led to the officer not believing that the vehicle was insured. On the face of it, the police were perfectly entitled to seize the vehicle.

I've seen lots of cases like this and I've never seen the recovery/storage fees refunded.

raskazz

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

It should be for our justice system to prove guilt, and not for the public to demonstrate their innocence.

How do you think that a police officer at the roadside can reasonably demonstrate that a driver has no insurance policy inforce? Call every authorised motor insurer to check?

I cannot see that there is any realistic argument against the requirement that it is for the driver to demonstrate that he is insured, not the police to demonstrate that he is not.

hugorune2010

I think you're missing the point. I do all my insurance over the phone, and so don't receive the documents till days later (Just like Marv02). Because either the insurance company or the insurance database people have not done their job effectively he has been penalised for a crime that wasn't committed.

What do you expect people to do, sit at home for 3,4 or 5 days till their documents turn up?

"How do you think that a police officer at the roadside can reasonably demonstrate that a driver has no insurance policy inforce? Call every authorised motor insurer to check?"

That is what the MID is supposedly for. It is not his fault that the database was not updated.

I think Marv02 was looking for help and advice. Not some asinine comments on how it should work. He already know it doesn't.

Marv02

raskazz wrote: »

How do you think that a police officer at the roadside can reasonably demonstrate that a driver has no insurance policy inforce? Call every authorised motor insurer to check?

I cannot see that there is any realistic argument against the requirement that it is for the driver to demonstrate that he is insured, not the police to demonstrate that he is not.

BUT HOW? If the insurer was closed when we called, and I still haven't recived my documents (in this day and age... papers? C'mon) then what use is the MID for?

This has nothing to do with it. I was told that if I could prove I ha insurance, that I WOULD get a refund on all the costs, infact, I was told that I wouldn't have to pay in the first place to release the car. So please stop rageing on about what I "could" or "should" have done. It's kinda 367 days late for that.

Marv02

hugorune2010 wrote: »

I think you're missing the point. I do all my insurance over the phone, and so don't receive the documents till days later (Just like Marv02). Because either the insurance company or the insurance database people have not done their job effectively he has been penalised for a crime that wasn't committed.

What do you expect people to do, sit at home for 3,4 or 5 days till their documents turn up?

"How do you think that a police officer at the roadside can reasonably demonstrate that a driver has no insurance policy inforce? Call every authorised motor insurer to check?"

That is what the MID is supposedly for. It is not his fault that the database was not updated.

I think Marv02 was looking for help and advice. Not some asinine comments on how it should work. He already know it doesn't.

^ THIS! :beer:

Marv02

So anyway, getting back on topic. Any extra advice I could squeeze out? I heard something about free solicitors or something like an advice bureau? Any truth to this?

KeithP

OP, you seem to have overlooked Frannyann's post #18, where she says...

frannyann wrote: »

How about letter to the Chief Constable explaining all the events and enclosing a photocopy of both the insurance and the payment and ask him to investigate?

raskazz

hugorune2010 wrote: »

Because either the insurance company or the insurance database people have not done their job effectively he has been penalised for a crime that wasn't committed.

There is no polite way of putting this, but you are quite simply incorrect on this point. The only obligation that the insurer has in respect of MID1 data is that they supply 95% of bulk data within 7 days. There is no indication whatsoever that they have failed in this regard, or that the MIIC have failed in their administration of the database.

hugorune2010 wrote: »

That is what the MID is supposedly for. It is not his fault that the database was not updated.

Again, you are quite simply incorrect. This is not "what the MID is supposedly for". The lack of a positive result on MID does not definitively confirm that there is no insurance inforce in respect of the vehicle; just as a postive result on MID does not mean that the insurance inforce is actually valid. The lack of positive result merely indicates that further investigation may be required in order to ascertain whether there is insurance inforce. In this csae, further investigation was undertaken and the OP could not satisfy the officer that there was insurance inforce in respect of his use of the vehicle.

gordikin

Do I smell Troll both here and on the Insurance Board?