Stopped by police for having no insurance..

NeverAgain_2

...No Police or Ambulance service vehicle in London carries an insurance certificate for example...

That's because they aren't insured in the usual sense.

A mate of mine was rear-ended by a police car on The Embankment and his claim was technically paid by the chief constable, in other words it came out of the force's budget.

As you say, there is no legal requirement to carry a paper certificate.

Their use is slowly dying out, some online insurers do not routinely issue them, although you can print one out.

Problems can arise because the MID, in common with all other databases, is not 100 per cent accurate.

There was a high-profile case a couple of years ago of a man who was left stranded with his family after police seized his car for no insurance.

He claimed the MID was wrong, but there may have been a bit more to it than met the eye because he didn't half milk the publicity.

Did it turn out he was running for election?

Freddie_Snowbits

bigjl wrote: »

If they are part of the NHS then be prepared for them to have made a clerical error. Our fleet dept have forgotten to send Ambulances for MOT's before, for 3 months..........nobody knew why the tax disc was valid for several months after the MOT ran out as they should coincide, but to be honest nothing surpirises me about the NHS and the amount of mistakes the back room staff make, that is then covered up by the managers, when a clinical staff member makes even the slightest non clinical error then it is a full on witchhunt.

More Codswallop. My MOT is due in December, Tax due in July.
If this is an ascertation on the state of Clerical Departments of the NHS, I am afraid there is no wonder ...

STOP FREDDIE, you will end up with an extension to your YC

Wig

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

If you have no insurance, them I am afraid, ignorance is no defence, as to me, I would have every uninsured drived driven of the road and their assets crushed.

2 flaws in your POV,

1, it's not the OPs asset that would be crushed
2, there is an MIB for uninsured drivers, why some people get so wound up about no insurance is quite beyond me.

alastairq

Can you please give a reference for your assertion that it is a legal requirement to carry your insurance certificate in the vehicle?

If that was the case then there would obviously be an absolute offence of not carrying it and the police would not issue producers.

A valid insurance certificate must be produced on demand, by people requiring, etc, etc....

The 'producer' system is a police system that recognises that drivers may not carry the certificate, so allows them to 'produce' within a certain time frame....it is a concession, not a right.....but since it is a concession commonly used, for an officer to report an offence of not being able to 'produce' the document, at the scene, would likely fail a prosecution because of precedents set...

The above is a concession, in the same manner as the old rules governing displaying a VED disc...where a two week period was 'allowed' for a vehicle keeper to display a disc.....but in law, the offence is committed from day one of the month....

There are many of these 'concessions' applied by Police,DVLA, etc which are not rights, in a legal sense.....but which have become viewed as 'rights' by the driving public at large......

I will, if needs really be, do a net search to raise the relevant regulation governing the production of valid certificate of insurance, regarding vehicles....but I'm sure there are one or two members on here who may be Traffic Officers who can verify things....

vaio

Wig wrote: »

2 flaws in your POV,

1, it's not the OPs asset that would be crushed
2, there is an MIB for uninsured drivers, why some people get so wound up about no insurance is quite beyond me.

good point, I expect people get wound up about the £30 contribution each policy holder makes towards the MIB.

Personally I'm more concerned about the £80 contribution I've seen reported to cover the cost of the credit hire/claims handlers insurance companies routinely refer punters to when there is a TP involved

At least the MIB does some good

vaio

alastairq wrote: »

A valid insurance certificate must be produced on demand, by people requiring, etc, etc....

The 'producer' system is a police system that recognises that drivers may not carry the certificate, so allows them to 'produce' within a certain time frame....it is a concession, not a right.....but since it is a concession commonly used, for an officer to report an offence of not being able to 'produce' the document, at the scene, would likely fail a prosecution because of precedents set........

It's not a concession, it's written into the RTA so it's a right

alastairq

As you say, there is no legal requirement to carry a paper certificate.

Their use is slowly dying out, some online insurers do not routinely issue them, although you can print one out.

erm...yes there is.....however, as I noted above, concessions are applied,

simply because technology has apparently advanced, does not necessarily mean laws are changed to allow for this.

For example, just because one has a Satnav/GPS device in one's car, which may give out a true speed reading...does not absolve one from also having a working speedometer fitted to the car, and accurate to within certain parameters.

Insurers rely on the internet to reduce administration costs...either to promote lower premiums, or to increase profits.

The proviso has been noted..the Certificate can be downloaded and printed off.

It should be....after all, internet connections can be flimsy at best?

Wig

alastairq wrote: »

erm...yes there is.....however, as I noted above, concessions are applied,

Erm.... No, there is not any requirement to carry your docs with you. No, there is not any concession from the non-existant requirement.

You are required to produce your documents when requested. It does not mean immediately, it means within a reasonable time, that can be 7 days or less, or it can be longer than 7 days, whatever is *reasonable* is what is required of you.

RTA 165 section 4
(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (3) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence . . . if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—


(a) within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or
(b) it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or
(c) it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,
and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.

Gene_Hunt_2

bigjl wrote: »

There is no legal requirement to carry your insurance certificate that I am aware of, however when I have had trade insurance it was a dvisable as the car may not be on the MID database and the police would need to see it if you car was flagged by ANPR.

No Police or Ambulance service vehicle in London carries an insurance certificate for example.

It is however a legal requirement to produce them when requested to do so by a Police Officer, since the introduction od ANPR and MID it isn't really relevant anymore as the Police know your Insurance status before they pull you over.

I would check any paperwork given to you when you picked up the courtesy car, as if you signed any documents then it would be stated on there if you needed to provide Insurance.


The only thing the Police suspect your partner of doing is driving a car not on the MID, nothing more.

The only people you need to contact are the providers of the courtesy car.

If they are part of the NHS then be prepared for them to have made a clerical error. Our fleet dept have forgotten to send Ambulances for MOT's before, for 3 months..........nobody knew why the tax disc was valid for several months after the MOT ran out as they should coincide, but to be honest nothing surpirises me about the NHS and the amount of mistakes the back room staff make, that is then covered up by the managers, when a clinical staff member makes even the slightest non clinical error then it is a full on witchhunt.

I'd be surprised if the Met have insurance.

DaveF327

mikeh2000 wrote: »

I'm a police officer, and not having insurance on a vehicle is an absolute offence, ie there's no leeway(unless it's an emergency, literally life or death), and it's also up to the driver to make sure that they do have insurance.

Yet another police officer who doesn't know the law he's supposed to enforce :mad:

I refer you to sections 143(3) and 144(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988:

143 (3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Now bearing in mind that sections 143 as a whole creates the obligation of a driver to have insurance in place when driving a motor vehicle on a road:

144 (2)Section 143 does not apply—

(a)to a vehicle owned—

(i)by the council of a county or county district in England and Wales the Broads Authority, the Common Council of the City of London, the council of a London borough a National Park authority, the Inner London Education Authority the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, an authority established for an area in England by an order under section 207 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (joint waste authorities), a joint authority (other than a police authority) established by Part 4 of the Local Government Act 1985, an economic prosperity board established under section 88 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 or a combined authority established under section 103 of that Act,

(ii)by a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 in Scotland, or

(iii)by a joint board or committee in England or Wales, or joint committee in Scotland, which is so constituted as to include among its members representatives of any such council,

at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control,

(b)to a vehicle owned by a police authority or the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police district, at a time when it is being driven under the owner’s control, or to a vehicle at a time when it is being driven for police purposes by or under the direction of a constable, or by a person employed by a police authority, . . ., or

(ba). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(c)to a vehicle at a time when it is being driven on a journey to or from any place undertaken for salvage purposes pursuant to Part IX of the [F12Merchant Shipping Act 1995],

(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(da)to a vehicle owned by a health service body, as defined in section 60(7) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 by a Primary Care Trust established under section 18 of the National Health Service Act 2006 or by a Local Health Board established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.

(db)to an ambulance owned by a National Health Service trust established under section 25 of the National Health Service Act 2006, section 18 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978, at a time when a vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control

(dc)to an ambulance owned by an NHS foundation trust, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control,

(e)to a vehicle which is made available by the Secretary of State or the Welsh Ministers to any person, body or local authority in pursuance of section 12 or 80 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or section 10 or 38 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, at a time when it is being used in accordance with the terms on which it is so made available,

(f)to a vehicle which is made available by the Secretary of State to any local authority, education authority or voluntary organisation in Scotland in pursuance of section 15 or 16 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 at a time when it is being used in accordance with the terms on which it is so made available.

(g) to a vehicle owned by the Care Quality Commission, at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control

Note particularly the part I've highlighted in red. I hope the OP's husband uses this as a defence and informs the police of this part of the Act when producing documents. Check carefully the contracts with your employer and this leasing company (and courtesy car provider) to gather evidence that the legal exemption applies.