Stopped by police for having no insurance..

wba31

mikeh2000 wrote: »

It's not different, statute law doesn't win any prizes under the Plain English campaign, and which is why the website was drawn up by the Police to explain the law in simple terms, which people will understand!

If you think the sites wrong, then contact the webmasters, I'm sure they'll tell you similar things to the above.

To be honest you started your uphill battle in your first response with the words "I'm a police officer..."

The thing you said that concerned me was in your example about the gent who presumed he was ok to drive his wife's car on his policy, but was wrong? you mentioned he seemed like a decent chap so you should have done something there and then, rather than allow to go through the courts and the guy to be stung an extra £500 than the fine you would have issued? my issue with that is that you get to judge how severe the punishment could be almost. in my humble opinion, ALL cases should be dealt with the same, so if one person has to go to court for that offence, all should. I'm not saying you an officer with prejudices, but they do exist, hopefully in minority, so different people get treated in different ways...

sophiasmummy

Update:
Have just called the lease company who confirmed my OH is definitely covered under their Fleet insurance (phew) and she is emailing a copy of the insurance certificate to him to take into the police station with his driving license so hopefully that should be the end of it..
Thanks for your interesting POV's!
S

Gloomendoom

sophiasmummy wrote: »

Update:
Have just called the lease company who confirmed my OH is definitely covered under their Fleet insurance (phew) and she is emailing a copy of the insurance certificate to him to take into the police station with his driving license so hopefully that should be the end of it..
Thanks for your interesting POV's!
S

Glad you got it sorted. It must have been quite a worry!

spiro

sophiasmummy wrote: »

Update:
Have just called the lease company who confirmed my OH is definitely covered under their Fleet insurance (phew) and she is emailing a copy of the insurance certificate to him to take into the police station with his driving license so hopefully that should be the end of it..
Thanks for your interesting POV's!
S

Glad it was OK. What I would point out was before he drove the car in the first place it was your OHs responsibility to check he was insured. If he had done that you would not have had a weekend worrying.

Gene_Hunt_2

bigjl wrote: »

What exactly are you babbling about now Gene, Crown Indemnity was stopped years ago.


Or do you enjoy making useless comments.

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. E+W+S
(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and


Read the bold part. You don't actually need insurance, just a sum of money lodged in the event of a claim. A lot of ploce forces us it as it's a cheaper way, they simply pay for any damage and keep the money lodged in the event of a death etc.

You chimp on so much about the Police, I thought you would know that, why not ask one of your mates on traffic if you don't believe me.;)

I wasn't refering to Crown Indemnity just the RTA.

Gene_Hunt_2

mikeh2000 wrote: »

With regards to the fine in court, you need to speak to the magistrates about that one, as I've never heard of a Police officer fining someone in court! the last person I took to court before for having no insurance was only fined £75, for what reason I don't know!

He was also so insistent that he had insurance, and as the MID database isnt foolproof I couldn't issue him a ticket for no insurance, (otherwise I'd simply be issuing tickets all day); he was also driving a top of the range sports car worth over £50,000, so I had very serious doubts as to the fact the MID database came back with no insurance, but as stated, as I'd already stopped him, and the control room came back that insurance wasn't held on the database, I couldn't simply let him drive off without taking some sort of action, which was simply to let him produce the insurance documents he was so sure he had. if he had driven off and killed someone then I'd be in serious trouble at work, as well as in the courts maybe as I could be seen as an accessory.

As for the fine in court, you need to speak to the magistrates about that one, I don't have anything to do with fines there, and the person I took to court before for having no insurance was only fined £75, for what reason I don't know!

Yes you could have, and the ticket would have been written off if he produced insurance.

Gene_Hunt_2

mikeh2000 wrote: »

Our force is absolutely stretched at the moment, and on that basis there's a policy in place that we can't simply issue tickets just in case', much as some officers would like too!

With regards to the actual traffic stop, to give you a bit more background, the bloke was driving his wife's car, which was registered to, and insured in her name. His name was not on the policy according to the MID, but he said that the insurance on his own car covered him to drive other ones, which would cover him driving his wife's. In most cases this is correct if you've got fully comp on your own vehicle, and the one you're driving does not belong to you; the problem was he couldn't remember his registration number on his own car as he had only had it a week, and as such The DVLA database had no record of that vehicle, as there records had not been updated yet.
On that basis(he was driving a Porsche, and everyone was listening on the radio when it came up as him having no insurance to drive, so I couldnt just let him go!), I had absolutely no reason to doubt him at all, and the only reason I issued a ticket for him to produce his documents was as I said before; if he had driven off and killed or injured someone after I had just stopped him, I would have been villified if I hadn't done something. As it was I asked him if his wife could drive from there on, as the insurance covered her to drive, just in case.

You stretched it even further by taking the matter to court by way of summons.;)

Wig

Wig wrote: »

mikeh2000 wrote: »

2 reasons, I'd already checked his insurance via the radio, which came back as he didn't have any, hence it was recorded, and also it was a sunday night when he couldn't simply get insurance at the roadside.

He was insistent that he had insurance at the roadside, but as he was miles away from home, and it was a sunday night, he couldnt produce any documents to prove he did, so all I did was ask him to produce his documents at a station, rather than seize his vehicle, which I could potentially have done.

I disagree, (with the bolded part-well you could have potentially seized it, yes, but you would have been wrong to do so, is my point), you said yourself that the police won't seize where the driver insists they do have insurance and you can't contact the insurer by phone. I was glad to hear you say that as that is the correct procedure, and some chief constables have said as much in public. However my confidence in the minions of the police rank and file, to know this and to act in this way is not great.

But then you wrote that bit in bold and my heart sank. IMHO and according to the law you would have no right to seize the vehicle on a late Sunday night where the driver insists he is covered, and gives you no reason to think he is lying - like trying to fail to stop or flee the scene etc- Just because the computer holds no record of insurance does not give you enough evidence to reasonably believe that he is not covered. The only people who can give that information is the insurance company.

Just wondering what your view on this was?

Wig

mikeh2000 wrote: »

So what you're trying to say is that an official Police site that gives plain English advice to the public is lying! Unless your a lawyer or actually study statute law it's not as easy as it seems to understand the definitions, which is one reason why the Askthepolice site was created, which was for people to understand stuff which would normally go over there head, as shown by some of the comments on this thread.
'Perverting the course of justice' is a new one on me though!

I've said enough now, if people are starting to question official police information sites, then I'm just banging my head against a brick wall.

The trouble is, it wouldn't be the first time such a police website was found to be giving out wrong advice. I can't remember what the last one was that we knew to be wrong, possibly it was about the grace days for road tax, that the police website said didn't exist.

dacouch

You do not neccessarily have to have comprehensive cover to have driving other cars, there are plenty of Insurers who include it on their Third Party policies