Stopped by police for having no insurance..

raskazz

God, threads like these are ridiculous. It would take me literally days to pick through all the BS in here.

vaio

I think the technical term is "thread drift", it's about as hard to stop as continental drift

raskazz

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

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.;)

This is such rubbish.

Firstly vehicles owned by a police authority are exempt from s.143 of the Road Traffic Act anyway by virtue of s.144 (2)(b).

Even if they were subject to compulsory insurance requirements, a security is not the same as the deposit which can be lodged with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court - that is dealt with by s.144 (1) of the Act. If exemption from s.143 is obtained by deposit then that deposit is not used to cover liabilities itself (it is merely intended to verify that the depositor possesses a certain amount of financial strength), so money is never kept 'lodged for a death' or 'lodged in the event of a claim'.

What most police forces will actually do is effect a policy with an authorised insurer with substantial all sections excesses, in effect self-insuring most losses but with the authorised insurer almost acting as a reinsurer to the police.

Can people please only post replies to things that they know the first thing about? Cheers!

bigjl

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

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.

I don't need to, as the Police no longer lodge the money in this way, it was referred to as Crown Indemnity, even the Post Office used it, I believe it is only sometimes used in Aviation these days.

Strange that when I was involved in an RTC with the Police my Insurance company negotiated with another Insurance company.

What do you call it when you lodge this sum of money, and who do you lodge it with, oh, thats right you used to lodge it with the Crown, wonder what it could be called.

If a Police car is covered for liability in this way then try and put a Police car reg no into MID, I believe you will find that it shows up as insured, which means it is on the database, note the database isn't a Police responsibilty, but is a responsibility of the Insurance Industry.

The PO, AMbulance and Police no longer lodge this sum of money anymore, they now use Insurance the same as everybody else.

bigjl

raskazz wrote: »

This is such rubbish.

Firstly vehicles owned by a police authority are exempt from s.143 of the Road Traffic Act anyway by virtue of s.144 (2)(b).

Even if they were subject to compulsory insurance requirements, a security is not the same as the deposit which can be lodged with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court - that is dealt with by s.144 (1) of the Act. If exemption from s.143 is obtained by deposit then that deposit is not used to cover liabilities itself (it is merely intended to verify that the depositor possesses a certain amount of financial strength), so money is never kept 'lodged for a death' or 'lodged in the event of a claim'.

What most police forces will actually do is effect a policy with an authorised insurer with substantial all sections excesses, in effect self-insuring most losses but with the authorised insurer almost acting as a reinsurer to the police.

Can people please only post replies to things that they know the first thing about? Cheers!

Thanks for adding that, the Ambulance service do the same but I didn't know the "correct" terms used in the industry, all I do know is the excess's are huge, as mentioned by me before the figure of £5000 on Ambulances and possibly up to £15000 for an RRV, though a couple of days ago the figure of £30000 was mentioned for RRV's.

This is why manouvering accidents have been the subject of press coverage recently, such low value repairs are paid for without using Insurance, actually most of these low speed accidents are very minor and normally caused by fatigue, when the Ambulance and Police went to 12 hours shifts the number of these accidents more than doubled from figures I have read.

real1314

bigjl wrote: »

I don't need to, as the Police no longer lodge the money in this way, it was referred to as Crown Indemnity, even the Post Office used it, I believe it is only sometimes used in Aviation these days.

Strange that when I was involved in an RTC with the Police my Insurance company negotiated with another Insurance company.

What do you call it when you lodge this sum of money, and who do you lodge it with, oh, thats right you used to lodge it with the Crown, wonder what it could be called.

If a Police car is covered for liability in this way then try and put a Police car reg no into MID, I believe you will find that it shows up as insured, which means it is on the database, note the database isn't a Police responsibilty, but is a responsibility of the Insurance Industry.

The PO, AMbulance and Police no longer lodge this sum of money anymore, they now use Insurance the same as everybody else.

Crown Indemnity is not the same thing.

The Crown (i.e the state in it's various forms) cannot be prosecuted by the state. So, for example, the HSE cannot take HMRC to court for a H&S failing.
The case would be regina vs regina.
This is crown indemnity.

The whole "no insurance", we'll pay the costs is still used. I know this from 1st hand knowledge. I'd suspect most govt departments use it for their vehicles.

Gene_Hunt_2

bigjl wrote: »

I don't need to, as the Police no longer lodge the money in this way, it was referred to as Crown Indemnity, even the Post Office used it, I believe it is only sometimes used in Aviation these days.

Strange that when I was involved in an RTC with the Police my Insurance company negotiated with another Insurance company.

What do you call it when you lodge this sum of money, and who do you lodge it with, oh, thats right you used to lodge it with the Crown, wonder what it could be called.

If a Police car is covered for liability in this way then try and put a Police car reg no into MID, I believe you will find that it shows up as insured, which means it is on the database, note the database isn't a Police responsibilty, but is a responsibility of the Insurance Industry.

The PO, AMbulance and Police no longer lodge this sum of money anymore, they now use Insurance the same as everybody else.

You know that's true for every force do you? I know you're wrong.

photome

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 its sorted and that you came back with an update.

God knows what the rest of the crap on this thread is about though

To many people up their own ....

Rossy.

bigjl wrote: »

You are very far from correct there, the Police/Ambulance and even the Post Office used to have crown indemnity, they used to lodge a sum of money with the crown, a million pound I think it was, and this was used to pay for all the damage, anything left at the end of the year was returned.

This stopped a fair few years ago and we are now insured by normal Insurance companies, to the tune of severeal million a year and excess around the £5000 mark for Ambulances and apparently up to £10 or £15k for Rapid response units.

I assume the excess for the Police is much the same level, so it is actually a rare occurance for the Insurance to pay out, hence why the claims are very often paid for by the service concerned.

Every complex of two or three stations has access to the insurance certificate, as before MID we had to do producers in much the same way as everybody else.

Thats a pretty low excess in comparison

The company i work for is self insured. They do not insure every vehicle but have blanket coverage.

Our excess is £250k, so basically every claim is paid out direct from the company.

Then again i think it would cost mega £££ to insure 650 buses at £300k each

Wig

How can failure to produce at the roadside, even if it were an offence, (which I am not convinced that it is -because of section 165 (3)) be a "moviing traffic" offence? That is, an offence commited whilst the vehicle was in motion (see Section 6 (4))