Help, no insurance!

thenudeone

Hammyman wrote: »

The law requires them to impound cars showing as uninsured unless the driver can prove there and then that it is.

The_Turner wrote: »

I don't think Section 165 actually states that.

The Turner is quite correct - it doesn't. It says they "may" seize it. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A

Why don't people check before giving their opinions and presenting them as fact?

TrickyWicky

thenudeone wrote: »

If a car has a cherished number the police will definitely be able to find out off the police computer straight away what the original number was. I know this for an absolute fact. If you have been told otherwise it is incorrect.

Ditto. Likewise they can also see if a car has had a cherished plate in its past when they look it up by its original plate number. When plod pulled me on the M55 last year and looked up my car he could see its former cherished plate.

thenudeone

1) explain the issue to your insurers and ask them for a backdated certificate showing the new number. If they won't, just get a new certificate from today's date showing the new number.

2) produce the certificate (either one) to the police within the 7 days allowed, and to use it to recover your car

3) write to the police with copies of all documentation asking them to cease any prosecution, and asking for a full refund of the fees, on the basis that the officer should have checked the computer for the previous number plate (see my previous post) and therefore should not have seized it.

4) if they refuse, make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act asking for all the information relating to the vehicle that was available to the police on the date it was stopped. I'm not sure whether this should be to the DVLA or the police. This should prove that the information was available. Consider making a complaint to the http://www.ipcc.gov.uk

5) Your insurance does not depend on the car showing the correct (or any) registration plates. If your plates fall of or get stolen, you are still insured. So the fact that you have changed the registration mark doesn't (IMO) invalidate the insurance, if nothing else about the vehicle has changed, as both registration marks relate to the SAME VEHICLE. If you receive a summons, you'd probably need to see a solicitor as IMO, you were insured but may need help to present that in court.

Gloomendoom

I must admit I check the MID for my cars' reg numbers periodically.

askmid

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

4) if they refuse, make a subject access request under the Data Protection Act asking for all the information relating to the vehicle that was available to the police on the date it was stopped. I'm not sure whether this should be to the DVLA or the police. This should prove that the information was available. Consider making a complaint to the http://www.ipcc.gov.uk

The only information police have access to comes from the Motor Insurance Bureau and would only be available via a PNC check. The police do not have responsibility for the information and cannot update it.

I would suspect that contacting MIB would be more likely to obtain the information that was available. The OP's own insurance company would also be able to verify what information was available as they would have supplied it to MIB.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

The only information police have access to comes from the Motor Insurance Bureau and would only be available via a PNC check. The police do not have responsibility for the information and cannot update it.

I would suspect that contacting MIB would be more likely to obtain the information that was available. The OP's own insurance company would also be able to verify what information was available as they would have supplied it to MIB.

It's not the insurance database that is in doubt. It shows the old registration number.

A police officer must have "reasonable grounds for believing" uninsured driving, in order to seize a vehicle.

He was told that the vehicle was subject to a cherished number transfer but did not bother to check any further.

The police officer was incorrect to say that he couldn't tell from the information available to him what the original registration number of the vehicle was. I know that that information IS available to police officers.

The officer should have obtained that information, then checked the insurance database on that registration, which would have shown the policy in place.

A DPA request to the DVLA should show exactly what was available to the officer.

Once it can be proved that the officer had the enough information available to him to verify that insurance was in place, the OP is in a very strong position to claim that the seizure was illegal as the officer didn't have reasonable grounds to seize it.

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

It's not the insurance database that is in doubt. It shows the old registration number.

Meanwhile the police officer has a car in front of him with a cherished plate on it which is not showing up as being insured.

thenudeone wrote:

A police officer must have "reasonable grounds for believing" uninsured driving, in order to seize a vehicle.

He was told that the vehicle was subject to a cherished number transfer but did not bother to check any further.

And you were there at the time and can verify that?

thenudeone wrote:

The police officer was incorrect to say that he couldn't tell from the information available to him what the original registration number of the vehicle was. I know that that information IS available to police officers.

Yes, that is correct.

thenudeone wrote:

The officer should have obtained that information, then checked the insurance database on that registration, which would have shown the policy in place.

And that would have shown a policy in place on a vehicle with a different registration number, something which the OP has admitted is the case because they did not notify the insurers of the intention to put on a cherished plate.

thenudeone wrote:

A DPA request to the DVLA should show exactly what was available to the officer.

What information would DVLA have? They don't maintain the insurance database, they are users, just like the police. So all they can provide is details relating to the vehicle and the cherished transfer process.

thenudeone wrote:

Once it can be proved that the officer had the enough information available to him to verify that insurance was in place, the OP is in a very strong position to claim that the seizure was illegal as the officer didn't have reasonable grounds to seize it.

All the officer could have potentially verified is there was insurance on a vehicle with a different reg number to the one sitting in front of him at the time of the stop.

Another poster detailed what the OP should have done to get the cherished transfer notified to the insurers. The OP failed to do this and has only just notified their insurers. Whilst the insurers may be happy to state the vehicle was covered at the time, the fact remains the police had a vehicle in front of them that did not show up as being insured on that registration mark.

They may have been able to resolve it in other ways but they chose to do it the way they did. That was their choice.

The_Turner

Trebor16 wrote: »

They may have been able to resolve it in other ways but they chose to do it the way they did. That was their choice.

Which was wrong, it should have been dealt with by way of HO/RT1.

Trebor16

The_Turner wrote: »

Which was wrong, it should have been dealt with by way of HO/RT1.

Assuming they had that option, as some forces have withdrawn them.

The_Turner

Trebor16 wrote: »

Assuming they had that option, as some forces have withdrawn them.

Care to tell us which ones?