Help, no insurance!

Trebor16

The Met Police have for certain.

The_Turner

Trebor16 wrote: »

The Met Police have for certain.

So where has your info come from?

Care to post a link.

Weird_Nev

The_Turner wrote: »

So where has your info come from?

Care to post a link.

They have.
HTH.

Trebor16

The_Turner wrote: »

So where has your info come from?

Care to post a link.

Google is your friend.

kizkiz

Met don't issue HORT/1 on their own anymore. Haven't done for a while now
There is still a HORT/1 section on FPN's.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

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

Of course I wasn't there. I base my comments on what the OP has said.

Trebor16 wrote: »

And that would have shown a policy in place on a vehicle with a different registration number

but which the police officer was able to prove (if he had enquired) was THE SAME VEHICLE as the the one in front of him.

The insurance if for a vehicle, not a registration plate. The registration plate is just a means to identify the vehicle.

Trebor16 wrote: »

What information would DVLA have?

I have already said - this is nothing to do with the insurance database. It is about proving that the police officer had access to the information to prove that the vehicle was insured (but chose not to check it). On a cherished transfer vehicle, the original registration number is part of the information held by DVLA and provided to the police for checking vehicles against.

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.

They don't have a choice about complying with the law which requires "reasonable grounds to believe". It does not say: "If it's not on the database it can be seized". The lack of an entry on the MID is not in itself, sufficient to provide those grounds, if the driver can explain how he is insured, especially if it is in a way that can be checked by the officer at the time. For example the driver may be driving a friends' car and be covered under the "driving other cars" section of their own policy.

Given all the information available at the time, I don't believe that reasonable grounds existed. Others may draw a different opinion. Until or unless it gets tested in court we will never know.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

The Met Police have for certain.

In that case, what document (if any) do the police issue to a driver who is involved in or is reporting an accident (which has to be done as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours), but does not have their driving documents with them (they are allowed 7 days to product documents)?

If no HO/RT1 is used, how does the officer in charge of investigating the accident get to know that the documents were produced, when they could be produced at a police station at the other end of the country?

And don't tell me that they can check the databases. The driver could be claiming cover on a trade or company policy or under the "driving other cars" cover of another policy, which would not show up on the database against the car in the accident.

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

In that case, what document (if any) do the police issue to a driver who is involved in or is reporting an accident (which has to be done as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours), but does not have their driving documents with them (they are allowed 7 days to product documents)?

If no HO/RT1 is used, how does the officer in charge of investigating the accident get to know that the documents were produced, when they could be produced at a police station at the other end of the country?

And don't tell me that they can check the databases. The driver could be claiming cover on a trade or company policy or under the "driving other cars" cover of another policy, which would not show up on the database against the car in the accident.

Why don't you do a Freedom of Information Act request to the Met Police and ask them those questions? I'm sure they can provide you the answers you seek far better than any member here.

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

Of course I wasn't there. I base my comments on what the OP has said.

Which is one side of the story of course.

thenudeone wrote:

but which the police officer was able to prove (if he had enquired) was THE SAME VEHICLE as the the one in front of him.

How do you know he didn't enquire? The OP wasn't even there so she is unable to say for certain.

thenudeone wrote:

The insurance if for a vehicle, not a registration plate. The registration plate is just a means to identify the vehicle.

And that means of identity is what insurers always ask for when insuring a vehicle. Once they insure the vehicle the reg number appears on the policy and the certificate of insurance.

thenudeone wrote:

I have already said - this is nothing to do with the insurance database. It is about proving that the police officer had access to the information to prove that the vehicle was insured (but chose not to check it). On a cherished transfer vehicle, the original registration number is part of the information held by DVLA and provided to the police for checking vehicles against.

It is everything to do with the insurance database. Police get their information from the MIB database as do DVLA in relation to insurance. At the end of the day the OP has stated that she did not inform the insurers of the change to a cherished registration number so the database did not show the vehicle as insured on the cherished reg.

thenudeone wrote:

They don't have a choice about complying with the law which requires "reasonable grounds to believe". It does not say: "If it's not on the database it can be seized". The lack of an entry on the MID is not in itself, sufficient to provide those grounds, if the driver can explain how he is insured, especially if it is in a way that can be checked by the officer at the time. For example the driver may be driving a friends' car and be covered under the "driving other cars" section of their own policy.

In the absence of any proof that a vehicle is not insured then it would be reasonable for a vehicle to be seized. The decision to seize is also not that of the officer on the street as they have to seek authority from a supervisory officer.

thenudeone wrote:

Given all the information available at the time, I don't believe that reasonable grounds existed. Others may draw a different opinion. Until or unless it gets tested in court we will never know.

You haven't heard all the information, only what we have been told by the OP. So to come to a conclusion based on hearing half the story is somewhat premature.

The_Turner

Trebor16 wrote: »

And that means of identity is what






In the absence of any proof that a vehicle is not insured then it would be reasonable for a vehicle to be seized. The decision to seize is also not that of the officer on the street as they have to seek authority from a supervisory officer.

No they don't. It may be force policy for wooden tops. But nothing like that is stated in the rta.