ask MID

muckybutt

What a load of b****ks ! :mad:

My insurance runs / ran out today so back on the 12th of Dec I took out a new policy after shopping around.

Car tax also runs out end of this month, so knowing this and having the !!!!! remind me of this I decided to apply on line. Upon entering the car details on dvla I get told car isnt insured ? and get told to goto MID to check. So I pop off to check with ask MID, big red border at the top of the screen appears, YOU ARE NOT INSURED, like b****ks I bloody well am insured so decided to check my insurance docs on line then, so did that and confirmed I was and am insured, I even phoned them up and was told hmmm yes it can take several weeks for it to appear, "so what if I get pulled ?" was my question, "well you are insured but it wont show on the computers for a few more weeks, so just carry a copy of your insurance with you as proof", oh great.

Whats the point in having a data base if it cant be updated electronically straight away ?

Effing useless :mad::mad::mad:

marlot

Most insurance companies update MID in 2-3 days. Sounds like the processes at your insurance company are sub-optimal. Hope you never have to claim from them (or that their claims processes are better than their MID processes if you do).

oldagetraveller

I always have the same problem. Insurance expires 12th Dec. V.E.D. expires 31st Dec. Insurance renewed before it's expiry but DVLA system will not allow V.E.D. renewal online because the vehicle is "not insured" on the new V.E.D. start date!
I've just used the post office each year using the new Ins. Cert. 10 miles round trip - how convenient, time wasting and fuel inefficient!
Out of curiosity I just checked Ask MID and the car still isn't insured according to them. So maybe my insurance company are "sub-optimal" too? Or could it alternatively be the system is flawed?
So yes, total spherical appendages.

System

muckybutt wrote: »

.....
I even phoned them up and was told hmmm yes it can take several weeks for it to appear
......

Contact your insurance company and point out to them that they gave you inaccurate information.

See : http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/MID+Faqs/Rules+for+speed+of+loading+data.htm

Are there any rules about how quickly the data has to be loaded to the MID?

Yes, for privately owned vehicles, the rules state data must be on the MID within 7 days of a policy starting, or 7 days from a change being made to a policy.
For commercial fleet-type policies or motor trade policies it is different. In these cases the data must be on the MID within 14 days of a policy starting or within 14 days of a change being made on the policy.
MIB monitors these targets very closely for every insurance company and they all strive to ensure they exceed these targets so as to avoid any disruption to their policyholders.

In fact, if the MID has not been updated by the next working day, I would be phoning the insurer and giving them hell until they got your car on the MID.

Like you say, if you get pulled by the police, you suffer inconvenience due to the slow insurer.

Wig

You can and ought to do this to avoid these problems....

Get 6 months VED to move your VED renewal away from your insurance renewal. And I also get the MOT renewal to be a month or two after the VED renewal so it will be taxed & insured whilst you get it through it's MOT.

The worst I risk, if I drive without MOT, is £60 FPN or £150 - £200 in the unlikely event I get taken to court and I cannot justify the driving with taking to/from a place repair etc.

My insurance renewal is coming soon, currently I am green on MID, I will try to update this thread to see how long it takes my insurer (Frizzel - part of LV group) to update the MID. The renewal date is 17th January, quoted £195 for renewal..

OP you should keep a copy of your Insurance certificate with you in the car to avoid being impounded at night, during the day they should phone your insurer for confirmation before impounding. AFAIK at least 1 police force takes the view that it is unreasonable to assume a person is not insured at night time -out of office hours- if the driver swears they are and there is no other reason to believe otherwise.....and I would agree, but it will require a high court case to make all police forces follow the same line.

[Deleted User]

I read somewhere once where the MID should only be used to prove that someone is insured. Not to prove that they are not. Which some police seem to think.

Weird_Nev

Deleted_User wrote: »

I read somewhere once where the MID should only be used to prove that someone is insured. Not to prove that they are not. Which some police seem to think.

It's a clue, but it's not evidential.
It is grounds for seizing a vehicle though, until you can provide proof that you are insured. You'd generally phone first, to make sure.

MID is generally updated within the day, as stated. I once pulld someone over as they drove home from buying the car, and MID showed them as having bought the insurance less than an hour before. It's usually very good.

Notmyrealname

Weird_Nev wrote: »

It's a clue, but it's not evidential.
It is grounds for seizing a vehicle though, until you can provide proof that you are insured.

Which is easier said than done when the Police will no longer accept cover notes or certificates of insurance at the roadside. And even if you produce a certificate, they refuse to believe it and tow your car it is still going to cost you £150 + cost of time and money to get to the storage yard even though you are completely innocent.

mikey72

It's the database used to cross reference against tax as well, so it needs to be on there or the warning letter gets sent out automatically.

Weird_Nev

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Which is easier said than done when the Police will no longer accept cover notes or certificates of insurance at the roadside. And even if you produce a certificate, they refuse to believe it and tow your car it is still going to cost you £150 + cost of time and money to get to the storage yard even though you are completely innocent.

Yup, awesome isn't it.:rotfl:
Do you honestly think that Police would waste their time seizing cars that ARE insured, for the fun of it?
And the only time I've ever had someone show me insurance certificates at the road side, they've been forgeries and They've ended up arrested for fraud.

To be honest, I've never seen a vehicle seized that didn't need seizing. For example, we stopped an older couple and their car was shown as not insured. They were adamant that they were. A phone call to their insurer revealed that there had been a mistake and the registration on the insurance policy was incorrect, one letter was wrong hence it didn't show up on the database. It was sorted out there and then, and the couple were on their way.

If you have insurance, and know who your insurance company is there really isn't going to be a problem. Police can just phone them from the roadside and they will verify it over the phone to police. But if you start dicking around with trade policies, fronting, "driving other cars", "oh yeah, my mini is on the drive but this is my wifes Porsche and I can drive it with my third party cover" then you're sailing close to the wind, and it may be that your car is seized whilst Police get to the bottom of things.

Don't complain about the number of unisured drivers and then complain that the authorites are actually trying to do something about it.

Wig

Weird_Nev wrote: »

It's a clue, but it's not evidential.
It is grounds for seizing a vehicle though, until you can provide proof that you are insured. You'd generally phone first, to make sure.

Can you quote any law or case law to back up that statement?

MID is generally updated within the day, as stated. I once pulld someone over as they drove home from buying the car, and MID showed them as having bought the insurance less than an hour before. It's usually very good.

But it is often inaccurate and should not be relied upon by police solely as reason to impound a vehicle.

To be honest, I've never seen a vehicle seized that didn't need seizing.

Doen't mean it doesn't happen.....

For example, we stopped an older couple and their car was shown as not insured. They were adamant that they were. A phone call to their insurer revealed that there had been a mistake and the registration on the insurance policy was incorrect, one letter was wrong hence it didn't show up on the database. It was sorted out there and then, and the couple were on their way.

And if the insurer was closed, you would have incorrectly seized a vehicle and given the couple an immense amount of inconvieneince and costs. Take the OP to this thread, for example, he is insured, and yet if you stopped him at night you would impound his vehicle. And that would be "a vehicle that didn't need seizing"

If you have insurance, and know who your insurance company is there really isn't going to be a problem. Police can just phone them from the roadside and they will verify it over the phone to police.

At night time? I don't think so.

But if you start dicking around with trade policies, fronting, "driving other cars", "oh yeah, my mini is on the drive but this is my wifes Porsche and I can drive it with my third party cover" then you're sailing close to the wind, and it may be that your car is seized whilst Police get to the bottom of things.

Again perfectly legal to do so and easily proven in the day time with a call to his insurer, at night time, he should be given a producer if he is able to identify his own insurance policy.

Don't complain about the number of unisured drivers and then complain that the authorites are actually trying to do something about it.

You won't find me complaining of that.