ask MID

s_b

muckybutt wrote: »

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

Effing useless :mad::mad::mad:

it can
as has been said your insurer is inept
bare this in mind at renewal time because dvla are moving to shut all local dvla offices next year
it is always advised to check the mid once your policy is up and running:)

dacouch

Weird_Nev wrote: »

Anyway, you make some interesting points, but like I say, we don't deal with call centre staff, we have police liason numbers to people who can tell us exactly what is what, and will provide evidential statements by return of fax if there's a problem.

Who more often than not work in call centre and are call centre staff, they are better trained staff

Weird_Nev

I meant "public" call center, but yes.
You have a way of furiously agreeing with people.

dacouch

Weird_Nev wrote: »

No where did I say it was. Re-read my post. Perhaps I missed out a semi colon or something. I was giving a list of excuses people come up with as they try and convince police that they are insured.

It's probably your choice of "Fronting is legal now is it?" followed with a description about driving other cars.

Weird_Nev wrote: »

:rotfl:Fronting is legal now is it?
Driving an uninsured vehicle "hoping" that because of some circuitous route you're covered by some other policy in existance? More often than not you're treading on thin ice and an insurer will drop you like a hot rock. Check small print, phone your insurer BEFORE you drive. IF you've come up with some clever plan to drive a car you would not normally afford to insure, the likelyhood is someone else has thought of it before you and the insurers T&C's will specifically prohibit such actions (for example the car you're driving third party might need to be registered in anothers name, belong to another, and have in force it's OWN policy of insurance - who knows, only small print or a phone call will clear it up).

Notmyrealname

Weird_Nev wrote: »

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?

Yes, yes I do. Like anything they've got targets to meet. On a Road Wars episode, one copper even admitted it on camera - they had a situation where a stern telling off would have sufficed for a minor infraction but he said that as he had targets to meet, he couldn't.

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.

Plenty of trade policies have social use on them. And its perfectly legal to drive someone elses Porsche under your other vehicle cover.

As much as you may like or want a police state, in this country you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the example of the porsche, it is up to the Police to prove that you're not driving the porsche quite legally on an irregular basis, not you to prove it. Yet the traffic officer at the side of the road acts as judge and jury in having the vehicle seized you have proven you're insured to drive and you are in effect given a punishment with the £150 charge. Whether you're driving it more than the insurance company allow under other vehicle cover is between the insurance company and the insured and is a civil matter. If the Police waived the £150 charge or refunded it, then it is more fair but until then it is the police acting above the law.

dacouch

Notmyrealname wrote: »

. Whether you're driving it more than the insurance company allow under other vehicle cover is between the insurance company and the insured and is a civil matter. If the Police waived the £150 charge or refunded it, then it is more fair but until then it is the police acting above the law.

Interestingly this is another insurance urban myth, people often think DOC is strictly for emergencies. The intention of it is mainly for emergencies however there are no restrictions to emergencies and if you think about it, how would you define a motoring emergency in a motor policy which would be watertight legally and with the RTA.

In fact there are no restrictions on how frequently you use a particular vehicle under DOC, you could use it more than your normal car.

The restrictions tend to ROUGHLY be

It does not belong to you (Sometimes also states partner) and not hired to you under HP agreement
The normal car has not been written off (Some state is roadworthy)
Have the owners permission

Some will also state the other car must hold it's own insurance

As other posters have stated, it's important to read your own policy regarding this (You can find it in the section titled "Liability" or Liability to others" and also check your certificate of Insurance specifically states you have this cover. Never assume you have it and also check any particular restrictions

Weird_Nev

dacouch wrote: »

It's probably your choice of "Fronting is legal now is it?" followed with a description about driving other cars.

They were seperate paragraphs. You can tell because one paragraph ends and another begins.

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Yes, yes I do. Like anything they've got targets to meet. On a Road Wars episode, one copper even admitted it on camera - they had a situation where a stern telling off would have sufficed for a minor infraction but he said that as he had targets to meet, he couldn't.

That's a shame, and that officer lacked spine.

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Plenty of trade policies have social use on them. And its perfectly legal to drive someone elses Porsche under your other vehicle cover.

No where did I say that either of those two statements were false. What I said was:
1) Trade policies are sometimes abused and the details may or may not permit any number of things.
2) If you bought a banger, insured it with cover that permitted you to drive other cars, then also bought a Porsche, perhaps registered it to someone else, and rolled around in it under the other cars policy, then more likely than not you are drving uninsured. Insurance companies have got wise to this, and now include clauses to make this apparent. if you're dong that, you're not "Being clever", you're driving uninsured. And you're an idiot, because the car itself isn't insured against any damage to it, neither is is insured when you're not physically driving it.[/quote]

Notmyrealname wrote: »

As much as you may like or want a police state, in this country you are still presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In no way do I want a police state. I want legislative tools to do my job properly. I'm actually quite pink and fluffy and liberal. Certainly more so than most officers.

Put it this way: How many people do you know of who've had their car seized? Have you ever had your car seized? No? Not really an issue to you then, is it?

Wig

Weird_Nev wrote: »

This Document describes the range of checks that might normally be considered before seizing a vehicle. If i was seizing a vehicle then Amongst other things, MID showing the vehicle as not insured would be a big part of the grounds I had, along with the other checks I had done.

The document is actually very vague about what is required before a seizure can take place. It does say that not being on the MID does not mean the vehicle is uninsured and should not be relied upon. the "Appendix A check list" does not say what the results of those checks must be before seizure is allowed".

Scenario:
So we have a driver stopped for no insurance, the MID does not say "insured" so we move on to the other checks, The driver identifies the name of the insurer, it is after hours and the insurer cannot be contacted, the PNC is checked the car does exist and the driver can tell you all the details, who the RK is what address the car is registered at etc etc the driver has a licence and there is no one else available to drive the car. It comes down to one simple problem driver insists there is insurance, computer says no. Under these circumstances I would say a seizure is not reasonable and by the wording of that document , it would seem the Kent police force agrees with me, however they don't actually say so.

You did say that you think you can contact most insurers even after hours, if that is so, then that is fine with me. If they say it is not insured then a seizure would be reasonable. I have no idea if you are right to say you can contact most insurers 24/7. But I did see a "cops on camera" episode (The ones who drive a Subaru Impreza) and it was nighttime and they could not contact the insurer and they (correctly IMHO) let the driver continue his journey. However I'm sure there have been other similar situations where the cars have been seized, we might have even had a few threads on this forum of such cases.

Who said solely? If MID says not insured, Driver can't give the name of the insurer they purchased insurance with, a bit of ringing around leaves us none the wiser, and the whole thing is unravelling, what are we left with? An uninsired driver.

Well, I implied, as much in post #5, I was talking about relying solely on MID. You said in post #7 that "it was grounds for seizure" which I toook to mean "solely" as you did not say "it is grounds for seizure as long as there is other supporting evidence". If you did not mean "solely" that's fine with me, that leaves us to agree on what other evidence you would require to come to a reasonable belief that the vehicle is uninsured?

:rotfl:Fronting is legal now is it?

I was referring to the DOC part of your post as perfectly legitimate use, not fronting. And could be easily checked if you contacted their insurer or the policy was on MID.

Driving an uninsured vehicle "hoping" that because of some circuitous route you're covered by some other policy in existance? More often than not you're treading on thin ice and an insurer will drop you like a hot rock. Check small print, phone your insurer BEFORE you drive. IF you've come up with some clever plan to drive a car you would not normally afford to insure, the likelyhood is someone else has thought of it before you and the insurers T&C's will specifically prohibit such actions (for example the car you're driving third party might need to be registered in anothers name, belong to another, and have in force it's OWN policy of insurance - who knows, only small print or a phone call will clear it up).

My own policy requires the other vehicle to not belong/registered to me, and for my vehicle not to be FUBAR. I agree, however, it would make sense to double check before driving if it was "the wife's car" as that could be a grey area.

And producers are being/have been phased out as it's recognised that they're not an effective means of dealing with documentation offences.

Faced with the scenario I gave, it would be all that was left for you. Or just let him drive away woth no further checks, which doesn't sound very smart to me.

Wig, do you have any policing experience?

No

-snip- What it all boils down to is they're uninsured and they need their car seizing because they're a menace.

MID is a useful start point, not an end point.

What if they did only buy it a week ago? It wouldn't be on the PNC, so it could be prefectly legitimate and the insurer not contactable, under those circumstances I would say a seizure is unreasonable.

Notmyrealname

Weird_Nev wrote: »

2) If you bought a banger, insured it with cover that permitted you to drive other cars, then also bought a Porsche, perhaps registered it to someone else, and rolled around in it under the other cars policy, then more likely than not you are drving uninsured. Insurance companies have got wise to this, and now include clauses to make this apparent. if you're dong that, you're not "Being clever", you're driving uninsured. And you're an idiot, because the car itself isn't insured against any damage to it, neither is is insured when you're not physically driving it.

You are not driving uninsured for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act and it is not the job of the traffic officer to make a decision at the side of the road whether you are or not and seize your vehicle. You have insurance, you've proven you have insurance so he has absolutely no grounds whatsoever to seize the vehicle. As I said, it is a civil matter and the only duty the police officer has is to make your insurers aware that you were driving that vehicle under other vehicle cover. It is then up to the insurers to decide.

In no way do I want a police state. I want legislative tools to do my job properly.

...which results in an overbearing police state in the eyes of the law abiding public. Whilst you may find certain things frustrating, there are reasons they are put in place - usually to prevent abuse of power or position. I served in Northern Ireland in the troubles. There's a ton of stuff I would have liked to have been able to do to enable me to do my job properly but quite rightly I wasn't allowed to.

Put it this way: How many people do you know of who've had their car seized? Have you ever had your car seized? No? Not really an issue to you then, is it?

Oh look, the classic line of a Police Officer - "If you've not done anything wrong, you needn't be worried." Do they brainwash that into you at Hendon or whatever police training facility you went to?

I don't know anyone who has had their vehicle seized because I don't know people who drive uninsured but why should that make a difference whether it is an issue to me or not? Civil liberties should be everyones issue.

Weird_Nev

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Oh look, the classic line of a Police Officer - "If you've not done anything wrong, you needn't be worried." Do they brainwash that into you at Hendon or whatever police training facility you went to?

I don't know anyone who has had their vehicle seized because I don't know people who drive uninsured but why should that make a difference whether it is an issue to me or not? Civil liberties should be everyones issue.

:T
They are more my issue than most peoples! I spend my time PROTECTING peoples liberties! I've already said that I am really very pink and fluffy! I even think that people should be flogged only AFTER they've been hung!

I am not saying "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear"
I was merely pointing out by way of example that the Police do not operate a policy of wholesale seizure of insured motorists vehicles on the offchance of them being uninsured, and that the powers are used, in my experience, in a proportionate and sensible manner. If this power was widely abused then everyone would have their pub story of how their car was seized by Police. It really is a last resort seizing someones car. It to prevent them committing a further offence. I don't go out thinking "Oh, I'm going to really upset someone today by seizing a car". In fact, I rarely concern myself with traffic matters. I deal with serious crime in my "day job".

Honestly, so you think we live in a Police State?

You don't know me at all. You know nothing of what I do or how I work and yet you label me a brainwashed storm trooper? Well done. Thankfully I don't treat all the motorists (or wider public for that matter) with the same contempt as you have shown for me and my profession.