ask MID

Trebor16

Notmyrealname wrote: »

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.

So whose responsibility is it to make that decision then?

Notmyrealname wrote:

You have insurance, you've proven you have insurance so he has absolutely no grounds whatsoever to seize the vehicle.

Indeed, but if there are doubts that a vehicle is insured what then?

Notmyrealname wrote:

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.

Since when has the issue of whether or not you are insured to drive a vehicle on the road become a civil matter?

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?

You can do better than that stereotypical comment surely.

Notmyrealname wrote:

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.

If you want to take up the issue of civil liberties then uninsured cars being seized is way down on the scale of seriousness. Take a look at what is happening around the world in Syria and Egypt (just two examples) to get some perspective on real abuses of civil liberties.

Trebor16

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.

And you have evidence that a paper certificate of insurance is not accepted by the police at the roadside? Which forces are engaging in such behaviour?

TrickyWicky

Weird_Nev wrote: »

This Document

Oddly it's that lot (Kent) that seized some blokes car a few years back and sent it to the crusher even though he was fully insured. The bloke was fully insured and the insurers even rang and wrote to the force and they still crushed the car. When the papers got involved the force refused to comment other than saying that they'd done nothing wrong and would not be compensating the owner for the destruction of the vehicle.

You expect us to have faith?

Weird_Nev wrote: »

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.

Rubbish. It's not normally updated within the hour and that doesn't make it "usually very good". It's the insurers who do the quick update who make it very good not the MID itself.

I bought a car last year near Blackpool. I'd arranged the insurance at about 12 that afternoon. Got there 11pm that night, did the sale, took the car. Got tugged on the M55 I think it was, plod had spotted the car at a petrol station (I know because I was in there watching him eyeing it up just as I was entering the gents). Came out, plod was nowhere to be seen. Further up the motorway blue lights appeared behind me. He thought I was busted, I knew differently.

Bloke gets me in the back of his 4X4 with the automatic "You're guilty as sin" tone of voice and attitude. Car showed up as being uninsured - a whopping 11 hours after the policy had been arranged. They were closed he could of taken me in and had the car towed. I got questioned about everything from the colour of the car to the other cars we owned, how long they'd been owned, the previous number plates, etc. Almost anything he could think of asking to try and trip me up, he asked it. I had nothing to hide so I went on the attack into explanation overdrive - he wanted to know everything I made sure he knew everything and more. You ain't taking my car when I've done my bit! His attitude soon changed and I eventually got told to "f*** off" when his brain couldn't handle me. Just to clarify, I'm the type who knows the policy number from memory, the exact costs, payment dates, times of phone calls etc. This cop thought I was busted, he met more than his match.

You fuzz's have a funny way of operating when it comes to motoring. I honestly don't trust one of you especially after another fuzz I used to know tried numerous times to set me up (and failed) including telling me I didn't need insurance to leave a car parked on the road (and then the next day the ANPR gang being up the top of the estate waiting). Big mistake.. the day I ask a copper questions like that is the day I'm testing your honesty. I don't ask any question that I haven't already researched the answer to. Local fuzz also ended up following me once with a new car thinking they'd catch me with those nice illegal 3D plates - no chance, they'd been changed first thing that morning. Odd thing is though, plods seem to have no problems breaking speed limits themselves either in patrol cars or their own.

I've also had spats with my insurers over this 3rd party only cover in other cars. Your lot would tug me if caught in a car not on the MID and haul me off to the cells for using the 3rd party cover. My insurers also quite clearly stated it only covers cars that already have a policy in force.

I went through the documents with a fine tooth comb line by line, page by page. There was nothing in the terms and conditions or policy booklet about this and after 3 frustrating phone calls they eventually admitted that there was a 'common understanding' at the call centre that there must be insurance for 3rd party any car cover but after checking what I'd said I was in fact correct and they were wrong :cool:. I wonder how many of your lot have taken their word as gospel and seized / crushed cars when the drivers may of actually been within the conditions of their insurance? - I bet you guys didn't even bother checking did you. To counter this your lot and their chums at the DVLA passed a new law forcing the car to be sorned if its not directly insured.

Weird_Nev

Wow.

Well, you've got me down.

I spend my entire working day in petrol stations looking for YOU - yes YOU in order to mkae your life as hard as possible. :roll:

I'm done here.

Weird_Nev

Trebor16 wrote: »

What utter nonsense.

Yeah. We're not 'usually excellent'.

'Frequently mediocre' is probably more appropriate.

muckybutt

Yayyy askMID have actually updated my details, this turned into quite an interesting thread I think

Notmyrealname

Weird_Nev wrote: »

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

Compared to the country I grew up in in the 70's and 80's, definitely. That isn't your fault though but those making the laws.

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.

I have shown no contempt. I have merely commented on an oft heard saying from police officers. In my time as a lorry driver I've had many encounters with the police when they've done vehicle escort duty, roadside checkpoints etc and I only have one cause to complain.

In my immediate families' experience though, that has been a completely different matter and we have experienced crass incompetence beyond belief by our local coppers - to the point that in one instance of fraud, the detectives on the case decided not to take action against a fraudster despite the evidence we got and it was only because a neighbouring force was on this guys back that he ended up in jail - after conning millions out of thousands of old folk all over the north of england.....

At least the local ACPOs seem to be more competent....

Trebor16

I would say commenting that a police officer has been "brainwashed while at Hendon" is showing contempt.

Trebor16

Notmyrealname wrote: »

At least the local ACPOs seem to be more competent....

If you think that then you don't know ACPO officers very well.

thenudeone

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.

Legally - this is complete rubbish.

The requirement to produce an insurance certificate at the roadside still exists and has not been replaced by the MID.

You car might be towed away in these circumstances but as this case http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385 proves, then as long as you produce a valid certificate at the roadside, any seizure will be illegal and the police will have to repay any costs.