ask MID

Trebor16

Assuming that the certificate produced does relate to a policy still in force which hasn't been cancelled by either the insurer or the policyholder.

thenudeone

jase1 wrote: »

And also assuming your insurer still issues certificates -- Swiftcover do not, for example. ISTR that a printout legally only counts as a duplicate and so could be refused as evidence of insurance.

Please check your facts.

If your insurer does not issue a certificate then YOUR INSURANCE IS NOT VALID.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/147
Road Traffic Act 1988 s147

(1)A policy of insurance shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Part of this Act unless and until there is delivered by the insurer to the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate (in this Part of this Act referred to as a “certificate of insurance”) in the prescribed form and containing such particulars of any conditions subject to which the policy is issued and of any other matters as may be prescribed.

The law regarding certificates of insurance has not changed. It was widened recently to allow certificates to be delivered electronically and printed off by the policyholder (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1117/contents/made) but otherwise all the other requirements remain.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

Assuming that the certificate produced does relate to a policy still in force which hasn't been cancelled by either the insurer or the policyholder.

That's why I said:

thenudeone wrote: »

a valid certificate

kerrygirl

The only thing that worries me about the new law is the prediciment I am in. I have a BMW that I am currently selling. It is on my drive way, however decided to cancel the insurance as no-one wants to buy it, esp over christmas, so thought I would start re-advertising in January. I decided not to make a SORN on the car just in case someone wants to test drive the car and I can contact my insurance company for a weeks cover.

However, now I need to insure the vehicle or make a SORN.

It's too costly to keep insured and will be too costly to re-insure and re-tax, hence the selling!

Does anyone know of a loophole? have contacted askMID but they confirmed that there isn't.

TrickyWicky

Forget it kerry, askMID won't give you any loopholes they're in on it - remember insurance is their money spinner - why would they want to tell you how to get out of buying it?

We're all in the same boat now, hands tied by the government while they drill holes in the hull of the motoring industry to ensure we all sink. We've got a car on the drive I can't do anything with due to cost yet its so worthless that there is no point getting rid of it either.

You're probably better off, sorning it and just deducting the value of the tax for anyone who wants to buy it. Thats pretty much the only way to get rid of it now.

Wig

Trebor16 wrote: »

Assuming that the certificate produced does relate to a policy still in force which hasn't been cancelled by either the insurer or the policyholder.

That may not be so, read the case highlighted in post 41. As I read it, as long as a certificate of insurance is produced at the roadside which appears to be valid for the purpose, the seizure cannot lawfully take place, no matter what a callcentre monkey says to the police officer. Condition 1 & 2 have been satisfied so condition 3 cannot be entered into.

It also ties in with another recent high court case where a driver was found not guilty of driving without insurance because he had in his posession an insurance certificate for the car and a belief that it was still valid. notwithstanding that it was a cancelled policy.

Insurance companies have a duty to recover the insurance certificate when a policy is cancelled (most do not bother anymore) if the policy holder fails to return it after being requested to do so he commits an offence.

It may still happen that the police do take the car but they lay themselves open for costs if the insurance turns out to be valid. It would be an interesting test case to sue for costs when the driver believed he was insured -but was not-

Trebor16

Wig wrote: »

That may not be so, read the case highlighted in post 41. As I read it, as long as a certificate of insurance is produced at the roadside which appears to be valid for the purpose, the seizure cannot lawfully take place, no matter what a callcentre monkey says to the police officer. Condition 1 & 2 have been satisfied so condition 3 cannot be entered into.

So if the call centre tells the police that the policy was cancelled by the policyholder and is therefore not in effect you are saying that the police cannot seize the vehicle? If the call centre tell the police there is no policy in place then they have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being driven in contravention of section 143 and therefore they could legally seize the vehicle.

The act does say that a person can be required to produce evidence they are acting in compliance of section 143 and if they fail to produce the evidence then the vehicle can be seized. A certificate of insurance relating to a policy that has been cancelled does not constitute evidence that the vehicle is insured.

paddedjohn

mikey72 wrote: »

A bit worrying, as my policy also lets me drive any car not owned by me or my partner, without any other insurance required. So askmid wouldn't turn anything up.

If the vehicle isnt insured in its own right then you cant drive it under your policy no matter what your insurer says, the vehicle would have to be sorned and as such cant be used on the road.

mikey72

paddedjohn wrote: »

If the vehicle isnt insured in its own right then you cant drive it under your policy no matter what your insurer says, the vehicle would have to be sorned and as such cant be used on the road.

Yes it can.

I agree it should be sorned, but the very fact it isn't means it has tax, so I can drive it legally on the road.
There is a separate offence of not having sorned an uninsured vehicle, but that's down to the owner, and the first letter they get tells them to sorn it or insure it, so there is a grace period.

Notmyrealname

kerrygirl wrote: »

The only thing that worries me about the new law is the prediciment I am in. I have a BMW that I am currently selling. It is on my drive way, however decided to cancel the insurance as no-one wants to buy it, esp over christmas, so thought I would start re-advertising in January. I decided not to make a SORN on the car just in case someone wants to test drive the car and I can contact my insurance company for a weeks cover.

However, now I need to insure the vehicle or make a SORN.

It's too costly to keep insured and will be too costly to re-insure and re-tax, hence the selling!
.

You may think insuring it is too costly but it is currently sat on your driveway with no insurance. If someone nicks it from your drive you've lost the car and you'll get no payout. It is absolute madness not to have it insured, even if it is just lay up insurance.