ask MID

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Trebor16's English Dictionary, 2012 edition

"Arrogance" - The use of verified sources of information (such as Acts of Parliament) to support an argument.

I thought you said "This discussion is over" ?

Trebor16

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The problem can arise when the driver does have insurance, produces a valid certificate, and MID/insurance company get it wrong, as in the earlier post:

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

Indeed, that is always a possibility as it is not infallible.

Wig

Paddedjohn doesn't step up to admit he is wrong. Oh well.
Posts 61, 62 & 63
The RK can be prosecuted for no insurance -I'm not denying that- but the car cannot be seized under 165A, which requires the vehicle to have been driven uninsured and requires the police to ask a person who was driving it for evidence of insurance. Or requires it to have been seen to fail to stop in the last 24 hours.

forgotmyname

Had my insurance renewal through and it says I am only insured on other vehicles if it is currently insured by the owner.

paddedjohn

Wig wrote: »

Paddedjohn doesn't step up to admit he is wrong. Oh well.
Posts 61, 62 & 63
The RK can be prosecuted for no insurance -I'm not denying that- but the car cannot be seized under 165A, which requires the vehicle to have been driven uninsured and requires the police to ask a person who was driving it for evidence of insurance. Or requires it to have been seen to fail to stop in the last 24 hours.

Will this surfice?;)


As part of Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), it is now a legal requirement for registered vehicle keepers to insure their vehicle(s) at all times.

You don’t have to be driving to be caught. It is an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you have notified DVLA that your vehicle is being kept off the road by means of a Statutory off Road Notice (SORN).
Under the new system, MIB and the DVLA will work in partnership to identify uninsured vehicles by comparing DVLA vehicle records against those held on the Motor Insurance Database (MID).
The registered keeper will be sent an Insurance Advisory Letter (IAL) telling them that their vehicle appears to be uninsured and warning them that they will be fined unless they take action. If the keeper fails to comply with the advice set out in the letter they will face:
• a fixed penalty notice of £100
• their vehicle being clamped, seized and disposed of
• a court prosecution with a maximum fine of £1,000

Rover_Driver

No

The power to seize vehicles being driven with no insurance, contrary to s.143. RTA 1998, is s.165A RTA 1998.
The power to seize vehicles that have no insurance, contrary to s.144A RTA 1998 is Schedule 2A, RTA 1998.
The first one is an operational matter for Police, the second is an administrative matter for DVLA, they have completely different procedures and powers which cannot be interchanged,

Wig

paddedjohn wrote: »

Will this surfice?;)


As part of Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), it is now a legal requirement for registered vehicle keepers to insure their vehicle(s) at all times.

You don’t have to be driving to be caught. It is an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you have notified DVLA that your vehicle is being kept off the road by means of a Statutory off Road Notice (SORN).
Under the new system, MIB and the DVLA will work in partnership to identify uninsured vehicles by comparing DVLA vehicle records against those held on the Motor Insurance Database (MID).
The registered keeper will be sent an Insurance Advisory Letter (IAL) telling them that their vehicle appears to be uninsured and warning them that they will be fined unless they take action. If the keeper fails to comply with the advice set out in the letter they will face:
• a fixed penalty notice of £100
• their vehicle being clamped, seized and disposed of
• a court prosecution with a maximum fine of £1,000

No it will not sufice.
Seized after they send you a letter giving you xx days to take appropriate action, after which has passed you get a a fine of £100 and if that doesn't wake you up you may get it seized if you persist to leave it uninsured and on the highway.

We were talking about Joe Bloggs driving a car legally under DOC, and leaving the car temporarily on the highway whilst he went about his business and use of the car. Not leaving it there for 28 days whilst ignoring a letter from DVLA. Come on that's really stretching things a bit far.

You did note post No.54 says

Wig wrote: »

Well that's bad news for you then, because most policies, including mine and mikey's do not have such a stipulation.

I agree with Mikey, that PaddedJohn is incorrect. The car will be insured whilst you are driving it, it will therefore satisfy Road Traffic Act requirements. It will have a valid tax disc, satisfying VERAct requirements. If you leave it on the road it will allegedly not be insured, I say allegedly because the scenario has not been through a test case to my knowledge, I can see a defence of saying:
"The vehicle was in my care under third party cover whilst I drove it to Birmingham, I stopped and went into a shop, or stopped to load an item, the vehicle was still under my care. It is a nonsense that I should not be allowed to reasonably stop on the highway to go about my business. My Third Party Cover should continue under these circumstances"

I will also remind everyone that the vehicle when left on the highway -under these circumstances- could not be seized by police, as it was not "being driven without insurance".

Going back to the subject of SORN, the RK should have SORNed it but the most that will happen to him will be a £100 fine if he fails to SORN it immediately when he receives a letter from DVLA.