Drive any car - swift insurance.

Wig

Tilt wrote: »

<SIGH!>

Only if it turned out that the insurance was valid. If there was doubt, the police will usually check with the insurance company. They will not allow a car to continue being driven unless they establish that it (and the driver) is insured.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

<SIGH!>

No!

If a stopped driver produces a certificate which says, on its face, that the driver is insured to drive that vehicle at that time and the police seize the vehicle anyway then the seizure is illegal regardless of what other information or suspicions they had and also regardless if those other suspicions turned out to be correct. because the certificate MUST be taken on its face value as providing cover if it says it does. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS and that is what the case linked bt thenudeone confirmed.

Joe,
Thank you for the link to the judgment, having read it, I would say it's not as clear-cut as you are saying. It appears to me the 2 judges did not clarify exactly what was the case regarding what is and what is not a relevant certificate.

Lord Justice Ward says clearly in para 15 that a relevant certificate of insurance had been produced and in 17. that meant that the police could not legally get to 165A(c). Lord Justice Ward, however, does not address the issue of what would not be "a relevant certificate of insurance".

He is simply saying in this case a relevant certificate of insurance was produced and so the seizure was unlawful.

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton, however, does touch on what would not be "a relevant certificate of insurance".

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton:
26.
It follows that "the relevant certificate of insurance" bears what I accept is the most obvious meaning, namely the certificate of insurance covering the driving of the motor vehicle in question when the police officer requires its production. This means that if a police officer believes, even on reasonable grounds, that a certificate such as that produced by Mr Burton does not cover the driver (as where a doubtful explanation is given as to his authorisation by the owner), the police officer is at risk if he then seizes the vehicle. If it turns out that the driver was uninsured, the certificate was not "the relevant certificate of insurance", and the seizure was justified. If, however, as here, it turns out that the driver was in fact insured under the policy under which the insurance certificate was issued, then the seizure of the vehicle was unauthorised and gives rise to liability for damages in tort.

So IMHO acording to what Lord Justice Stanley Burnton has said, Tilt's response (quoted at the top of this post) to my post is correct. The seizure is only unlawful if it turns out the driver was insured and had produced at the road side "a relevant certificate of insurance". If it turns out he actually was uninsured then whether or not he produced a certificate at the roadside which showed he was (or could be) insured the seizure would be lawful.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Utter Rubbish.

It would depend on the circumstances, that is a problem with s.165A and its conditions, and possibly the reason that some people cancel their policy but keep the certificate.

Tilt

Way to go Wig, way to go! :T

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It would depend on the circumstances, that is a problem with s.165A and its conditions, and possibly the reason that some people cancel their policy but keep the certificate.

Exactly... and as Wig as just pointed out, that case was not as cut and dried as it seems. If it was, then we are going to see more exploitation by more people canceling policies once they have got their certificate.

The cost of premiums theses days is the incentive to abuse any loop hole available.

cotleigh

Tilt wrote: »

Exactly... and as Wig as just pointed out, that case was not as cut and dried as it seems. If it was, then we are going to see more exploitation by more people canceling policies once they have got their certificate.

The cost of premiums theses days is the incentive to abuse any loop hole available.

I have seen several UK TV shows that follow traffic cops, where they have stopped a car because the police car's ANPR flagged it as "uninsured", the driver then produces an insurance certificate, but the police phone the insurance company, who tell them that the driver paid only the first monthly instalment and is therefore not covered, and they have had the car seized.

Joe_Horner

Agreed, Wig, it's not completely clear cut (little in law ever is) but this part of Lord Justice Ward's opinion leans heavily towards the interpretation I've suggested (my highlights):

1. For section 165A purposes Mr Burton had to produce "evidence" that the vehicle was not being driven in contravention of section 143 and as those words were defined in section 165A(9)(b), he had to produce the "document" within section 165(2)(a) namely, "the relevant certificate of insurance" which was evidence that he was not contravening section 143. I ask rhetorically: what other certificate of insurance could he produce other than the certificate issued by his insurers which did cover this use of that vehicle? The Saga certificate showed he was not guilty of an offence under section 143. It showed clearly on its face that he was covered provided he was driving with Mr Pryor's consent and that consent was demonstrated by the testimonial written by Mr Pryor. That letter showed clearly on its face that he was using the Honda with its owner's consent. He produced all the evidence to show that the motor vehicle was not being driven in contravention of section 143. The purpose of section 165A is to give the police the power to remove from the road vehicles which are being used without third party insurance being in place to cover that use. Here that cover was in place.
2. Thus condition 165A(3)(b) was not satisfied. He did not fail to produce what was required. The police constables' belief, misled as they may have been by some person within Saga that the cover was only extended if the car actually being driven was itself insured by its owner, was flatly contradicted by the plain words of the certificate: the police constable's belief, no doubt honestly held, that the certificate did not mean what it said is neither here nor there. Having failed to satisfy condition (3)(b) of section 165A, we simply do not get to section 165A(c) as Miss Whitelaw concedes.

So in his opinion:

If a certificate is presented which , on it's face, provides cover then any further suspicion, even backed by the insurer saying it wasn't valid, (as happened in this case) is not grounds to seize the vehicle because "we simply do not get to" the section allowing seizure based on suspicion or other grounds.

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton takes a slightly different view and suggests that, if it transpires after the fact that the certificate isn't valid for any reason, then the seizure would be justified. He also says that

if a police officer believes, even on reasonable grounds, that a certificate such as that produced by Mr Burton does not cover the driver (as where a doubtful explanation is given as to his authorisation by the owner), the police officer is at risk if he then seizes the vehicle. If it turns out that the driver was uninsured, the certificate was not "the relevant certificate of insurance", and the seizure was justified. If, however, as here, it turns out that the driver was in fact insured under the policy under which the insurance certificate was issued, then the seizure of the vehicle was unauthorised and gives rise to liability for damages in tort

The problem with that interpretation is this:

If a certificate is produced which appears to give cover, then the car cannot be seized for "failing to produce evidence" because evidence (even if it turns out to be incorrect) has been produced. Denial of cover from the insurers isn't foolproof - it turned out to be wrong in the case quoted - so it can't establish absolutely that the certificate isn't relevent.

It's possible that the person they call misunderstands the policy (as in this case) or even possible that the policy has been incorrectly / unlawfully cancelled for some reason - in which case it would still be valid regardless of what they system says. That would be a matter for the Courts to decide if needed.

In any case, all that a call to the insurers can do is provide "reasonable grounds" to believe that the certificate isn't relevent.

But they can't seize on reasonable grounds once a certificate is produced and they can't invoke hindsight to seize on "reasonable grounds" then, later, change the reason to "not producing" - any seizure must be done on the (lawful) reason prevailing at the time.

Please note that I don't necessarily agree with the way things are, but I firmly believe that the police should never , under any circumstances, be permitted to exceed the powers granted them by Parliament.

In this case, if the powers granted are insufficient to deal with uninsured drivers then I'd rather the drivers continued uninsured
than that the police extended those powers on their own initiative.

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Agreed, Wig, it's not completely clear cut (little in law ever is) but this part of Lord Justice Ward's opinion leans heavily towards the interpretation I've suggested (my highlights):




So in his opinion:

If a certificate is presented which , on it's face, provides cover then any further suspicion, even backed by the insurer saying it wasn't valid, (as happened in this case) is not grounds to seize the vehicle because "we simply do not get to" the section allowing seizure based on suspicion or other grounds.

Lord Justice Stanley Burnton takes a slightly different view and suggests that, if it transpires after the fact that the certificate isn't valid for any reason, then the seizure would be justified. He also says that



The problem with that interpretation is this:

If a certificate is produced which appears to give cover, then the car cannot be seized for "failing to produce evidence" because evidence (even if it turns out to be incorrect) has been produced. Denial of cover from the insurers isn't foolproof - it turned out to be wrong in the case quoted - so it can't establish absolutely that the certificate isn't relevent.

It's possible that the person they call misunderstands the policy (as in this case) or even possible that the policy has been incorrectly / unlawfully cancelled for some reason - in which case it would still be valid regardless of what they system says. That would be a matter for the Courts to decide if needed.

In any case, all that a call to the insurers can do is provide "reasonable grounds" to believe that the certificate isn't relevent.

But they can't seize on reasonable grounds once a certificate is produced and they can't invoke hindsight to seize on "reasonable grounds" then, later, change the reason to "not producing" - any seizure must be done on the (lawful) reason prevailing at the time.

Please note that I don't necessarily agree with the way things are, but I firmly believe that the police should never , under any circumstances, be permitted to exceed the powers granted them by Parliament.

In this case, if the powers granted are insufficient to deal with uninsured drivers then I'd rather the drivers continued uninsured
than that the police extended those powers on their own initiative.

I reckon you would soon change your opinion if an uninsured driver hits you (or a member of your family).

As I said before, giving that kind of opinion on a motoring forum astounds me.

As I see it (and no one will change my opinion on this), the police do have the power to seize a vehicle where adequate insurance cannot be established at the road side. If this case were to change that, then we will see thousands of motorists cancelling their policies once they have got their certificate because of the obvious loop hole it provides.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

As I see it (and no one will change my opinion on this), the police do have the power to seize a vehicle where adequate insurance cannot be established at the road side.

You are entitled to your opinion, but, police cannot automatically seize a vehicle if the insurance cannot be established at the roadside. The police only have the power to seize a vehicle in compliance with the conditions of s.165A.

Joe Horner's posts show where the police did not comply with s.165A and the seizure was deemed to be unlawful.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

I reckon you would soon change your opinion if an uninsured driver hits you (or a member of your family).

I reckon you might change your mind if some copper decided to seize your car because (say) you were on your way back from the Post Office with your MOT, brand new tax disk and the certificate for your week-old insurance in the car, but your insurer had been slow updating the MIB and they couldn't get through to the broker to confirm.

That's happened more than once, and the answer is to take the certificate on face value, collect details for checking later, then prosecute if the checks show it's invalid.

That way, even if the checks turn out to be wrong (insurer error for example), then you get to plead your case in court rather than be stranded by the roadside for doing nothing wrong. Innocent until proven guilty and all that...

By your reckoning, if that ever happens to you, you'll be more than happy to be left at a motorway services while they tow your car away "just to be sure" and even thank them for doing such a good job?

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

I reckon you might change your mind if some copper decided to seize your car because (say) you were on your way back from the Post Office with your MOT, brand new tax disk and the certificate for your week-old insurance in the car, but your insurer had been slow updating the MIB and they couldn't get through to the broker to confirm.

Won't happen mate. I always check and double check when it comes to insurance. My car is very unlikely to fall off the MIB data base because I never allow the insurance to lapse

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That's happened more than once, and the answer is to take the certificate on face value, collect details for checking later, then prosecute if the checks show it's invalid.

Then what happens if someone isn't in fact insured and is allowed to continue and then goes an runs someone over?

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That way, even if the checks turn out to be wrong (insurer error for example), then you get to plead your case in court rather than be stranded by the roadside for doing nothing wrong. Innocent until proven guilty and all that...

And then there's prevention better than cure. The police have a duty to prevent potential offences occurring.

Joe_Horner wrote: »

By your reckoning, if that ever happens to you, you'll be more than happy to be left at a motorway services while they tow your car away "just to be sure" and even thank them for doing such a good job?

It won't. I always make sure (as is my responsibly) that I am fully road legal. As I said, recently I took out a temp policy to enable to drive a car which I knew was not on the MIB data base even though I have a DOC policy.