Drive any car - swift insurance.

Wig

Joe,
You can see from Burnton's judgment that he agrees to allow this appeal "reluctantly", he clearly does not see anything wrong with the confiscation of a man's possessions and his means of livlihood, merely on an officer's suspicion alone, even if that man was going about his lawful business. But his hands are tied by the way the law is written, he has to allow this appeal. That shows me that I do not like this man's ideals/beliefs.

I like you, would rather the law says clearly, that suspicion alone is not enough to remove a mans property.

Based on Ward's judgment, the law does say it clearly, if a RCoI is produced, you do not get to 165A(c). So seizure cannot take place on suspicion alone if a RCoI is produced. But Ward does not say what would not be a RCoI and does not say that an officer cannot decide at the roadside that the cert is not to be trusted, and therefore does not say specifically that if an outwardly valid cert is produced it must be treated by the officer as an RCoI and therefore seizure cannot take place under any circumstances. He does not say that, but by his own logic you could say he is implying it. But you could equally say because he does not mention it we do not know what his view would be on this.

Burnton, says if it turns out (after the seizure) that the cert produced was not valid then it never was a RCoI and so the seizure is lawful. This interpretation allows the officer to decide if the cert produced is genuine and valid or not. To my mind this would be a nonsense because the law has been written to include 165A(b) if you are going to allow officers to ignore 165A(b) why include it in the first place?

Unfortunatly Burnton's judgment has poured doubt onto the area of "Whether an officer has the right to ignore a road side certificate, to make a lawful seizure"

Unfortunatly IMHO police officers will use para 26 to carry on regardless seizing where and what they want, until an uninsured driver, who showed a cert at the roadside in the genuine belief that he was insured decides to appeal to win back his costs. Then this issue will be decided, but how likely is that to happen?

Do you know the name of the case of the man who was driving uninsured but had a certificate (which was invalid) but which he believed to be genuine.... was found not guilty of driving without insurance by virtue of the fact that he had what he believed to be a genuine cert? Or is it a myth that I have misunderstood? Because if true, it could help us to shed some more light on this issue of seizing where a cert (even though turns out to be invalid) is shown. It could be that the court decided that he was insured even though his insurer had said he wasn't - and that was how a verdict of not guilty was reached....but it could also be that I have confused it with this case of Pryor...I only saw a post about it on MSE a long while back, This Pryor case was 2011, and I thought I read about it before that.


Tilt,
You keep raising the issue of uninsured drivers hitting you or us like it is a big deal. I don't see that it is a big deal, because ultimately, there is no such thing as an uninsured driver. I have been hit by an uninsured, we recovered all our costs, so what is the problem?

You may say that it raises our premiums, I don't believe that if all the uninsured were magically removed from our roads that our premiums would be reduced, I think the companies would just take more profit. But even so, this aspect of having uninsureds already affects all of us so it makes no difference whether we get hit or not.

Why do you tie in your outrage with being hit? Why do you think we would change our minds if we got hit?

No-one here is condoning driving uninsured. But it is a fact of life, and if they get caught without a certificate with reasonable suspicion, then of course, they should get their car seized. But the liberty of an honest man to my mind is sacred, and the proper place to have any suspicions sorted out (where there was evidence produced) is in court not at the road side. Where no evidence is produced, that suspicion has to be reasonable, which to my mind, does not include relying solely on MIDb.

Joe_Horner

Tilt, you really can't say "it won't happen". I also take care to make sure my insurance doesn't lapse but every renewal is a new policy as far as the MIB is concerned, and their stated aim is to have all policies on the database "within 7 days":

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/MID+Faqs/How+long+before+my+policy+gets+to+the+MID.htm

The fact they usually manage much better than that is immaterial - if they let it lapse for 6 days they're still hitting their target (and there's no comeback even if they miss!)

Do you check immediately after every renewal and would you stop using your car for up to 7 days if they were slow, even though you knew your insurance was in place?

Until there's a 100% foolproof system in place to check "live" insurance details with guaranteed up-to-the-minute accuracy in every single case, the driver has to be given benefit of the doubt if they can produce prima facie evidence of cover, and that's how the law is worded.

Wig, I agree that Burnton's attitude seems to be slightly hard-line (I suspect he hasn't given many trips to Disneyland to young offenders over the years!)

It might have been helpful if Lady Black had offered a little more input than "I agree with the other two" - it doesn't seem possible to agree in full with both of the other opinions because Lord B's appears to contradict the essence of Lord W's even though he (reluctantly) supported the conclusion!

Not sure about "uninsured drivers with a genuine belief of cover". Given it's an absolute offence with only one statutory defence (driving an employer's vehicle), I'd suspect any successful cases would have been a matter of being left uninsured because of an unlawful cancellation by the insurer.

Which would leave you sort of "uninsured, but thinking you were, but really insured after all". May have to search for that one!

redux

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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.

But the requirement is for a relevant certificate of insurance.

If the certificate produced doesn't show cover for the use, then it is not relevant.

If someone has a plicy which covers driving other cars, then the terms for that will be set out.

In the case of Axa and Swiftcover policies, that says that the other car is not owned by this policyholder, has other cover, is being driven with the permission of the owner, etc

So to prove that the driving other cars part applies, in theory to make things absolutely clear both insurance polices would need to be produced.

In the lack of the car's main policy, and with information available to the police that there is no such policy, then the driving other cars part of the driver's own policy isn't a relevant insurance, as it does not confer cover for the circumstances.

Everyone will appreciate that not everyone drives around with their policy documents, so if the police have doubts but the driver insists that there is such a main policy for the car, perhaps it might help resolve one or two cases if he or she would be given an opportunity to produce it later.

But if it turns out that the driver had misunderstood the terms of his or her own policy, and hadn't checked the other policy or the other policy doesn't even exist, then it's hard to see that as a strong defence.

That goes back to why the OP started this query, and why other people ask it from time to time.

Giving those people advice that they can probably talk their way out of it even if they turn out not to have relevant insurance, or arguing that the police aren't supposed to double check if presented with something which appears to be ambiguous in the light of other information supplied to them, isn't supplying clear information in a responsible manner.

I asked my insurance broker about 12 years ago about moving another car 60 miles. He said don't do it like that, as driving other cars cover isn't meant to be used on a routine basis, but for emergency or unforeseen use such as someone being taken ill, only gives minimum cover of road traffic act or third part only, is widespreadly abused by a minority of people to pretend they had insurance policies when they hadn't, and claims in all such cases will be investigated by insurers. I think things have stiffened up since then.

Don't do it, don't think of doing it, and don't give people hair-splitting advice which they might misunderstand into thinking they might be ok, when they need to check to make sure.

dacouch

redux wrote: »

I asked my insurance broker about 12 years ago about moving another car 60 miles. He said don't do it like that, as driving other cars cover isn't meant to be used on a routine basis, but for emergency or unforeseen use such as someone being taken ill, only gives minimum cover of road traffic act or third part only, is widespreadly abused by a minority of people to pretend they had insurance policies when they hadn't, and claims in all such cases will be investigated by insurers. I think things have stiffened up since then.

It's a common miss conception that DOC is just for emergencies or unforeseen circumstances such as someone being taken ill.

There's no requirement for the above in any policy I've ever seen (I've seen a very large amount). Even if it did how would you define "Emergency" or "Unforeseen Circumstances such as someone taken ill"

Saga have a stab at it for their cover which allows other people to drive your own car with the same cover as you. There's is a policy benefit which they use to sell the overall cover, with their target market they can afford to be lenient on paying claims under this section. I assume they have this printed on the Certificate so that should the police be involved they can check the drivers is driving directly to the home.

"Cover provided for other people
If you give your permission, we will provide the same cover to the following
people:
n in the event of a medical or motoring emergency involving you or
your spouse/domestic partner, anyone with a full valid driving licence
will be permitted to drive your vehicle as long as you or your spouse/
domestic partner are present. If you or your spouse/domestic
partner are not in your vehicle it can only be driven directly to your
home;"

The companies that do insist on the other car being insured in it's own right (It's not all of them by a long way) tend to just say on the Certificate about the policyholder being covered to drive other peoples cars with their permission. The additional wording about the car needing to be insured is normally contained in the policy wording. In this situation under the RTA, the Insurer would need to pay valid claims and then recover their outlay from their policyholder.

There are a few Insurers that have recently started stating on the Certificate that the other car needs to be insured. This would satisfy the RTA and mean they probably would not (The MIB might insist they pay) need to pay any valid claims under driving other cars should the other car not be insured.

There are a handful of Insurers that offer driving other cars comprehensive cover (As well as the policyholder). Their Certificates state this (Although they don't need to state comprehensive on the certificate).

redux

:T

dacouch wrote: »

It's a common miss conception that DOC is just for emergencies or unforeseen circumstances such as someone being taken ill.

There's no requirement for the above in any policy I've ever seen (I've seen a very large amount). Even if it did how would you define "Emergency" or "Unforeseen Circumstances such as someone taken ill"

[...]
The companies that do insist on the other car being insured in it's own right (It's not all of them by a long way) tend to just say on the Certificate about the policyholder being covered to drive other peoples cars with their permission. The additional wording about the car needing to be insured is normally contained in the policy wording. In this situation under the RTA, the Insurer would need to pay valid claims and then recover their outlay from their policyholder.

There are a few Insurers that have recently started stating on the Certificate that the other car needs to be insured. This would satisfy the RTA and mean they probably would not (The MIB might insist they pay) need to pay any valid claims under driving other cars should the other car not be insured.

Well, it is certainly the case that it is not intended to confer cover for other cars on a routine basis, but despite that some people were intentionally driving around with three cars in a family, no cover on two of them, and trying to convince themselves that one policy on one car could be imaginatively stretched out to cover the lot.

Insurers have never intended that, and as I said, I discussed this with a broker quite a long time ago, who said all driving other cars cases will be investigated closely, so I'm not convinced that the changes in actual practice are recent.

Perhaps it's just that the wording has had some attention to improve it in some cases, but of course some people aren't reading it anyway.

Wig

redux wrote: »

:T

Well, it is certainly the case that it is not intended to confer cover for other cars on a routine basis, but despite that some people were intentionally driving around with three cars in a family, no cover on two of them, and trying to convince themselves that one policy on one car could be imaginatively stretched out to cover the lot.

Insurers have never intended that, and as I said, I discussed this with a broker quite a long time ago, who said all driving other cars cases will be investigated closely, so I'm not convinced that the changes in actual practice are recent.

Perhaps it's just that the wording has had some attention to improve it in some cases, but of course some people aren't reading it anyway.

I would say that if the other 2 cars were belonging to members of the same family & household that could be attempted to be denied by the insurer and you would need a ruling by the FSA(?)

But if the other car belongs to your friend then there is no restriction on the length of time or frequency that you can drive their car. Unless you used it more than you used your own car, then they might deny becasue you have not told them what your main car is....again probaly to be sorted out by FSA.

dacouch

Wig wrote: »

I would say that if the other 2 cars were belonging to members of the same family & household that could be attempted to be denied by the insurer and you would need a ruling by the FSA(?)

But if the other car belongs to your friend then there is no restriction on the length of time or frequency that you can drive their car. Unless you used it more than you used your own car, then they might deny becasue you have not told them what your main car is....again probaly to be sorted out by FSA.

It's not the FSA who would sort it out.

It's feasible that your first example would be covered as the wording tends not to exclude family members cars, there are a few companies that specifically exclude spouse's cars.

With regard to your second example, there's not really a limit on how much you can use a car on the DOC. An Insurance Policy is in effect a contract, so if they want to exclude something, they have to specifically exclude it.

The only way I can see an Insurer denying a claim (They would have to pay the third party claim first and then recover it from you) is if they had very well worded questions on the proposal form and you intentionally answered these questions incorrectly and the situation with the DOC car was the case at the time of taking out cover

thenudeone

Tilt is also of the opinion that a car can be seized by if the keeper hasn't arranged a policy on the vehicle, even if the driver is covered by a valid certificate which satisfactory cover under S143!!!! although not surprisingly, Tilt refuses to state under what section the police might seize the vehicle.

Tilt is well aware (but chooses to ignore) of the Pryor vs GMP case, and the difference between S143, S144A, S165A, S165A, and the different people who could be (or could not be) convicted or dealt with under each section, because I pointed them out here (post 53) last week
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/56618363#Comment_56618363

Tilt thinks you can take all the words from an act of parliament, throw them in a pot, and pick an offence, a person, and a police power from the pot, at random, and that's the law!!

Don't humour him any more.

Foxy-Stoat_3

davemorton wrote: »

Does anyone know if on a Swift motor policy, to drive another car 3rd party only, does that car need to be insured.
The policy documentation does not seem to suggest it does, and the lady on the phone said that if it was a one off trip (bringing home a car that I have just bought) that it does not need to already be covered by someone elses policy, but just wanted to treble check, and draw on the knowledge of the forum.
Cheers :beer:

Can't be bothered to read through 4 pages other peoples opinions about DOC cover, but I have a Swift cover policy and read the policy booklet and it states that the only vehicle must be insured, amongst other things.

Hope this helps !

Tilt

thenudeone wrote: »

Tilt is also of the opinion that a car can be seized by if the keeper hasn't arranged a policy on the vehicle, even if the driver is covered by a valid certificate which satisfactory cover under S143!!!! although not surprisingly, Tilt refuses to state under what section the police might seize the vehicle.

Tilt is well aware (but chooses to ignore) of the Pryor vs GMP case, and the difference between S143, S144A, S165A, S165A, and the different people who could be (or could not be) convicted or dealt with under each section, because I pointed them out here (post 53) last week
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/56618363#Comment_56618363

Tilt thinks you can take all the words from an act of parliament, throw them in a pot, and pick an offence, a person, and a police power from the pot, at random, and that's the law!!

Don't humour him any more.

Yes I am well aware of that case. but if you read through it correctly, you will detect that there was some conflicting information from the appellant's insurers which lead the police to seize the vehicle. Clearly that part is what YOU choose to ignore.

I have never said that I am of the opinion that a car can be seized where a valid insurance certificate is produced. What I have said (and stand by rigorously) is that when a car does not appear on the MIB data base and it is picked up on the police ANPR, then the police have a duty to ensure that the vehicle is adequately insured. There is a trend for some drivers to take out a policy, pay 1 or 2 installments, then cancel (or allow said policy to default) and then retains the certificate. If the police aren't allowed to check beyond a certificate which may not relate to the vehicle, then this trend will no doubt increase which will result in more and more un-insured drivers on the road.

It is the driver's responsibility to ensure he/she is insured and clearly a lot of drivers 'think' that they are insured to drive other cars because they have a DOC policy. Well this is simply not always the case as has been pointed out by other contributors also. Obviously there are grey areas in some insurance policies with DOC and from the case you mention, even the insurance co concerned gave conflicting information.

I recently drove a newly purchased car which I knew would not be on the MIB data base so to cover myself, I took out a temp policy for the car and carried the certificate (bearing the car's details) with me. It's not rocket science and really should not be the police's job to have to spend time checking ambiguous insurance status's. The technology is now in place to show whether a car is insured, taxed and MOTd or not. If the technology says that something is wrong then the police need to ensure that by letting a driver continue, they aren't allowing further offences being committed. If they seize a car which is later proved to be fully illegitimate then obviously the driver should be fully compensated.

Now i'm sick of going round in circles with people trying to justify themselves that because they have a DOC policy, they are automatically entitled to drive someone else's car. Well that's fine by me but personally I would rather check and double check that I am insured even though I have a DOC policy because not only do I want to make 100% sure I am insured, I don't want my time wasted standing at the roadside if the car I am driving flags up on the MIB as having no insurance.

You can quote all the acts and legislation under the sun but as far as i'm concerned, the police DO and should have the power to seize vehicles which are not insured and quite rightly so unless the driver can prove he is in fact insured.

Please feel free to obey 'thenudeone' and don't humor me anymore.