Drive any car - swift insurance.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

It has nothing to do with the MIB database, if the certicate shows that the insurance covers the driver to drive that vehicle, it is a relevant certificate and so complies with s.165 (2)(a).

Come on Rover, we were almost there! If the car isn't on the MIB database then the police are unlikely to pull a driver for an insurance matter in the first place! Its only when it dosn't show up that the police will carry out their checks and as you say, if a relevant (valid) insurance certificate is produced and the police are satisfied that the driver is not breaching s143 then there would be no need to seize the car.

Wig

Tilt wrote: »

The only vague bit as I see it is what are 'reasonable grounds'. I assume that it means after exhausting all avenues of enquiries (i.e. checking with the insurance company).

Reasonable grounds has not been tested in court (to my knowledge) but it would mean
If the driver failed to stop & tried to evade capture.
or
If after not producing a cert the police were able to speak to the insurance co. who said he is not insured.
These would be reasonable circumstances to assume not insured.

It would not be:
Faced with a law abiding driver who is sure he is insured, but cannot produce a cert, is not registered on the MID, and unable to contact the insurer due to office opening hours. This would not be circumstance where it would be reasonable to assume he was not insured.

Tilt

Wig wrote: »

Reasonable grounds has not been tested in court (to my knowledge) but it would mean
If the driver failed to stop & tried to evade capture.
or
If after not producing a cert the police were able to speak to the insurance co. who said he is not insured.
These would be reasonable circumstances to assume not insured.

It would not be:
Faced with a law abiding driver who is sure he is insured, but cannot produce a cert, is not registered on the MID, and unable to contact the insurer due to office opening hours. This would not be circumstance where it would be reasonable to assume he was not insured.

I suppose it is possible for a car not to appear on the MIB when the driver thinks it is. But if there is doubt on the driver's part (as was in my case which I have mentioned many times in the thread) that the car may not be on the database, then surely he/she should check and if it isn't then he/she should carry the evidence that they are adequately insured with them.

I think most police officers will exhaust all avenues of enquiry to establish the insurance status even to the point of waiting for a valid certificate to be bought to the where the car is being checked.

Wig

It doesn't matter that he hasn't checked MID (Motor Insurance Database not MIB Men In Black) and brought his cert with him. It would not be reasonable for a police officer to rely solely on the MID which is often not updated very quickly.

But as I say this would have to be tested on appeal at a higher court because you can bet your last dollar that the lower court will side with the police.

But suffice enough to say that certain cheif constables have instructed their force not to seize based on the MID alone.

Tilt

Wig wrote: »

It doesn't matter that he hasn't checked MID (Motor Insurance Database not MIB Men In Black) and brought his cert with him. It would not be reasonable for a police officer to rely solely on the MID which is often not updated very quickly.

But as I say this would have to be tested on appeal at a higher court because you can bet your last dollar that the lower court will side with the police.

But suffice enough to say that certain cheif constables have instructed their force not to seize based on the MID alone.

Absolutely.

Wig

Which includes when no certificate has been produced. Just so there is no confusion.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Come on Rover, we were almost there! If the car isn't on the MIB database then the police are unlikely to pull a driver for an insurance matter in the first place! Its only when it dosn't show up that the police will carry out their checks and as you say, if a relevant (valid) insurance certificate is produced and the police are satisfied that the driver is not breaching s143 then there would be no need to seize the car.

The problem arises when police stop a vehicle which does not appear on the MID database and the driver produces an apparently valid insurance certificate, they may have reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle is being driven without insurance, but they would not have the power to seize the vehicle because both conditions of s.165A are not satisfied.

And as happened in the case mentioned earlier in the thread, although the insurance company (in error) told the police that the driver was not covered, because the insurance certificate was produced, the seizure was unlawful.

Tilt

Wig wrote: »

Which includes when no certificate has been produced. Just so there is no confusion.

Ahh, well I don't know about that. That would bring us back to the dilemma of the police satisfying themselves that the driver is not contravening s143 so they would need 'other evidence' like an electronic delivered certificate like our friend ' thenudeone' eloquently pointed out a few posts ago. Puts the police in a somewhat difficult position as well because they have a duty to prevent possible further offences happening.

I think we have taken this as far as we can now to be honest. Seems like some of us will see it their way and others another. Me, if i'm faced with having to drive another car on my DOC policy, I will do what I have always done and not taken my cover for granted and double check and if necessary obtain a cover note.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The problem arises when police stop a vehicle which does not appear on the MID database and the driver produces an apparently valid insurance certificate, they may have reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle is being driven without insurance, but they would not have the power to seize the vehicle because both conditions of s.165A are not satisfied.

OMG!! Having reasonable grounds IS a condition so they COULD seize it!!

Rover_Driver wrote: »

And as happened in the case mentioned earlier in the thread, although the insurance company (in error) told the police that the driver was not covered, because the insurance certificate was produced, the seizure was unlawful.

Jesus, it was unlawful because the driver was found to be insured thus meaning the certificate was valid. You can hardly blame the police if the insurance company tell them otherwise so the fact it was unlawful was not because of the actions of the police, they were given verbal evidence by the insurer that the car/driver was uninsured so what do you expect the police to have done?

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Having reasonable grounds IS a condition so they COULD seize it!!

That is only one condition of s. 165A, Both have to be satisfied.

From the earlier case in post 18:

'The Court of Appeal found that because the driver had produced evidence that showed he was insured - a certificate allowing DOC with the owner's permission and a letter showing that permission - the police had no power of seizure regardless of any reasons they had to suspect the certificate wasn't valid, including a statement (incorrect as it turned out) from the insurers themselves'

So even if the police do have reasonable grounds to suspect that a vehicle is being used without insurance, they have no power to seize the vehicle if evidence, - a certificate of insurance - is produced, regardless of their suspicions.