Can I appeal the fine I got for being a day out of date to renew insurance based on..

dacouch

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

That sounds great doesn't it? Except the MIB takes so long to pay out that an innocent TP may well have lost their job by the time they got any compensation to replace their vehicle. Never mind the stonking big excess the MIB deduct from the payout. And that's a best case scenario. From their we go to maybe a motorcyclist with a broken leg. Two months with no wages, no job to go back to and 18 months later gets the money for the bike and lost wages for the two months. Is he "no worse off"?

As excuses go for uninsured driving "the MIB will payout" is pathetic.

What excess would that be?

Henzo

Regarding the question asked on the Mot check. ?
Well it's yes . I was stopped not long ago driving very late heading home after work . On the precinct of checking , I had valid car insurance , which I did . During their check , one policeman had a small hand held device . And on it , he could check and see , I had Mot and when it finished and same with my road tax too .

Nodding_Donkey

dacouch wrote: »

What excess would that be?

The (currently) £300 they charge as an excess if the other party can't be identified.

vaio

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

That sounds great doesn't it? Except the MIB takes so long to pay out that an innocent TP may well have lost their job by the time they got any compensation to replace their vehicle. Never mind the stonking big excess the MIB deduct from the payout. And that's a best case scenario. From their we go to maybe a motorcyclist with a broken leg. Two months with no wages, no job to go back to and 18 months later gets the money for the bike and lost wages for the two months. Is he "no worse off"?

As excuses go for uninsured driving "the MIB will payout" is pathetic.

I thought the rules governing the MIB are exactly the same as those which govern insurers so if there are flaws/unfairness in the system then they apply across the board.

Similarly, I think the excess you mention is only applicable to cases where the at fault driver is untraced and at £300 is on par with what most people have on their own policies.

TrickyWicky

None of which helps the poor innocent old lady who was knocked over on the pavement or the pregnant mum to be or the self employed window cleaner (none of which even drive). All of who suffer for no fault of their own and are then told "That'll be £300 please to claim compensation from us for your hardship and losses".

So yes I stand by my previous point that the op WAS risking other peoples livelihoods.

vaio

FYI........

MIB has no excess at all on injury claims and no excess on property claims where the driver or vehicle is identified.

There is an £300 excess on property claims paid but only where neither the vehicle or driver is identified.

So the poor innocent old lady/pregnant mum/self employed window cleaner/nun with kittens hit by an uninsured driver would get paid out exactly as they would if they got knocked down by you (assuming that either the car or driver remain at the scene)

If the driver and car flee the scene without being identified then it makes no difference whether they were insured or not

http://www.mib.org.uk/Customer+Services/en/Making+a+claim/Claims+Explained/Claims+Questions.htm gives chapter & verse

InsideInsurance

Paradigm wrote: »

I'm a bit surprised the OPs insurer hasn't auto renewed, something they all seem to try?
I'm not keen on it but it would have helped in this instance.

The OP said it was temp insurance they had not annual insurance. Temp policies dont auto renewal as its assumed when you buy cover for 2 days you only need 2 days where as annual policies are assumed that you're going to need one next year too.

thenudeone

The rest of the post was sensible until you got to this bit:

AdrianC wrote: »

If he'd let you drive home, you would not only have been committing a further offence, but there would be a reasonable case to argue that he could also be prosecuted for permitting you to - which would carry the same penalty for him.

A ridiculous suggestion.

There is no way that could happen. The power to seize is a power, not an obligation. There could be lost of circumstances when it's inappropriate. Seizing a vehicle would mean that police unit being unavailable for up to an hour. If they are the only unit in an area, that leaves the area without policing. The recovery company yard could be full, etc. etc.

Using discretion is a legitimate part of policing and, for someone with no previous offences whose insurance had just run out, it might be considered appropriate not to seize, provided someone else drove the vehicle home. If the police always used every power they had, the cells would be at 10 times capacity every night and the streets awash with fixed penalty notices.

Robisere

Sorry OP, but you have not a chance of avoiding this and you could wind up further out of pocket if you go to court. That is the truth.

Lots of the "advice" here is just irrelevant.

dacouch

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

The (currently) £300 they charge as an excess if the other party can't be identified.

The topic and your post was about uninsured driving, as others have pointed out the only excess the MIB apply is for untraced drivers. Obviously untraced drivers could be insured or uninsured