MID Database

Richard53

pappa_golf wrote: »

but is a home printed copy , complete with a copied signature acceptable?

I was pulled in my 'new' car the day I bought it a few weeks ago. I passed a police car parked up in a lay-by and 100 yards later I was pulled over. The car (it appears) had been uninsured for a couple of months prior to the sale. I had insured it the previous day, but it still had an 'uninsured' marker on it on the database.


After reading threads like this, I had made sure I had the certificate in the car and the officer checked it. He asked me if I had printed it off myself and I said I had, and didn't everyone do that these days? He was happy enough with that and let me go.


So yes, a home-printed copy was acceptable in my case.


(Edit: just checked MID, all good.)

straighttalker

Surely an insurance certificate would over rule a missed entry on the MID unless further investigations by the Police prove that the certificate is no longer valid?

AdrianC

straighttalker wrote: »

Surely an insurance certificate would over rule a missed entry on the MID unless further investigations by the Police prove that the certificate is no longer valid?

No, the MID is the legal primary record - which is why insurers are legally required to update it in a timely manner.

The officer that Richard53 dealt with clearly found him credible, so gave him the benefit of the doubt.

facade

Iceweasel wrote: »

That's it done - the MID site now shows me as being insured. :T

Excellent service from Allianz?

It took 11 days for my insurance status to be corrected.

I had the same trouble last year, no show on the MID a week after the policy started. Phoned the insurer and they gave me some story about "slow to update" big sighs and "I'll send it again for you then.."

And then it was on by that evening.........

Rover_Driver

straighttalker wrote: »

Surely an insurance certificate would over rule a missed entry on the MID unless further investigations by the Police prove that the certificate is no longer valid?

The requirement is that there is insurance for the use of the vehicle, an entry on the MID may show if there is, or not. The police can require evidence of that insurance - s.165 (1), Road Traffic Act 1988. The production of a relevant certificate of insurance is accepted as evidence of that insurance - s.165 (2)(a) of the same act.

AdrianC

Rover_Driver wrote: »

The production of a relevant certificate of insurance is accepted as evidence of that insurance - s.165 (2)(a) of the same act.

Indeed. But the question is whether a random piece of paper which looks like an insurance certificate for a currently valid policy IS a "relevant certificate of insurance".

dacouch

AdrianC wrote: »

No, the MID is the legal primary record - which is why insurers are legally required to update it in a timely manner.

The officer that Richard53 dealt with clearly found him credible, so gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The relevant Insurance Certificate trumps the MID.

The MID is not 100% accurate on the vehicles it's tasked to record and there are many vehicles that do not need to be added to the MID

AdrianC

dacouch wrote: »

The relevant Insurance Certificate trumps the MID.

I've got two apparently valid PDF certificates here for policies that have been cancelled. And that's before we consider straight forgeries.

dacouch wrote:

The MID is not 100% accurate on the vehicles it's tasked to record

Indeed it's not. But it's more accurate than certificates. And, where it is inaccurate, it's down to insurers failing to follow their own policies and procedures correctly.

dacouch wrote:

and there are many vehicles that do not need to be added to the MID

Such as? Don't get confused with where it's the policyholder's responsibility to add vehicles to MID if they're on-risk for more than a trivially short period.

Silver-Surfer_2

AdrianC wrote: »

No,[B the MID is the legal primary record [/B]- which is why insurers are legally required to update it in a timely manner.

The officer that Richard53 dealt with clearly found him credible, so gave him the benefit of the doubt.

What source have you got tha from?

Joe_Horner

As things stand it's really quite straight forward.

The RTA requires a driver to produce the required evidence of insurance when requested, and that required evidence is the certificate.

A police officer is only allowed to seize a vehicle for no insurance if two conditions are met: (1) the required evidence of insurance isn't produced, AND (2) he has reasonable grounds to suspect there is no insurance.

If you produce the required evidence then it doesn't matter what his suspicions are, he can't seize your vehicle because seizure requires BOTH elements - failure to produce evidence AND suspicion.

This has been clearly established in case law by Pryor v Greater Manchester Police where the "suspicion" element was created by an insurance worker (incorrectly as it happened) telling the police on the phone that cover didn't exist. Because a certificate had been produced, even that apparently definitive evidence wasn't enough to justify seizure.

What they can do if you produce a certificate and they think you've forged it is take details and investigate. If, by subsequent investigation, they then find that it was, indeed, fake or cancelled, then you're facing the no insurance charge and an issuing / uttering a false document charge as well. Which is a whole lot more pain than 6 points on your licence.