Car seized for no insurance

Herzlos

I'd argue that if he had proof of having paid his insurer at the time he was stopped, he'd have a pretty good defence.

It doesn't explain why he took out a 2nd policy on Monday though, or why the police weren't able to confirm he was insured at the side of the road.

Silver-Surfer_2

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd argue that if he had proof of having paid his insurer at the time he was stopped, he'd have a pretty good defence.

It doesn't explain why he took out a 2nd policy on Monday though, or why the police weren't able to confirm he was insured at the side of the road.

Well that's easy to answer as its in the OP.

Dave could have done more if it actually happened like this.

Silver-Surfer_2

force_ten wrote: »

so you consider driving without insurance as doing nothing wrong ?

somebody missed a payment which resulted in the insurance policy being cancelled, dave then tried to make a payment and resurrect the cancelled policy which for whatever reason failed so when the car was seized he was driving without insurance

as already said there is somthing odd here in that on the monday he went looking for new insurance to release the car from the pound rather than contacting the company that he mistakenly thought he was insured with and who he had made a payment to on the saturday morning

so he will end up with an IN10 for driving with no insurance and a big fine of £300.00 up 6-8 penalty points which he will have to declare to insurers for the next 5 years and on top of that he should also declare two cancelled insurance policies


Many people are charged and found guilty of driving without insurance because of an innocent misunderstanding like a missed payment, but because driving without insurance is classed as an absolute offence then there is no defence, if you are caught without insurance for whatever reason then you will be prosecuted

Big fine £300 is the starting point with a fpn, if he gets one it will only be six points. May see his licence revoked tho.

Why worry about the five year IN10, he'll be declaring the cancelled policies for ever with any insurance he applies for.

Johno100

Herzlos wrote: »

It doesn't explain why he took out a 2nd policy on Monday though, or why the police weren't able to confirm he was insured at the side of the road.

Perhaps because it was a Saturday night? I'm pretty sure the insurers would be closed and I don't believe the Motor Insurers Bureau is a 24/7 operation. But if a motor insurance certificate is produced in those circumstances then the benefit of doubt should be given to the driver when it comes to siezure of the vehicle.

Joe_Horner

People really do seem to have reading comprehension problems at times. The OP may not have been as clear as it might have been but:

Dave is insured on a policy in someone else's name.

That someone else missed a payment and the insurance was cancelled (more on that in a bit)

That someone else then made the payment up on the Saturday and believed the insurance had been reinstated.

Meanwhile Dave, who was unaware of the missed payment, the cancellation, or the reinstatement, drove on Saturday believing his cover was correct. he got stopped, showed a certificate, but the car was seized anyway on the basis of the MID.

Dave then arranged cover in his own name on Monday to try and recover the car and the rest follows from that.


So to the "more later" bits:

Insurers are NOT permitted to cancel insurance for non-payment without significant warning (7 days iirc) in writing before they do so. We don't know whether or not this notice was given in this case but, if it wasn't given, then the insurance was still in force regardless of what the insurers claimed because they legally couldn't have cancelled it.

Similarly, having been stopped and shown the relevant evidence of cover (the certificate) the police are NOT permitted to seized the vehicle EVEN IF they have other reasons to think the certificate was invalid. That's been clearly established in case law - even where they've spoken to the insurer and been specifically told the cover isn't valid.

Now, before anyone starts, we've been over all of the "fake certificates / certificates retained after cancellation" arguments multiple times and they don't mean squat. Like it or not, to seize for no insurance two conditions must be met:

First, the driver must fail to provide the required evidence of cover - which is a certificate of insurance. That may be in paper or electronic form but, once it's produced at the scene, the matter stops there.

Second, IF that first condition fails then the policeman must also have reasonable belief that insurance isn't in place. Failure to show up on the MID, or an insurance agent saying that it's not insured on the phone can be used for this part of the two-part test.

But to make the seizure lawful both parts of the test must be satisfied in order. First, the driver fails to produce a certificate and only AFTER that can other suspicions be brought into the equation at all.

Which means that they can't use a suspicion formed by it not being on the MID to doubt the veracity of any certificate produced.

Because the law and the Law Lords have said so.

Silver-Surfer_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

People really do seem to have reading comprehension problems at times. The OP may not have been as clear as it might have been but:

Dave is insured on a policy in someone else's name.

That someone else missed a payment and the insurance was cancelled (more on that in a bit)

That someone else then made the payment up on the Saturday and believed the insurance had been reinstated.

Meanwhile Dave, who was unaware of the missed payment, the cancellation, or the reinstatement, drove on Saturday believing his cover was correct. he got stopped, showed a certificate, but the car was seized anyway on the basis of the MID.

Dave then arranged cover in his own name on Monday to try and recover the car and the rest follows from that.


So to the "more later" bits:

Insurers are NOT permitted to cancel insurance for non-payment without significant warning (7 days iirc) in writing before they do so. We don't know whether or not this notice was given in this case but, if it wasn't given, then the insurance was still in force regardless of what the insurers claimed because they legally couldn't have cancelled it.

Similarly, having been stopped and shown the relevant evidence of cover (the certificate) the police are NOT permitted to seized the vehicle EVEN IF they have other reasons to think the certificate was invalid. That's been clearly established in case law - even where they've spoken to the insurer and been specifically told the cover isn't valid.

Now, before anyone starts, we've been over all of the "fake certificates / certificates retained after cancellation" arguments multiple times and they don't mean squat. Like it or not, to seize for no insurance two conditions must be met:

First, the driver must fail to provide the required evidence of cover - which is a certificate of insurance. That may be in paper or electronic form but, once it's produced at the scene, the matter stops there.

Second, IF that first condition fails then the policeman must also have reasonable belief that insurance isn't in place. Failure to show up on the MID, or an insurance agent saying that it's not insured on the phone can be used for this part of the two-part test.

But to make the seizure lawful both parts of the test must be satisfied in order. First, the driver fails to produce a certificate and only AFTER that can other suspicions be brought into the equation at all.

Which means that they can't use a suspicion formed by it not being on the MID to doubt the veracity of any certificate produced.

Because the law and the Law Lords have said so.

That's not 100% correct. If they produce certificate and the insurance company confirm the policy has been cancelled a seizure would be lawful.

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

That's not 100% correct. If they produce certificate and the insurance company confirm the policy has been cancelled a seizure would be lawful.

Not if it subsequently transpired that the insurer got it wrong by, for example:

* Misapplying / misunderstanding their own terms (such as requirements for MOT etc),

* Assuming terms that weren't there (such as requirements for other cover to validate DOC) or

* Cancelling for non payment without appropriate notice.

* Failing to reinstate promptly following a resolved issue

Given that when the police phone the insurers they're generally talking to a minimally trained call centre operative / keyboard monkey that's a huge gamble for them to take.


eta: In fact, referring to the part of my previous that you highlighted, it is 100% correct - case law has established that the test MUST be satisfied in that order and, if the first part ( prima facie evidence in the form of a certificate) is satisfied, it should NOT progress to the second (any other suspicions).

Silver-Surfer_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Not if it subsequently transpired that the insurer got it wrong by, for example:

* Misapplying / misunderstanding their own terms (such as requirements for MOT etc),

* Assuming terms that weren't there (such as requirements for other cover to validate DOC) or

* Cancelling for non payment without appropriate notice.

* Failing to reinstate promptly following a resolved issue

Given that when the police phone the insurers they're generally talking to a minimally trained call centre operative / keyboard monkey that's a huge gamble for them to take.

And you know that how?

I'll tell you for a fact that when the police call the MIB they don't just rely on their system. The MIB actually phone the insurance companies direct. The police and MIB liaison lines are generally not staffed minimally trained staff.

So that's the MIB database double checked and then confirmed by the insurance companies.

Unless of course you've heard different down the pub.;)

dacouch

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

And you know that how?

I'll tell you for a fact that when the police call the MIB they don't just rely on their system. The MIB actually phone the insurance companies direct. The police and MIB liaison lines are generally not staffed minimally trained staff.

So that's the MIB database double checked and then confirmed by the insurance companies.

Unless of course you've heard different down the pub.;)

The staff are the (Often) dedicted dept to deal with the police at a Insurer are generally better trained than normal insurance staff. However they're not infallible and do make mistakes.

The staff can and do make guesses at policy cover which can result in cars being illegally seized.

Joe Horner's post is factually correct

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

The police and MIB liaison lines are generally not staffed minimally trained staff.

So they have fully qualified and experienced contract lawyers manning the phones? No wonder our premiums are so high!

eta: Incidentally, seeing as the whole reason for the precedent case ever getting to appeal was that whoever the police called at the insurers got it completely and dismally wrong on a very basic point, I stand by my comment