Got Private Plate - Forgot to inform Insurer

Grey_Critic

ontheroad1970 said:

I've said it before but will repeat myself.  on a check of the VIN, and even on checking the cherished plate, DVLA will show the original plate matching the VIN.  

But the plate according to the DVLA records at the time of the offence showed No Insurance.  That is the offence and it is correct a vehicle with that Reg No is not insured it is not a clerical error.

The OP admits he had not informed the insurance company of a change of registration. so they are not providing cover for a vehicle with that registration number.

MX5huggy

Grey_Critic said:

ontheroad1970 said:

I've said it before but will repeat myself.  on a check of the VIN, and even on checking the cherished plate, DVLA will show the original plate matching the VIN.  

But the plate according to the DVLA records at the time of the offence showed No Insurance.  That is the offence and it is correct a vehicle with that Reg No is not insured it is not a clerical error.

The OP admits he had not informed the insurance company of a change of registration. so they are not providing cover for a vehicle with that registration number.

The ombudsman disagrees with you in at least one case. 

TooManyPoints

But the plate according to the DVLA records at the time of the offence showed No Insurance.  That is the offence and it is correct a vehicle with that Reg No is not insured it is not a clerical error.

That is not quite so straightforward. S143 of the Road Traffic act says this:

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,

The statute says nothing about registration plate numbers and there is more than one way to identify a vehicle other than by its registration mark. The insurers agreed to cover (say) a Ford Focus, 2015 registered, valued £xxxx, driven by Fred Bloggs living at a specific address. If the registration plate (but nothing else) changes, nothing about the insurer's risk has altered. It is arguable that the vehicle (and the policyholder) should still remain insured.

The MID database is simply a convenient and quick way of identifying the insurance status of vehicles, In 99.99% of cases it works perfectly. Occasionally (such as here) it doesn't and further investigation is required. Once those investigations are complete it should be clear whether cover is in place or not.

noitsnotme

@Harrry09 I suggest you post on the pepipoo forums (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=idx). While there are some here genuinely trying to help, you will receive better advice there and should avoid some of the less useful opinions being given here.

seatbeltnoob

no way are they going to retrospectively cover you.. no way.

motorguy said:

sevenhills said:

motorguy said:

I cant see how the police are doing you for no insurance.

You were insured on that car and that VIN, albeit the reg plate had changed.
Had you had an accident you'd have been covered, so i dont see how its no insurance?

You have got to be able to prove that you have insurance.
The police officer didn't tow the car, so he was reasonable. You wouldn't expect the OP to get off Scott free?

He has insurance.  If he hasnt produced the docs already, he should be able to show the original policy for the original reg and the policy now updated with the new reg.

There was continuance there and at no point was the car not insured.

I dont think that warrants 6 points for no insurance.

No he hasn't got insurance. The insurance wont cover him if he had an accident in that car.

DullGreyGuy

seatbeltnoob said:

no way are they going to retrospectively cover you.. no way.

motorguy said:

sevenhills said:

motorguy said:

I cant see how the police are doing you for no insurance.

You were insured on that car and that VIN, albeit the reg plate had changed.
Had you had an accident you'd have been covered, so i dont see how its no insurance?

You have got to be able to prove that you have insurance.
The police officer didn't tow the car, so he was reasonable. You wouldn't expect the OP to get off Scott free?

He has insurance.  If he hasnt produced the docs already, he should be able to show the original policy for the original reg and the policy now updated with the new reg.

There was continuance there and at no point was the car not insured.

I dont think that warrants 6 points for no insurance.

No he hasn't got insurance. The insurance wont cover him if he had an accident in that car.

The whole point is that it isnt retrospective... have you read the Financial Ombudsman case I linked to?

The OP has and is paying to insure vehicle A, he was in vehicle A when he was caught. The issue is that one of the identifying marks of the vehicle has changed but fundamentally the vehicle itself hasnt.

If you bother to read the case the complainant argued the insurer cannot have it both ways either they are insuring the vehicle in which case a letter of indemnity should be given or they arent insuring it in which case a refund of the premiums should be given.  In that case, which is also one where the person hadnt informed their insurers of a change of registration, the Ombudsman required the insurer to issue the letter of indemnity and upheld the complaint.

MEM62

DE_612183 said:

I doubt it - you didn't inform the insurer of the changes to the policy so as far as they were concerned you are not covered.

I'd try and ask the police to take a nicer view of this to avoid the points.

As the former is true the latter is not going to happen.  The best the OP can do is plead guilty and take the points.  I hope that he has informed his new insurer of the pending conviction, or he will face further issues.       

DanDare999

Grey_Critic said:

ontheroad1970 said:

I've said it before but will repeat myself.  on a check of the VIN, and even on checking the cherished plate, DVLA will show the original plate matching the VIN.  

But the plate according to the DVLA records at the time of the offence showed No Insurance.  That is the offence and it is correct a vehicle with that Reg No is not insured it is not a clerical error.

The OP admits he had not informed the insurance company of a change of registration. so they are not providing cover for a vehicle with that registration number.

DVLA records have nothing to do with insurance. The DVLA record will show both registrations. The original plate and the cherished transfer. Both plates will relate to the same VIN number. It's easy to see from the MIB records and the DVLA records via the PNC what has happened here. 

There is clearly a clerical error error on behalf of the OP.

ontheroad1970

Definitely go to Pepipoo.  There you are not allowed to be judgmental.  Here if you criticise someone for giving expensively bad advice you get sanctioned.  Not very moneysaving!  There used to be someone on here that appeared to be working in the insurance industry that was often very helpful.  Those that dislike criticism got him banned.  

Grey_Critic

DanDare999 said:

There is clearly a clerical error error on behalf of the OP.

Forgetting to inform your insurance company for Four months that you are driving around with a Registration Number on a car different from the one they have recorded and accepted an insurance risk on is a Clerical error and then asking them to get you out of a fix.

Why should they when the T&Cs of the policy say you must inform them of any changes.The OP shpou;ld accept he has done wrong and accept the penalty.