|
Police - Recovery company are merely agents.
|
|
|
He requested police to call the insurance company from his house at his cost, but they declined.
Seems at odds with what you see on Traffic Cops and Road Wars. All the cases I have seen on those TV shows have had people stopped because the MID database shows the car as uninsured. When the driver insists that he/she is insured [sometimes claiming to be driving under the DOC extension], the Police have always been shown to phone the insurance company to confirm the driver's claim.
If he does claim back the 140GBP, should it be against the police or the tow company.
How about possible negligence at the Insurance Company for not feeding the correct data to the Computer on time?
|
|
I've settled about 10 of these over the years. Perhaps it needs a proper Court Case. There are fundamental breaches of process and potentially Human Rights (Right to Private Life and Right to Free Trial etc). This is the Police lowering themsleves to the standards expected from the petty Officialdom that roam the streets looking for overfilled bins etc.
|
If the Road Traffic Act allows 7 days to produce an insurance cert as you said above, how can a car be seized before that time is up?
|
|
Personally I think its very wrong - even of that is policy, potentially punishing law abiding citizens on flawed data.
|
Summary.
Find the insurance certificate or get a duplicate, you'll need that to release the car. Then complain like hell.
|
|
Or keep a copy in your govebox??
|
|
It actually is an offence not to produce the Certificate of Insurance on demand, but there's a statutory defence if you can produce it within 7 days.
|
>>"It actually is an offence not to produce the Certificate of Insurance on demand..">>
I don't think that is necessarily the case - not everyone carries such documents with them and I certainly never leave them (or the car manual) in the vehicle itself.
See:
www.cybermoor.org/LID/index.asp?intid=353
(this is what virtually every police force advises on its website).
|
|
|
|
I must say I have to feel for the OP if all the fact are as stated. Seizing a car is not compulsory its a final sanction. Every option should be explored before taking someones wheels if only to keep public confidence.
A simple phone call would have discovered the truth of course that depends on the time of day.. A producer would allow Insurance to be produced. The legislation allows the car to be seized retrospectively if 'no insurance' can still be proved.
|
I suspect that we're not seeing both sides of the story here. It just doesn't add up to me.
If the facts are as presented go and see a lawyer ASAP, they'll love such a straightforward case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the Road Traffic Act allows 7 days to produce an insurance cert as you said above,
I had always believed that the RTA required you to produce the documents on demand, and that the 7 day producer thingy was an extra-statutory concession.
Anyhow, the guidance to Scottish Police [which may be the smae or similar regions] says:
PROCEDURES
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 The power to seize vehicles is contained within Section 152 of the Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act 2005 (hereafter referred to as the Act) and the Road Traffic Act
1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005. The
intention of these provisions is to empower police officers to take action against
vehicles which are being driven by drivers who do not hold a valid driving licence
(contrary to Sections 87 RTA 1988) or used without a valid certificate of insurance
(143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988).
2.2 The powers are designed to allow police officers to take immediate action to deal
effectively with these vehicles and drivers. The power to seize a vehicle will only be
used if it is believed that the driver does not hold and cannot immediately produce a
valid driving licence and counterpart or there is no valid certificate of insurance in force
and one cannot be immediately produced.
3. SEIZURE POWERS
3.1 Section 152 (4) of the Act states:-
3.1.1 "where a constable (in uniform) has required a person to produce their licence and
counterpart or evidence of insurance, the person has not done so and the constable
has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being (or has been) driven
by a person not holding a valid driving licence or not appropriately insured against third
party risks which contravenes Section 87 or 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (no
driving licence and no insurance), the vehicle, if moving, may be stopped and may be
seized and removed by the constable.
3.2 These powers can be used where vehicles are being used:
3.2.1 On a public road where the vehicle is being driven without the driver holding a valid
driving licence in contravention of Section 87 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
3.2.2 On a public road where the vehicle is being driven without a valid certificate of
insurance being in force in contravention of Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
3.3 Section 152 (3) of the Act gives the following powers to a constable in uniform:
(a) power to seize immediately and remove the motor vehicle;
....
.....
.......
4.3.2 In the event of a dispute, it would be for the courts to decide what constituted
'reasonable steps' in any particular case.
Edited by jbif on 17/08/2008 at 23:39
|
What's a "demand"?
Is that an officer standing by your car and asking to see a certificate or an officer issuing you with a producer?
Edited by Optimist on 17/08/2008 at 23:44
|
I think my question answers itself.
Having said that I've had a look at the 2005 Act jbif refers to. The Scottish procedural guidance is a bit worrying, I think.
There isn't a S152(4). S152 inserts a new S165A into the RTA to follow on from S165.
In each of the cases in which a vehicle can be seized, the officer has to be in uniform and has to have "reasonable grounds" for his belief that there is an infraction of the law. So if a database says no insurance I suppose that's reasonable. But the officer "may" seize the car only after warning that he will do so if the evidence of insurance is not immediately produced.
It does seem to me that this bit of statute is not meant to take away the car of man who's mislaid his cert and, by misfortune, does not have his details on a database.
|
|
|
|
The legislation is fundamentally the same as the English version but there are some differences. e.g. The seizure notice does not have to be signed by an Inspector. The right to retrospectively seize is not restricted to 24 hours unless the vehicle has failed to stop or not stopped long enough for details to be ascertained.
|
Hello?? Some of the Scottish legislation has vanished!!
|
A 'demand' is a verbal request to see the relevant document.
|
|
|
Hello?? Some of the Scottish legislation has vanished!!
Sorry about that Fullchat. Before posting, I tried to preview the post and it failed. So I posted it as was, and saw that it was far too long, and decided to prune it. You must have seen the full version just before I edited it.
re. Optimist's question on "on demand" and "7 days for a producer", Devon & Cornwall Police have these guidelines:
www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/pdfstore/policies/...f
but note that they say "In cases where an individual is charged with a substantive offence there is no need to issue a HO/RT1. "
Greater Manchester Police have a documnet which says:
There is no legal requirement for a constable to be in uniform to demand production of documents from a driver. Where a driver cannot produce the documents on demand they are issued a form HO/RT/1 to produce them at a nominated police station. The issue of a form HO/RT1 merely provides the driver an opportunity to use the benefit of the statutory defence afforded by legislation that they produced them within 7 days.
CPS guidance is here:
www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_a_annex_a.ht...l
Edited by jbif on 18/08/2008 at 00:16
|
Are we not being super critical of Plod here?.
Stops vehicle
MID database - no trace of Insurance.
Plod accepts this as not being 100% so follows driver to his home.
Despite only having Insurance doc some days previously states cannot find said document. Is therefore unable to fullfil his obligation to prove Insurance in force.
Act on seizure is cut and dried - no Insurance produced = power of seizure.
OK those of you tut tutting ask any Plod how many times he has been fobbed off with
assurance docs in order? If they are to accept this everytime and issue RT/1 what is the point of the power of seizure?
OK maybe he should have tried to phone Co but do they all have a 24/7 cover for such calls? Maybe he tried on and couldn't get through?
To me there seems to be a culture growing that because people cannot take care/organise their vehicle documents then it's everybody elses fault but their own when the wheels come off.
dvd
|
No, not really. We're not being too critical
It seems to me that the 2005 powers were introduced largely to deal with serious crime. A lot of that has to do with cars and a power to seize where a vehicle is on the road illegally seems a good idea. But like RIPA, which is now being used by councils to see if people are in the right area for certain schools, it seems as though the 2005 power is being used entirely inappropriately here. I lose bits of paper. We all do. We once had to get a duplicate insurance cert to tax my wife's car because we couldn't find the original anywhere.
Now it's doubly unfortunate in this case because the man's insurance wasn't on whatever database was being consulted. But that's not his fault. So he has his car lifted. Extraordinary. Aren't there enough genuinely illegal cars on the road for the police to deal with?
Jbif points out that GMP say a driver has to produce documents to an officer not in uniform. I'm sure that's right. But if I've read the 2005 Act right, it's only a uniformed officer who can institute the seizure procedure.
|
|
I tend to agree with dwd on this, though, like spikeyhead I don't think we are getting the full story... I know that if I was followed home I would have no trouble at all in finding my insurance docs.... when checking tickets on trains I've come across an unbelievable variety of excuses for having no ticket/no railcard/no money/no id (it never ceases to amaze me just how many relations suddenly die and the fare dodger has to drop everything and go by train with no ticket) - it makes you very very cynical and you tend to assume the worst....
Edited by b308 on 18/08/2008 at 12:08
|
Even though a lot of customers go through the denial routine - " I do have insurance officer" - even when they don't, it does not give the police the right to treat everyone as if they're guilty without making sure first. The OP says the guy involved suggested to the police to phone the insurance company but they declined. That, and the fact that the car was insured the whole time, is enough for me to want the guy to get his money back at the very least.
Why should he have to pay the £140.00 when he has done absolutely nothing wrong?
|
|
If he knew the Insurance Cos number then why didn't he phone up whilst they were there anyhow, they'd have had to call for the recovery truck so that should have given him enough time... sorry, I just feel there's a bit more we don't know, it doesn't add up...
|
|
Similar thing happened to a friend of mine,stopped on the motorway in the middle of the night,not on the database so van siezed and he and partner,who had just come out of hospital,taken to the services and left to find their own way home.When he queried being charged for recovering his insured vehicle he was told to claim it from the insurance co.,as they should have ensured he was on the database.
|
My fully insured car (28th May 2008) is not on the database despite calling the broker 4 or 5 times over the last 6 weeks. As the broker could not get the insurance company to ensure it is on the MID I tried calling the insurance company directly via their claims line and the operative refused to give me the phone number to the correct department. I called the Insurance Ombudsman and he could only give me the same claims telephone number as a contact for the Insurance Company.
All my telephone calls are recorded via our voip server so I am now building a nice bundle for my defence should I be stopped and the car is confiscated!
I have now officially reported the insurance company to the Insurance Ombudsman and they are in the process of writing to the Insurance company to request it's inclusion on MID and why it has taken so long. I did read somewhere that the Insurance company must put this data on the database within 30 days or face a large fine.
|
Apparently it is a requirement that from Jan 1 this year insurance companies enter the info on MID within 7 days of the policy being issued.
There can be a £5k fine for non compliance but I haven't been able to find out who would charge the fine.
|
I had a policy for a m/bike running with a company called "A quote" , half way thru the policy , I added a second bike , this would not show up on MID , so i queried it?
aquote blamed norich union , and they passed the buck back ,
evidently only the first bike would show on MID
to this day , they still have not sorted this out
|
It's this kind of oppressive, over-mighty, policing that's making this country such an increasingly nasty place to live - not to mention alienating a significant percentage of the otherwise law-abiding.
Do the police really believe that any Government-ordered national computer system will actually work? [Or are there targets involved here?]
|
|
Surely the MID is operated and fed by the insurance industry? So by your criteria it cannot fail:)
|
The database will only ever be as accurate as the data put into it. The system will never, ever be 100% perfect. However, if used sensibly the MID database is an excellent idea and the benefits probably far outweigh any downsides.
|
>>halfway thru the policy I added a second bike this would not show up on
MID so i queried it?evidently only the first bike would show on MID to this day they still have not sorted this out>>
This sounds like a very dodgy situation after reading some of the posts on this thread.
If the second bike doesn't show up on the computer and you don't have the paperwork showing that BOTH bikes are insured, then one of the bikes is going to be seized.
|
Pica said:All my telephone calls are recorded via our voip server so I am now building a nice bundle for my defence should I be stopped and the car is confiscated!
freddy1 said:.. I added a second bike , this would not show up on MID , so i queried it? .. to this day , they still have not sorted this out
In reply to Pica, freedy1 and others in a similar vein:
You, NOT your Insurance Company, are required to produce your documents on demand. If your vehicle does not show up on the MIB MID, then until you manage to get that corrected, it is up to you to carry evidence of your documents. As for the tardyness of the Insurance Company or your Broker to get the database corrected, you will see [if you can find your insurance documents] on your Policy that there is a procedure for making formal complaints, which is followed very diligently in most cases by the Industry. If you are being fobbed off, it is usually because you are dealing with people at the wrong level of responsibility within that Company.
In reply to Optimist: Police forces have set procedures within their region to implement this RTA power to seize vehicles. You are correct that some Forces do insist that the notice to seize is served by UNIFORMED officers only. For example, one force says in its guidance:
"
Driving uninsured
.... that the constable in uniform has required a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of Section 143 and the person has failed to produce such evidence and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.
Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 RTA that they will seize it:
In a section 87(1) RTA case, if the person does not produce his licence and counterpart immediately;
In a section 143 RTA case, if the person does not provide them immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section."
Note: The emphasis in bold text above is as it appears on the guidance.
|
I think people are being too critical in a generic sense. I don't know if the PC in this original poster's case phoned the insurance company. Before I seize a car, I check PNC, which states whether insurance held. If that says no, then it's onto the MIB. If it's out of hours, or they can't tell you, then it's onto the insurance company if the driver insists that they are covered and can actually name the company. Many people who lie to us cannot name the comany and fall down at this point. If and only if they come back and say "Not insured" will I think about recovery (always assuming that no cert can be produced at roadside.)
Very rarely do we get someone who says "No, sorry, I'm not insured." As one of my colleagues up the board says, take some responsibility for looking after your important legal documents so that if there is a computer mistake, you can then produce the bit of paper that gets you out of a hole. The number of allowances we make for people in the first place (I've just moved/bought the car/tax in the post/insurance cert lost/cat ate my homework) would, I think, surprise most people who see cops and traffic cops as out to persecute motorists. We're not, we're just after those who bump up YOUR costs by not playing by the rules. There are a lot of uninsured cars out there, and according to all the information available to the officer at the time of stopping, the OP's was one of them.
|
It's this kind of oppressive over-mighty policing that's making this country such an increasingly nasty place to live - not to mention alienating a significant percentage of the otherwise law-abiding. Do the police really believe that any Government-ordered national computer system will actually work? [Or are there targets involved here?]
People who complain about the police doing their job are invariably the same ones who complain about lack of policing, lack of road patrols, and criminals getting away unpunished blah blah. The MID is surely used by the police only as a secondary source of data, the primary source being documents held by the driver. I keep an A3-size double-sided copy of my docs folded up in my wallet (easy to do using a scanner and my PC). Useful not only if stopped by the Police but also in the event of an accident (because it carries phone numbers, policy numbers etc.).
Incidentally, the MID is nothing to do with the Government, it was set up by the insurance industry to combat motor insurance fraud. But what the hell, when you're locked into an ideology which says everything is the Government's fault and Britain is a nasty and awful place to live, a Police state gone mad etc etc, then let's just blame them anyway!
|
I do carry my documents so I should (hopefully) be OK. I did pass some APNR cameras last week and nobody chased after me. My real certificate looks like (and probably is) a very bad photocopy! Would a Police Officer be suspicious of a bad quality document? or can they verify the information quite easily when the insurance company is closed for the night.
|
Would a Police Officer be suspicious of a bad quality document?
Swiftcover insist you print your own certificate. No-where was I warned that I can't print it with a 9-pin dot matrix on some tissue paper.
|
You should see the state of some documents produced!
If you have a certificate, and the computer isn't telling me different, then no problem.
If the computer is telling me different, then I would probably call up the insurance company. Most of them do have a police line that is open 24 hours - in much the same way that most have a 24 hour claim line.
Even if I couldn't get through, I wouldn't be taking the car, unless I seriously thought that you were trying to deceive me, at which point we go to fraudulent use/pervert course justice etc, all of which are far more serious than no insurance.
|
Swiftcover insist you print your own certificate.
I've heard that before, and wondered how they get away with it.
|
You can get printed certificate from them, but you need to pay for it.
|
Someone told me the Post Office won't accept home printed insurance certificates.
Is this true?
|
Airlines accept home printed vouchers, with a bar code, to check one in at security. If it is good enough for the heavy handed jobsworths who 'run' airlines and airports it should be good enough for the PO!
Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 19/08/2008 at 18:35
|
... it should be good enough for the PO!
Swiftcover have a couple of FAQs on this:
Question / Issue
What do I need a printed certificate for?
Answer / Solution
A printed certificate will be required to renew your road tax (unless you renew with the DVLA online @ www.DVLA.gov.uk) or if the Police ask for a copy.
To ensure your certificate is accepted please ensure that the document is printed in colour and on good quality paper.
Question / Issue
Can I print my car insurance certificate online?
Answer / Solution
Yes you can print your car insurance certificate by logging into my swift space
Please ensure that you print your car insurance certificate in colour and keep a copy for your records as you'll most likely need this to tax your car.
If you do not have a printer please contact our Help Team by emailing help@swiftcover.com and they will be happy to print and send you a copy of the document you need, however there may be a charge for this service as we are a online only insurer.
Please be aware that if you print your Certificate using a very poor quality printer some post offices may not accept it as valid proof for Road Tax purposes. If you inform the post office that your document is a print out from the Internet, some possibly may not accept it. If you have any concerns or further questions please contact our Help Team by emailing help@swiftcover.com.
Edited by jbif on 19/08/2008 at 18:46
|
I know someone who is insured with swiftcover - no paper docs provided at all. Everything was supplied as PDFs that you can print yourself.
|
|
If I get sent a PDF then I can print to at least as high quality as anything I get in the post using a £99 laser printer, and I'm not sure how Plod/Post Office Patricia can tell where the printer was located?
|
|
I use them and used a paper copy to renew my car tax after it was SORN'd - the PO accepted it without any problems - they also give you a letter which you are supposed to print and keep with the cert.... using a cheap inkjet (less than the £99 mentioned earlier!)
Edited by b308 on 19/08/2008 at 19:01
|
|
When I was insured with Swiftcover last year the PO absolutely refused to tax the car for me using my certificate, so I had to renew online.
|
The same thing happened to my father on Wednesday night. He was followed home by the police who said their system was saying he had no insurance. My father could not produce the actual insurance certificate, but had the schedule, it appears that the insurance company did not send the certificate at the time of issue and my father did not check. Monthly payments have been coming out of his bank account to pay the insurance.
It was 12.30am so he could not ring the ins comp to verify. The police seized the vehicle. Next day he rang the ins comp who said he was of course insured and they would send him a certificate by special delivery (which he had to pay for?!).
The cerificate arrived today but was dated yesterday rather than the date of issue back in May. It did however have another page saying that monthly payments had been made etc. My dad took this to the police station earlier but the police said it did not prove that he was insured at the time of seizure as it was dated 28th august with no time. He got back on to the ins comp (Saga) was said they could not backdate a certificate and could not provide a duplicate of the original. They maintain that they sent the certificate at the time of issue but the letter my dad received lists whats enclosed and does not mention the certificate. They would however provide a letter of indemnity for the police to say that the policy started back in May, The police will not accept this - they need the original certificate or a duplicate.
Upshot is, the police will release the car for £105 plus £12 a day storage but once the original police officer receives a report back he will charge my father with failure to produce etc and my dad will have to go to court.
Sorry this post is so long! - Any useful advice welcome!
|
It was 12.30am so he could not ring the ins comp to verify
As Orson and Fullchat [they are the Boys in Blue] have said, seizing a car is a last resort:
"If the computer is telling me different, then I would probably call up the insurance company. Most of them do have a police line that is open 24 hours !
|
|
is the "producer" obsolete now? ..i remember getting one 20 odd years ago and went to the police station with the producer and my documents and still got a warning at my door a week later for failing to provide (the desk sergeant hadnt made a note of my documents) got an apology by letter a month later !!!
|
|
Another point to add - when the police said it wasn't on the database and he couldn't find the certifcate, although he did have the letter from saga and the schedule, my dad actually did say to the poilce officer "well maybe I'm not insured then". So the police officer was right to seize the car as he had reason to believe my dad wasn't insured.
|
A well intentioned bit of legislation is being misused. Basically people are being punished for offences they haven't committed thanks to dependency on computer databases.
My Roomie isn't on this ridiculous database so I have to carry my insurance everywhere.
Edited by Pugugly on 29/08/2008 at 21:18
|
|
Let's face it, if you were a policeman looking for a safe and easy life, who would you rather tangle with ....... a regular bloke who has mislaid his paperwork or a 'traveller' who you know isn't insured?
|
my dad actually did say to the poilce officer "well maybe I'm not insuredthen". So the police officer was right to seize the car as he had reason to believe my dad wasn't insured.
was he also dressed as derek bentley and did he by any chance include the phrase "let him have it ?"
|
As Orson and Fullchat [they are the Boys in Blue] have said, seizing a car is a last resort:
"If the computer is telling me different, then I would probably call up the insurance company. Most of them do have a police line that is open 24 hours !
they did try to ring saga but no answer due to time of night.
|
was he also dressed as derek bentley and did he by any chance include the phrase "let him have it ?"
LOL! We very amused by that reply!
|
IMO if Saga could not produce a duplicate of the original certificate and were not prepared to backdate a new one, that would lead me to believe that they never insured him in the first place, nor did they issue a certificate, especially as it was not on the database, but just took his money. I would be looking at suing the Insurance company as they can't produce a copy of the original certificate and claim compensation off them.
Edited by kith on 29/08/2008 at 22:59
|
I completely agree with kith. Saga have screwed-up bigtime and, for whatever reason, have failed to insure him in the first place. There is no other reason for not being able to provide a duplicate certificate of insurance.
I also agree, legal action against Saga would be the way forward.
|
|
This is frightfully difficult. The onus in on the driver to make sure that he's insured. Should I, for instance, pay a broker, but that payment is not made down the line as it should have been, and also I assume that I'm insured - well, I'm not, and it'd be my fault if I drove and was apprehended. All this circumstantial stuff is just waffle. He was insured, or he wasn't. If he was, he should have had the opportunity to dig out a certificate. If he hadn't, there's something wrong.
|
Saga have screwed-up bigtime and, for whatever reason, have failed to insure him in the first place. There is no other reason for not being able to provide a duplicate certificate of insurance.
I am loathe to jump to such a conclusion. We have heard the story 2nd hand from the son of the man who claims to have never received the certificate. We have not heard Saga's version. I would not be surprised if it turns out that the certificate was separated from the rest of the documents when the "Dad" went to renew his Tax.
As for the refusal to issue a backdated certificate, see:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=66296&...e
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=66296&...e
As DVD says: "If you think about it you should come to an understanding why they will not back date a certificate........"
P.S. It would be interesting to know from Orson and/or Fullchat whether it is true that SAGA do not provide a 24 hour hotline for Police to double-check for Insurance.
|
Based on the information given:
A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act. (Sec 143 (1)a RTA 1988)
Ok if you read the small print it states A POLICY OF INSURANCE. Presumably your father has sufficient paperwork from Saga to constitute a POLICY even if he has not got the certificate. Saga state that he has a policy.
Therefore 'Driving Without insurance' - which is the big one, is a non starter.
Now where he could be prosecuted is:
A Constable may request the production of:
The relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Now this relates to a CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE
Saga state that they will provide a 'Certificate of Security' in lieu of a backdated Certificate. To the best of my knowledge the 'Certificate of Security' referred to in the definition above is an entirely different thing to what Saga are offering and therefore will not suffice. (I'll not go into detail).
So he could be prosecuted for 'failing to produce insurance' which is minor in comparison.
Don't worry too much about the 7 day rule your father could have until the day proceedings are commenced which will give him more time to get to grips with Saga.
I am not sure of a 24 hour Police Hotline to Saga, maybe some of my learned colleagues my be able to answer that one. There is though a 24 hour number with the Motor Insurers Bureau which can access all the databases. But bear in mind that it is they who update the Police National Computer :-(
I really have some concern re these seizures if the circumstances are as stated. As I've said before seizure is a final sanction and just because a database says "No" doesn't mean that you are in for the kill. Not until I am convinced 'beyond all reasonable doubt' do I seize. Maybe you father agreeing that the vehicle might not be insured may not have helped his cause.
I know what the law says but I am starting to feel that there maybe some 'abuse of authority' creeping in.
|
>> Saga have screwed-up bigtime and for whatever reason have failed to insure him in the first place. There is no other reason for not being able to provide a duplicate certificate of insurance. I am loathe to jump to such a conclusion. As DVD says: "If you think about it you should come to an understanding why they will not back date a certificate........"
I'm not talking about a back-dated insurance certificate, I'm talking about a duplicate insurance certificate! They are two completely different things.
It is quite illegal for an insurance company to issue a back-dated certificate and quite rightly so. They could be prosecuted for doing so. But we're not talking about that here.
No, a duplicate insurance certificate is just that, a duplicate copy of an insurance certificate that has previously been issued, the original copy having been lost in the post, accidently thrown away, or whatever. There is nothing whatsoever illegal in issuing a duplicate certificate, insurance companies must do this all the time.
No, what I find interesting in this case, as described by the OP, is that the insurance company say they can't issue a duplicate certificate, which the police would be happy to accept. The only reason that I can think of that they can't issue a duplicate is that an original wasn't issued in the first place! If anyone else can offer an alternative explanation then I would be only too pleased to hear it.
As a matter of interest, I myself renewed my own insurance over the telephone in the middle of August, payment by credit card. To date, I have received no renewal documents whatsoever, including certificate of insurance. I have spoken to my insurance company and informed them of this situation, and they have promised to send out duplicate documents. So, when I receive these documents, are they going to have the date of commencement as the date on which I spoke to them? I await with interest to see what will happen.
I could prove that I've paid my insurance by my credit card statement. I've also checked my car on the MID website, and it shows it as being insured, but you can't always go by that, either.
Edited by Galaxy on 30/08/2008 at 10:17
|
Any update from the OP about the original problem.
Or was it all just a troll - new poster, not been back.......??????????
|
the insurance company say they can't issue a duplicate certificate, which the police would be happy to accept. >>
I posted earlier to say that we once got a duplicate cert for my wife's car so I think "can't" should be read as "won't".
|
we once got a duplicate cert for my wife's car so I think "can't" should be read as "won't
Your wife's case must be the exception that proves the rule. [ How long ago did she get the duplicate? Was it really a duplicate? ]
AFAIK, and I may be wrong, but there is no way that a duplicate certificate of the original can ever be issued. AFAIK, a certificate can only be dated on the day of issue.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=66296&...e
" queried this and was told that it was a legal requirement for the certificate to show the start date as on or after the date of issue, they also added that copy certificates are not valid only original ones .."
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=66296&...e
"The so called duplicate certificate arrived on 14th stating that my cover was starting from 13th and not 1st. Showing therefore, in spite of my paying, no cover for 12 days. No amount of me going up the chain of responsibility will get them to give me a certificate dated from 1st. They are happy to send me a confirmatory letter which might (or might not) have been adequate had I needed to produce evidence of cover, but they just will not backdate a "duplicate" certificate to the 1st."
|
I've had a duplicate certificate issued last year to replace one that was badly creased and the post office wouldn't accept it. (reg nr on the crease). The details were exactly the same as the original.
Cost a tenner though ;(
Google shows:-
AA - A fee of £15 to issue you with a duplicate insurance document
Best - Where a duplicate certificate of insurance and schedule is required because the original is lost or mislaid, a charge of £20 will also be made
Footman James - Contact us for duplicates. We may make a charge of £15.00 for this service.
Express - Duplicate Certificate of Motor Insurance £15
|
Firstly, you cannot back date these documents. And you cannot produce a duplicate copy if there is no original.
But if there was an original insurance certificate then production of a genuine copy of that certificate is a valid production - that is my experience. Think of the logic ? original destroyed in house fire a few weeks old ? how would the authorities deal with the situation if it wasn?t permitted!
A cover note, in place of an insurance certificate, is also acceptable evidence of insurance cover.
|
Any update from the OP about the original problem.
Or was it all just a troll - new poster, not been back.......??????????
Hi, not a troll, just not been on today. Well, update is that we went back to the police station today with the cash to get the car released and saw a different police officer. Dad explained the situation, showed him all the docs he had from Saga (minus obviously the valid insurance certificate) and the police officer offered to ring Saga to confirm. Problem solved! No need to see the certificate as Saga confirmed insurance had been in place since May. Dad queried why the officer yesterday refused to ring Saga to verify and the police officer laughed and said well I'm obviously better than him. Still have to pay the release fee of £105 plus £12 per day storage and can't get the car til Monday as the place is closed at the weekend. Dads going to go the insurance ombudsman over Saga as there's definitely something not right. They didn;t put the car on the MID database and didn;t give certifcate etc. Going to try and claim costs back from them. Thanks for all your replies guys.
|
Still have to pay the release fee of £105 plus £12 per day storage and can't get the car til Monday as the place is closed at the weekend
And that is definitely "not right" either. Still being punished and not done anything wrong. Totally unethical.
|
|
Oh yeah, the question over Saga having a 24hour police line - the officer at the time did his best to get through to Saga but nobody was answering the line. He was giving my dad the benefit of the doubt I think until he said that maybe he wasn;t insured (my fathers not the most organised of people and was beginning to doubt himself!). So the police officer had no choice but to seize the car really.
|
And that is definitely "not right" either. Still being punished and not done anything wrong. Totally unethical
Couldn't agree more - is utterly ridiculous situation.
|
Sounds a mess. SAGA ought to be the ones dealing with some refund of the storage charges. Don't know which companies have a 24 hour police line until I come to try. I thought most companies had a claim line that was 24 hours though? Otherwise, what happens if RTC at midnight and the car needs recovery? Presumably, have police contractor recover and sort it out in the morning.
As regards the recovery of uninsured vehicles, I am starting to agree with Fullchat - it is easy to see where an abuse of process might start.
I don't know what exactly was said to the poster's Dad, but if he could show me a schedule and something coming out of his bank monthly, that would be enough for me not to recover immediately.
I do believe though, that monthly payers do not usually show up on the MID - certainly used not to.
|
Hi, not a troll, just not been on today.
Sorry, not you, but the originator of the thread in the first place.
|
|
Thats what I was thinking, M!
|
Further to my previous post, today I received a set of duplicate insurance documents, including a Certificate of Insurance, from my insurance company.
The certificate commencement date is 14th August 2008, the date on which my insurance was renewed. It was NOT the date on which I telephoned the insurance company to inform them that I hadn't received any renewal documents.
So, it just goes to prove, duplicate Certificates of Insurance CAN be issued, which show the original commencement date, without any problems, that is, provided that an original certificate has been issued in the first place!
Oh, and by the way, I didn't pay for them (shouldn't have had to anyway under the circumstances)!
|
Yes, that certainly makes me think some of these instances where they will not issue a duplicate with the original date are where somehow, no original certificate was issued (and no policy existed, although it may well be covered by their own insurance against cockups)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
