TRANSFERRED FROM 'Vol 2 What Police would like to change'.. (Replying to Nowwheels)
>>Indeed. So use the database as an indicator that there might be an insurance
problem, and issue a producer ... rather than taking it as gospel and impounding the
car. It'll save time for you and your colleagues, giving us all better value-for-money as
well as avoiding the punishment of the law-abiding.>>
you haven't listened to what i've been saying. In an ideal world i'd agree with you. We don't live in an ideal world. So some of the checks done to establish whether there is or is not insurance, inc checking the database can easily leave you still not knowing. Joe Public can be sarcastic, unhelpful, obstructive, in your face angry, know all, ignorant, rude, etc, etc...you'd be amazed at how little some people know or pretend to know of their own circumstances..then there are the out and out liars and they I can assure you are very much in the majority.
What you are asking for is discretion if we don't know for sure. That i'm afraid would have the whole system crumble to a halt. If that is what you'd like, then you'll have to write to your MP, as it is their call.
>> Maybe silliness is the wrong word for police who seem unconcerned about using
dodgy data as grounds for punishment of the law-abiding, but I'll not provoke you by
using some of the terms which do come to mind. >>
with well over 25 years in the police i've been spat at; had bones broken; threatened with a knife, a broken plate and a screwdriver; been driven at and had more rude words thrown at me than I knew existed. I'll be able to cope with a bit more, don't worry about it.
Edited by Westpig on 11/10/2008 at 13:34
|
|
|
Westpig, reasonably enough, suggests that those of us who don't like the law write to our MP's.
But how does he think law gets framed as it does? Is he really suggesting that the police service/force/whatever has nothing to do with it? I don't think that can be the case.
Do he and midlife crisis carry all their car docs around with them? I don't and I've no intention of doing so. I think if stopped by the police and asked if my car was mine I'd probably reply "do you have any reason to believe it's not?".
We have a real problem here and the police are in the best position to resolve it by saying that they can't rely on the insurance database. I can't be bothered to remind everyone of all the times the private sector has let the public sector down when it comes to information technology.
I'm afraid the other thing that bothers me here is that we're now told a second police car was involved. Midlife crisis often complains about the scarcity of patrol cars on his bit of the motorway network so how can you have two out on a fool's errand?
I recall that in the earlier thread someone suggested that it would be dreadful if an officer issued a producer rather than seized a vehicle and the uninsured car was later in an accident.
OK. Fair point. But insurance doesn't bring back the dead or mend broken limbs. It's the accident that's the dreadful thing not the lack of insurance. When the serving officers write about motorway carnage they don't conclude "thanks goodness everyone was insured", because that's not the point, is it?
|
arguements like this can often become entrenched
I don't carry my docs with me. I've just changed insurer on my car and haven't yet checked to see whether it is on the database, but will do. In my wife's car, despite the fact I did it, i can't remember which insurer she is now with, it changed last time I did it and is the 3rd different one in 3 years (we do carry those docs on long journeys).
I instruct my staff to use the seizure power sensibly and encourage them to seek advice if need be..which they do. I don't want Complaints coming over my desk from Mr or Mrs Reasonable who have been hard done by, because A, It causes weariness for me personally and B, it gives a bad impression of my profession
but...
sweeping comments from people that don't realise the difficulties of establishing truth and fact out on the streets, needs responding to...because if you have a system of saying 'any element of doubt don't use the power'...
then the power wouldn't get used at all....and it's a good one, well worth using, despite the fact there are known flaws.
Edited by Westpig on 11/10/2008 at 13:53
|
I understand all the arguments here. However, I have to say that something is dreadfully wrong if an innocent person can be turfed out of their car. Sympathy to the police given its impossible to tell if they are insured or not. Westpig, I understand the problems at the side of the road - the insured person probably looks the same as the uninsured (the uninsured surely is going to claim there is some mistake). BUT, because there are low-life out there who are abusive and deserve everything they get, it does not mean that a totally law-abiding person should have these powers used against them. No matter how difficult the situation, if we go down this route then the only possible outcome is that the innocent section of society (like me) will become disenfranchised from the police over time. If it was me - and I got stopped and turfed out of my car when I had done absolutely nothing wrong - I can tell you my outrage and upset is going to be substantial. Its completely daft that such situations should occur. There is no way someone like me is going to say "oh, I see your difficulty nice mr plod, please take my car, I know what a hard job you have". Get real - I'm going to be upset, confused, outraged, possibly angry. Some totally innocent people might even get angry enough to get themselves arrested because the police feel threatened by their (understandable) outrage and anger - then we are creating situations that would otherwise never have occurred.
Neither the policeman nor the member of the public should ever have been placed in this position in the first place. It is simply unacceptable that we introduce seizure powers that rely on only 95% accuracy. There is no excuse here - if the use of this database results in cars being confiscated, it has to be 100% accurate. I work in banking IT - we do not accept 95% accuracy for transactions in people's bank accounts. There is no conceivable excuse as to why this insurance database is so inaccurate - other than possibly budgets, a lack of penalties for insurers not complying, systems being rushed in before they are ready or fully implemented and a general lack of oversight into how the whole thing works. 95% accurate is 5% inaccurate - that is a lot of inaccuracy. If there are 20m drivers, that means there are 1m people out there at risk.
How on earth could this situation have come about in the first place? Did someone really sit there and say "oh, its OK if we expose 5% of the population to having their cars seized, because we will be better able to capture the low life that deserve it"? If they did then I am worried.
|
< >
Is there any real figures out there, to how many people are driving uninsured?
Would it be more, or less than 5% of the number total driving?
If its less, then the innocent have more chance of being stopped, and having their cars taken from them, than the guilty do!
|
|
|
quite agree with everything you've said Duncan...it mirrors what goes on now with other things as well
my angle has been 'don't shoot the messenger' or another element of that 'don't shoot the end user'
|
|
|
|
if you have a system of saying 'any element of doubt don't use the power'... then the power wouldn't get used at all....and it's a good one well worth using despite the fact there are known flaws.
Westpig, in most instances, a police officer collects and files the evidence and it's up to the courts to decide guilt and what punishment to impose. Even fixed penalty notices work that way, because the alleged offender has a choice between taking summary justice in the form of a fixed penalty, or defending themselves in court.
If that was the case with this insurance problem, then handing out fixed-penalty notices would ensure that the innocent were not punished, because they would have an opportunity to defend themselves before any punishment was applied.
But that's not the case here: the police have the power to impose an on-the -spot punishment, in the form of confiscating the car. In effect, the police officer on the spot becomes judge and jury. As you probably know, the standard of evidence for a criminal prosecution is "beyond reasonable doubt", and a similar threshold should be applied for on-the-spot punishments such as impounding a car.
Your force isn't applying that standard. That's why I think that Pugugly is right, and that there will be successful legal challenges to your use of this power against innocent people who were not able to prove their innocence on-the-spot.
Upholding the law doesn't just consist of using a flawed statutory power because you find it useful. It also involves respecting basic principles such as not imposing punishments based solely on evidence which you know to be unreliable.
It's all very telling people to talk to the MPs who enacted this law (and I for one will be doing just that), but when this police malpractice gets challenged in court your reliance on the dodgy database will look very shaky. It won't be you and your officers who have to pay the legal costs and compensation payouts to the innocent victims of the never-mind-the-broken-database-you're-nicked cops ... it'll be ordinary council tax payers. Brilliant. (Yes, I know that most forces have legal insurance, but it won't do much for your premiums to have to payout because you wilfully ignored the fact that the database is designed to be broken).
If your political bosses then object to you not using the power, you'll have to give the simple answer that you could give them now: fix the database, and we'll use it.
|
"That's why I think that Pugugly is right"
That's a first !
|
|
|
|
|
Can't agree with you there Optimist, the vast majority who keep ourselves legal and do the right thing are far more likely to drive in a manner likely not to cause accidents, if for no other reason than to keep ourselves of good repute, insurable, employable and to avoid being nicked. I'm sure most of us here try to avoid accidents at all costs for far better reasons.
A small example, years ago when getting caught driving at a high speed may have got me several endorsements but hopefully only a severe ear bending i for one may have done so occasionally at appropriate places and times of day etc.
I know getting caught now will end up with me banned, losing my livelihood, possibly going down, and certainly paying through the nose insurance wise for many years, so i don't do it.
Of course this is ignoring the rights and wrongs and is only an example.
Conversely the anti social slob who deliberately drives around with out a care in the world uninsured, will more than likely be equally irresponsible in most other parts of their lives, including their care and attention to driving.
Getting caught seems to be no worry to them as the punishment will be inappropriately minimal, losing a car worth £200 on a good day is no problem either, and there's a good possibility that they are probably unlicensed anyway into the bargain.
It doesn't matter how brilliant our police are at catching these types, until getting caught means as much of a loss to them as my example above, we shall see this problem continue to grow.
My own worry as this problem as well as others continues we will see ever increasing use of monitoring technologies to trap these types.
Now i have no concerns about that, but the monitoring may well be used for other purposes too, which leads us ever further into a totally surveilled society.
Again the police cannot be blamed for this, innocent people always suffer when villains get away with things so easily.
What happened to old fashioned respect for the police, similar to how we were as children and hopefully most of us still are, i've seen surprise on several policemen's faces when i've called them ''officer'', goodness knows what they get called by others.
|
GB. If you ever speak to my missus she'll bring you up to speed on my views about anti-social slobs in £200 cars, since she's listened to them on many occasions in the car.
But if you and I can spot an anti-social slob in a £200 car, and there are said to be many of them, why are the police wasting their time on families (presumably not in a £200 car) who turn out to be insured?
You make another good point. If it's the slobs in the £200 cars that are the problem, the seizure of a moving wreck isn't that much of a deterrent, is it?
|
But if you and I can spot an anti-social slob in a £200 car and there are said to be many of them why are the police wasting their time on families (presumably not in a £200 car) who turn out to be insured?
people on limited budgets drive £200 cars as well, as do people who don't want to spend any more on a car..bangernomics I believe it's called. Why should they all be labelled as anti-social slobs?
How about the people who buy a car on tick, pay 2 instalments then default on the rest, they'll be driving around in shiny new cars, no doubt with no insurance either
then there's the ones running around on stolen ones, with cloned identities, some of them can be picked up by the insurance side of things e.g. man driving cloned car that is only insured for a woman (driving the real one)
there's plenty of £20,000 cars out there with no insurance
You make another good point. If it's the slobs in the £200 cars that are the problem the seizure of a moving wreck isn't that much of a deterrent is it?
I think it is. It's a gross inconvenience, a fine of £200 (i.e. the car) and happens at the side of the road..a sort of modern 'stocks'.
|
Just to reinforce..I've seized new BMW M3's, New works vans, Driving school cars etc etc. It's not '£200 cars'. It's this generalising and frankly, ignorance, that so frustrates me.
As I've already mention, the database that flags up cars with no insurance enables my small unit to seize around 350 cars/month. Strangely you don't see 350 people in the paper complaining. (Maybe that's because they're not a member of the UKIP)
The same database also means that stopping those cars results in arrests of dizzy drivers, drink drivers, wanted persons and the generally nasty. These make up a significant portion of the 3000 people we arrested in my area last year.
So...you want us to stopp using ANPR and the MID. Fine, when one of these same dizzy/drunk drivers hits you (and everybody says it'll never happen to them) or one of them nicks your car, don't come on here whinging.
I'll point you to this thread saying that we should ignore it!
|
As WP said earlier: let's not end up in entrenched positions. But......
1) Surely the difference between a slob in his £200 car and the man into bangernomics is pretty clear.
2) OK I'm ignorant. How does a new BMW or a new works van get on the road without insurance? How did it get the VED?
|
Buy the tax..cancel the cheque.
Buy the tax..cancel the insurance, etc etc.
Some people don't care. Some people couldn't care less. The fact is the world isn't this utopia made up of black and white that many seem to think it is. If it was easy, we wouldn't have threads like this!
|
I really do understand the frustration of the police officers who have contributed to this discussion. It does seem to be a no win situation for them.
However, I also worry that the attitude seems to be one of like it or lump it, that's the way it is, it's not our fault or responsibility. Tell someone else.
My view is that who or whatever is at fault here, it is just untenable that innocent members of the public can be so inconvenienced and frankly traumatised in such a way because the system clearly does not work.
If the current method does not work then what would be the ways of improving things ?
Surely no-one wants this crazy situation to continue ?
|
|
How many cars have you seized on information subsequently found to be incorrect, such as in Mr Farndon's case?
|
Personally never. And I can't remember the last one that was. They are very few and far between. Of course maybe if they were an anti-EU zealot looking to make some warped political point, then we may have heard more.
(How did he survive the blizzard conditions and the near death experience with the steamed up car- Ray Mears could learn a thing or two)
|
(How did he survive the blizzard conditions and the near death experience with the steamed up car- Ray Mears could learn a thing or two)
Ahh good old plod sarcasm.
|
However I also worry that the attitude seems to be one of like it or lump it that's the way it is it's not our fault or responsibility. Tell someone else.
I don't like that viewpoint either, in fact I hate it, it is the 'head in the sand' mentality of a bureaucrat...but...if you can't control it, have no say over it then you're only able to suggest to people to address the people than can change things. The viewpoint of not using the legislation at all, which people in my situation could instigate (in the same manner that police officers ignore 32mph transgressions in 30mph limits), doesn't wash with me, because of the reasons mlc has just stated i.e. the amount of good the legislation does, (as well as the bad)... the real effect it is having on the 'low life' which, lets face it, is the one who should be targetted. If the current method does not work then what would be the ways of improving things ?
Very Simple. Huge great fines dished out to Insurance Co. if they transgress and compensation to the innocent, to pay all the fees, hassle etcSurely no-one wants this crazy situation to continue ?
No...as can be seen on here, it causes the innocent to be wrapped up in it.. and does enormous harm to the reputation of the police (as do other things) despite the problem not being of their making.
In fairness to everyone else on this site, i'll call it quits on this subject, unless someone specifically asks me to post....i.e it is not my place to hog the subject and get repetetive and boring about it (if I haven't already).
regards, WP
|
Buy the tax..cancel the insurance, etc etc. >>
Am I getting this right, mlc? Are you saying that someone buys a new BMW M3 and pays the VED (which will come through the dealer as part of the price) and then cancels the insurance so leaving the new BMW M3 uncovered?
|
|
|
So...you want us to stopp using ANPR and the MID. Fine when one of these same dizzy/drunk drivers hits you (and everybody says it'll never happen to them) or one of them nicks your car don't come on here whinging.
Westpig, don't try labelling this as a solely UKIP issue. I'm neither a member or supporter of UKIP, and I am strongly opposed to most of their core policies.
But you really seem very reluctant to understand the objections. I haven't seen anyone in this thread saying "don't use the database" ... just don't place blind faith in it.
If your ANPR and MID tools lead you to pull in a car and issue a producer, that's fine. And if the driver you have pulled in turns out to be drunk or unlicensed or engaged in crime, by all means arrest them; you'll certainly get my thanks for that. Just please don't go taking cars away from drivers who are otherwise law-abiding when your only evidence that they are uninsured is that broken database.
So, if you don't figure that there is a compromise between ignoring the database and placing blind faith in it, and you end up in trouble for not catching real hoodlums, don't come here whingeing (as you put it). This isn't an all-or-nothing situation, and I hope you won't treat it as such.
As a matter of interest, you say that your unit seizes 350 cars a month. How many of those seizures are for lack of an entry on the MID, and how many of them turn out to be database errors? (Most people don't complain to the papers, so newspaper reports are an inadequate measure).
BTW, I am presuming that you do carefully log such incidents of seizures where the car was insured, just not on the database, but maybe I'm assuming too much. Do you actually do that?
|
NW,
Possibly you've been a tad quick with your typing fingers, I think this needs to be addressed to mlc.
|
|
|
Read the previous post.
Frankly, I give up in this thread. You carry on living in your black and white world. Cars are stopped, checks are made, the database is sometimes wrong, chap goes on way! Very rarely, a mstake may be made. The sheer numbers of cars that are seized in the country each month and the lack of such stories like this, would suggest your accusation of blind faith is wrong.
Where is this blind faith, because I don't see it every day. Conscientious officers make every check they can prior to seizure. Of course, most people who have insurance aren't in the business of making cheap political points. These people tend to be the ones whose cars aren't seized.
Strange how the accusations of the man being 'dumped' on the motorway have dried up. The man himself has posted and showed this to be dross. Just as we said it was and got flamed for it.
Still, you could lend the chap a coat for when he has to survive his next blizzard! There's an election due soon, I'm sure you'll hear more from him. (I wonder if the sleet and steamy windows was the fault of the EU as well)
|
|
Just to make my position very clear on this. I accept that it is an important tool, too important to dump, fallible as it is. There must be a proper and agreed way of compensating people when it goes wrong - there must be proper support as well by the Insurance industry to clarify and double check roadside checks so that incorrect data is kept to a minimum - if this means 24/7 combined call centres the so be it. Add a fiver to our policies to get it right.
|
|
Sounds fair. And since the police are clearing the uninsured off the roads, that means less uninsured accidents, so less premium on our insurance to cover them. So maybe we don't even need to pay a fiver extra. Or maybe this is too good to be true ...
|
|
I don't think so. In my leafy neck of the wood there is a lot of trade in uninsured, unlicensed and untaxed cars being seized. There has to be a way linked to names, dates of birth and addresses where it links back to insurance policy holders. If this happened to me I'd be looking to cause some major trouble for my insurer, there are breaches of Data Protection Act here as well in respect of inaccurate data causing loss. I feel a campaign coming on.
|
Thing which bothers me is the premise that people who are later proven to be innocent should feel comfortable if appropriately compensated.
Again I stress that I'm not having a go at the officers who are using the information to the best level they can.
No, the point which needs to be more clearly understood is that while those who live on, or indeed over the line of legality are probably hardened to dealing with being under suspicion. Those who live their lives within the law can be extremely upset and worried by being falsely accused of wrongdoing.
I know that if were going about my normal business with or without my family in the car and such an event occured it would be very very upsetting.
I'm really not trying to point fingers or undermine anyone, I just want it to be understood and appreciated that being doubted by a police officer when totally innocent is a pretty scary place to be if you are not used to it.
|
If I pulled him over with the MID saying "NO insurance" and his answer was "sorry officer, I can't remember who my insurance company is" I would have seized his car too.
Tough, take some responsibility and remember a few simple facts about the cover which allows you to drive legally.
The mentality on this thread astounds me.
Before anyone asks, yes, if I was stopped and showed up as no insurance on the database and I was having a "moment" and had forgotten my insurance company's name then I wouldn't be complaining about my car being seized as I would make damn sure I got the fee back from the insurer as the OP has done and I would also kick myself for being so thick.
And whilst I'm on my soapbox please don't anybody say "think of the children" they were at no risk at all as the OP himself has said the police allowed them to wait in safety until the lift arrived and then let them walk the short distance up a closed sliproad to the waiting car (so that would be no more risky than a pavement then).
|
<< please don't anybody say "think of the children" they were at no risk at all >>
So Blue, your saying being sat in an immovable vehicle (no keys) on the hard shoulder of a motorway has 'no risk'???
FFS surely the vehicle and all occupants should have been moved off the motorway?
after all we are told to get out of a broken down vehicle and stay behind crash barriers until help arrives.
I don't know how long all this took, but ANY time sat on the hard shoulder of a motorway is too long, could not Stephens wife, been allowed to move the vehicle to a safe place?
Ah of course... she wasn't insured either was she?
OK... how about one of the police officers? seeing that there was 2 police cars in attendance, Im guessing 3 or 4 officers were there?
|
So Blue your saying being sat in an immovable vehicle (no keys) on the hard shoulder of a motorway has 'no risk'???
They were parked on the sliproad hardshoulder with a Police vehicle parked behind them providing cover and more vehicles apparently at the top of the road. The Police would not sit around in a dangerous position if they didn't feel that it was necessary so therefore I think it's reasonable to assume that there was no particular danger here. However, given that it's a sliproad we can of course get away with the usual hysteria about danger and oh please think of the children...
Sorry but I get this all day in a different line of work and I'm afraid it just doesn't wash with me, I've also seen the way that the media elect to only state the "facts" that make a story seem more outrageous when the truth of the matter is far more mundane.
The situation is quite simple, the guy's story was not plausible, he was listed as uninsured and neither he, nor his wife (who was the one who had taken out the policy) could remember who their insurer was (how convienient, and of course is a line trotted out by every un-insured scrote that the officers will come across) I don't think rembering the name of your insurer qualifies as having to remember a lot in order to lend credibility to your story.
Also, can someone please tell me what an un-insured person looks like? A poster seemed to suggest earlier that it's possible to tell people who are really un-insured apart from people who are the victim of a database error, now obviously the prescence of children has nothing to do with it as we all know there are lots of people who think nothing of carrying their family whilst un-insured etc. so what exactly is it that the Police should be looking out for?
|
from Stephens opening post
<< It's now about 11:15am, about 6 degrees with a sharp wind under blackening skies and we are bracing ourselves against the elements as we set off in a crocodile up the outside of the slip road the 70 yards up hill to the bridge. As if on cue it starts to sleet. I suspend disbelief at the whole situation and concentrate on the childrens' safety. I try to protect them by walking behind them and the officer is in his high-vis jacket behind me - so a car has to take out us two first before it hits Josh in front of me. We are on the white line, then there is the edge of the road and then the crash barrier. It is really unnerving when you know that you are walking on the wrong side of the road, even on a one-way street, because you know that it's the wrong way round for drivers who want to pass you. Doubly so when you can't see them coming. It is busy but thankfully drivers seem to slow down a bit as they go by. We load ourselves up into Graham's car and thaw out >>
I dont feel any real need to comment on this - other than to say, Im glad it wasnt me walking up a sliproad with running traffic.......
|
The situation is quite simple the guy's story was not plausible he was listed as uninsured
Quite possible through database error, as the police in this thread have acknowledged.
and neither he nor his wife (who was the one who had taken out the policy) could remember who their insurer was (how convienient and of course is a line trotted out by every un-insured scrote that the officers will come across)
It's a common problem. A genuine explanation by an innocent person may indeed be trotted out by a guilty person, and that's why we have courts to examine the claims and allow both sides to produce evidence to back up their position. The problem in this case is that side-of-the-road summary justice doesn't give the innocent person sufficient opportunity to back up their claim before the punishment is applied.
I don't think rembering the name of your insurer qualifies as having to remember a lot in order to lend credibility to your story.
Actually, in a lot of cases it is a lot. Several of my friends in traditional-style marriages have a gendered division of responsibility in which they have absolutely nothing to do with the running of their cars. The wheels are classed as a bloke thing so the husband organises the buying and selling, maintenance, repairs and insurance of the car, and the woman has a similar degree of responsibility for the household. Those women usually have absolutely no idea who their car is insured with, because it's an issue which only arises for them if they have an accident, and I have twice been in such a car when a minor has prompted the need for insurance details, and only a phone call to husband gets the info.
A similar situation probably applies when driving a friend's car. I have often driven cars belonging to others, based solely on their promise to me that I am covered on their insurance. Thinking back on it, the only situation where I have ever known the name of the insurance company involved was on my mother's car in Ireland, where I read it on the insurance disc. When I drove my father's car, in the days before insurance discs, I had no idea who it was insured with: I simply trusted him to have been truthful when he told me I was covered.
For other people who aren't particular into cars, insurance may just be a chore and not the sort of thing bother committing to memory. Once insurance is renewed, the docs are filed away until there's a claim or the diary flags up "renew insurance"; there's no need to memorise it.
It seems that under the new regime, people will have to adopt new practices. The trouble is that not only have people not been warned of the need to be able to prove on-the-spot that a vehicle you are driving is insured, but there isn't any clear way of establishing that proof even if you try. :(
|
NowWheels - you keep saying that the Police are delivering summary justice, they aren't IMO, that's for the court to do (lets not forget that seizing the vehicle is only the start of the process, it finishes in court). The reason the vehicle is seized is that the Police essentially have reason to believe that a crime is being commited and by seizing the car they prevent it from ongoing. No problem with that as far as I can see.
So, to take the gender division example, no problem, ring hubby and find out the name of the insurer. In this case the wife who sorted the insurance was there too and she also couldn't remember. Sorry but it would hardly look very good would it?
The alternative, which is to not seize anyone's car, was what we had until recently and it patently didn't work judging by the numbers of un-insured oiks driving around.
So what else would people suggest, if we can't seize cars on the off chance that the driver is innocent (and let's be fair, the chances of having your car wrongfully seized are very small indeed) and we know that issuing producers doesn't work then what do we do?
Keep it the way it is IMO, it seems to work, and if it makes a few people take a little more responsibility for rembering basic bread and butter stuff then all the better.
|
Reading the posts about this, I think one way of avoiding this issue is simply to know who the car is insured with.
The post claiming to be from the victim (apologies if it is, and whilst would say seems genuine there is no way of knowing), he said he could not say who he was insured with as it was done by his wife who was sat in the car, but would seem she could not remember either. From the officers point of view, I would guess this would have been very familiar territory, and would have suggested that the database was correct in flagging the car as uninsured. The post suggests the officers tried to find out who insured the vehicle, but were only supplied with the company much later in the day.
It has been stated this system is fatally flawed, with a large number of cars slipping through the net, yet in 3 years of being operational this is the first case of this type I have heard of. This would suggest to me where cars have been flagged as uninsured previously the driver has supplied the name of the insurer, and it has been resolved with a simple phone call.
|
|
Or rather fix the IT systems that allow 5% to slip through and enforce draconian penalties on insurers who fail to update the MID. Problem solved. People will always react if they feel there is an injustice. Best thing is to remove the injustice then there are no excuses.
|
Can the serving officers on here and other interested parties have a look at S153 of the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act of 2005 and in particular at the section which says:
153 Disclosure of information about insurance status of vehicles
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for and in connection with requiring MIIC to make available relevant vehicle insurance information to PITO for it to process with a view to making the processed information available for use by constables.
(2) ?Relevant vehicle insurance information? means information relating to vehicles the use of which has been (but no longer is) insured under a policy of insurance, or security in respect of third party risks, complying with the requirements of Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52).
(MIIC is Motor Insurers Information Centre. PITO is Police Information Technology Organisation)
Is this the info that is being used in this example, ie info relating to vehicles where there "no longer is" cover?
Edited by Optimist on 11/10/2008 at 23:26
|
Sorry for the confusion in my earlier post; I was indeed responding to MLC, not Westpig.
Frankly, I give up in this thread. You carry on living in your black and white world. Cars are stopped, checks are made, the database is sometimes wrong, chap goes on way! Very rarely, a mistake may be made.
Me in a b&w world???? MLC, the point that I and others have repeatedly made is that a check on the database does not produce not a black-and-white result.
You say that "Very rarely, a mistake may be made". So how rare is it? How many such seizures on your patch turn out to be wrong? And what do you do to compensate those whose vehicles were wrongly seized?
Strange how the accusations of the man being 'dumped' on the motorway have dried up. The man himself has posted and showed this to be dross.
If that's how you characterise these events, then I really hope that if I ever end up in court, I don't have you giving evidence against me! Please re-read Stephen's post, at the top of his page.
"Dumped" is probably not the best word, but then again it's only been used by you or in replies to your use of it, so that's a straw man charge. (Exaggerate the your account of the complaint, then dismiss it because of your own exaggeration).
Stephen's account is that he and his family had to leave the car. The traffic was stopped so that they could cross the slip road, and they then had to walk up the slip road between the crash barrier and the passing traffic, in the sleet. There were several police vehicles involved, but apparently none of them could even mange to give a lift up the sliproad for the baby and associated clobber?
Earlier, in the thread you wrote "I'm surprised considering we apparently make them all walk off the motorway alone..carrying their newborn in swaddling clothes." Yet now we have Stephen's account that although they weren't alone, they did walk off the motorway with a baby, and you still dismiss it all as dross.
In an earlier post you wrote "Photocopies..can be doctored. Original copies...obtained by taking out insurance policy then cancelling." So, in your book there is nothing that an insured driver can at the side of the road do to prove that they are actually insured unless they happen to be lucky enough to remember their insurance details and to be stopped at a time when those details can be checked by phone (assuming that the officer is willing to make he call and the insurer is willing to discuss the matter).
I have checked all your 16 comments in this thread, and I can find in them not the slightest shred of sympathy for Stephen and his family ... just a sneering comment that "you could lend the chap a coat for when he has to survive his next blizzard!", and further jibes because (like me) you don't share his politics.
The man has done absolutely nothing wrong except complain publicly about how he and his family were treated, as he is fully entitled to do in any free society. Even if you reckon that the officers involved were fully justified in their actions, can't you at least empathise enough with him express some sympathy for what he's been through?
You guys do an important job, and we all rely on you ... and one of things that we need for you do your job effectively is for you guys to retain public confidence, to help us believe that you are on our side and not just out to trip us up. When you sneer at the victims of a heavy-handed bureaucratic foul-up, is it any wonder that police have a bad name in some quarters? :( :(
|
Nowheels..as I've already stated, I'm thoroughly bored with this whole thread.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. 14 years of seeing non-events turned into crusades by the press and members of the public looking for an easy buck (or an easy 5000 bucks). So excuse me if I sound cynical, that's because I am! (Cue disgrace to the Police/wouldn't want to meet you on the road etc etc)
Now if you've got any questions about Ford Fiesta's, I'll be happy to answer them!
|
Midlife
How does the database cope with self insured fleet vehicles?
|
And can you answer the question I put above:
Are the police using a database specifically supplied by the insurance industry of UNINSURED cars which were once insured or of ALL cars which is said to be only 95% accurate and can be accessed by any one of us? Do you know?
I've been following threads on this forum for months, now, and I notice that mlc has a very low level of tolerance if disagreed with. It's very much a case of "I know what I'm talking about. You don't."
OK. Do you know the answer to my question? I'm quoting directly from the statute that enables the seizures. If you rely on it, you should know what it means and how it works, shouldn't you?
Just for the record: I'm sure policing is a difficult job but I don't think the police, any more than anyone else, are always right.
Edited by Optimist on 12/10/2008 at 12:45
|
I have been doing some reading of the law involved. I am not a lawyer, but am reasonably practised in finding relevant bits of legislation; experience has taught me that there are often complex issues of interpretation lurking even in apparently simple legislation, so I don't claim to have got the full picture. Here's what I have found:
Use of the Motor Insurance Database (MID)
The regulations authorising use of the Motor Insurance Database (MID) appear to be The Disclosure of Vehicle Insurance Information Regulation 2005 (SI No. 2833 of 2005), online at www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/uksi_20052833_en.pdf
Section 4(4) of the regulations say that: "A constable may use the processed information referred to in paragraph (1) or the further processed information referred to in paragraph (2) to determine whether to use his powers under section 165 of the 1988 Act to require a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of Part VI of the 1988 Act."
The non-binding guidance notes say that the MID data may be processed by PITO to make it accessible to officers, and that "A constable may use the processed information provided by PITO to assist him in deciding whether to use his powers under section 165 of the 1988 Act to require a person who is, or may have been, driving a vehicle to produce evidence that use of the vehicle is insured."
Interesting wording. The interpretation issues here are probably beyond my league, but it appears to me that the MID's legally-permitted purpose may be somewhat narrower than we have been led to believe, and it's only function is to trigger further enquiries.
Power to seize vehicles
The power to seize was conferred by section 152 of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (known as SOCPA, see text of the Act at tinyurl.com/4wakgj ). SOCPA created a new section 165A of the Road traffic Act 1988 (see unamended 1988 Act at tinyurl.com/3vvjrm ), which gives officers a power to seize a vehicle in certain conditions. The condition relating to insurance is 165A(3):
(3) The second condition is that?
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.
(Section 143 of the 1988 is the bit that requires a person to be insured to drive the car: see tinyurl.com/4tgrru )
Summary of the law
If this summary is wrong, I'll be happy to be corrected ... but it appears to me that the outline of the law is quite simple:
* Parliament has created a range of grounds allowing cars to be seized on the basis of "reasonable suspicion" by a police constable, and one of those grounds is reasonable suspicion of driving uninsured. (Law: RTA1988 section 165A(3) gives the power to seize if the officer has "reasonable grounds for believing" that the car is being driven uninsured)
*A police constable may use the MID to help make a decision as to seek more evidence of insurance. (SI No. 2833 of 2005 allows the officer concerned to use data derived from the MID "to assist him in deciding whether to use his powers" to seek evidence)
(I hope that those two points are a neutral summary)
Interpretation
So far as I can see, Westpig and MLC are right on one point: that if we don't want police to have powers to seize merely because of "reasonable suspicion", then we need to persuade parliament to repeal the clauses or overturn this in the courts. The bottom line is that if the law allows vehicles to be seized because of "reasonable suspicion", then it has set a lower standard of proof than the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold for criminal prosecution.
However, the rest of it seems less clear.
Most of this seems amounts to a question of what can be construed as "reasonable suspicion", and on that point I'm sure that there is lots of case law elsewhere. But there is a further question as to the extent to which the law allows the MID to be part of the evidence sought: it seems to me that the regs could be read as restricting the role of the MID to being merely a trigger for further enquiries, rather than using MID data as grounds for "reasonable suspicion". But I am not a lawyer :)
The problem with all this lack of clarity is that it leaves a law-abiding, insured driver unclear of what to do to avoid "reasonable suspicion".
Should we check that our car insurance is recorded on www.askmid.com ? Sounds like a good idea, but the DVLA doesn't give such advice. If we do check, how often should we check, and how can the MID be checked by someone without web access?
Should we carry the insurance policy document with us at all times when driving the car? Should we ensure that anyone else driving car has the insurance policy in their paw? That may help offset any police suspicions, but it also risks the loss of a valuable document. I don't want to keep my insurance policy in the car in case the car is stolen.
Many more questions, but the problem is that despite these draconian new police powers of seizure, neither the DVLA nor DfT nor any police force appear to give any guidance to drivers on what to do.
Edited by Webmaster on 13/10/2008 at 01:05
|
|
e-mail them to me and I'll edit them in for you.
Edited by Pugugly on 12/10/2008 at 19:25
|
i want to play devils advocate here, it seems that to many people these days seem to forget that even with an insurers database in place all drivers are LEGALLY obliged to carry the appropriate documents with them whilst in charge of a motor vehicle the database is not water tight proof of insurance it is merely a tool to be used and not to be relied upon as difinitive proof either way.
the OP would have been on his way in minetes had he been in possession of the correct documentation regardless of what the database said.
|
all drivers are LEGALLY obliged to carry the appropriate documents with them whilst in charge of a motor vehicle
I was not aware of that. If you aren't just making this up, please specify which law you are referring to.
the OP would have been on his way in minetes had he been in possession of the correct documentation regardless of what the database said.
Not necessarily so. Midlifecrisis, a serving traffic cop, has stated in this thread that documents can be faked or policies cancelled after the certificate has been issued.
If Stephen had been stopped by MLC, then even having his insurance certficate might not have helped him keep his car.
Edited by NowWheels on 12/10/2008 at 18:26
|
You certainly are not required to carry your driving licence and if there was a LEGAL requirement to carry all the others Gormless Gordon would have brought in a law that you were given a £60 on the spot fine together with the 'Producer' to show up within 5 days at a Police Station with them in your hand. If you were required to carry them producers wouldn't really exist.
|
You certainly are not required to carry your driving licence
>>
My understanding is that you ARE required to carry documents with you, BUT there is an absolute defence (or phrase similar) if the documents are produced at a police station within 7 days.
Hair splitting? Possibly.
|
If Stephen had been stopped by MLC then even having his insurance certficate might not have helped him keep his car.>>
I think you're stretching things a little there, if he'd had that then he would have known who his insurer was, the Police would have rang them and confirmed it was covered and he'd have been on his way.
The reason the car was seized imo is because the officer didn't believe his wishy washy "I can't remember who my insurers are because my wife did it, oh, and she can't remember either" story. Which will be something that he has already heard from 100 guilty people who ended up getting prosecuted, many of whom will have been driving their kids about.
|
I think you're stretching things a little there if he'd had that then he would have known who his insurer was the Police would have rang them and confirmed it was covered and he'd have been on his way.
Stephen's account is that he was explicitly told later on that nothing except the policy docs would suffice, and that a police phone call to insurer would not get his car back.
The reason the car was seized imo is because the officer didn't believe his wishy washy "I can't remember who my insurers are because my wife did it oh and she can't remember either" story. Which will be something that he has already heard from 100 guilty people who ended up getting prosecuted
I for one would have little objection if Stephen had been prosecuted. When the summons arrived, he could simply has submitted insurance documents to the court, and that'd be end of it: case thrown out.
But the problem in this case was that he was not prosecuted, he was subjected to summary justice. Instead of issuing a producer or a summons so that he could have defended himself through due process, his car was taken off him, and he had to pay hundreds to get it back, even though by the time the vehicle was released he had proven that he did have insurance at all relevant points.
It would be interesting to see what would have happened if he had refused to pay the return fee, and instead sued the police for extorting money from him. The DVLA website is unambiguous in its guidance that "For private individuals it?s the responsibility of the insurance provider to get details of a policy or changes on MID within seven days of the effective date" (see tinyurl.com/5vuwy7 ), and if the DVLA is right that it's the insurer rather than the insured person who bears responsibility, the police should recover their costs from the insurer rather than holding the vehicle ransom to a payment from the innocent party.
In this case, Stephen's insurer offered to reimburse his costs, but what if he was one of the many people who couldn't readily find the £500 to get his car back even though he had produced the insurance documents? Would the police still have disposed of the car as if he was one of the uninsured?
|
|
Our Police BRs have already said how easy it is to forge documents or insure, get documents and cancel. They have to make tough decisions, and being human occaisionally get it wrong.
|
Under the Road Traffic Act an officer may stop any vehicle being driven on a road. This may result in different procedures, for example the requirement to produce documents such as a driving licence, insurance details etc. Under this Act the vehicle may also be examined for road-worthiness
maybe 'legally' was the wrong word but there is an expectation of compliance
|
maybe 'legally' was the wrong word but there is an expectation of compliance
Mercifully, we live in a country where the police's "expectation of compliance" is not the same thing as a legal requirement, except in certain defined situations.
So far as I know the "requirement to produce documents" to which you refer exists only as a requirement to produce them at a police station within 7 days if given a notice requiring you to do so.
|
e-mail them to me and I'll edit them in for you.
Thanks v much, PU. Email sent
|
ok time for me to fess up and be a man about this I WAS WRONG about a legal requirement i was getting things messed up, there is a legal requirement to produce your documents when asked to do so by a uniformed police officer and a producer can be given if you dont do this, BUT if the police officer thinks that the vehicle is being driven without insurance (reasonable suspicion) and in this case the OP not being able to name his insurance company and the database saying he had no insurance i personally believe the police officers has valid rights to seize the vehicle under section 165(a) of the road traffic act 1988.
so really even though its not illegal not to carry your docs it still makes sense to do so and in this case i dont think the OP was at all unfairly treated
|
There is a requirement to produce your documents when requested by a Police Officer. Failure to do so is an offence. That offence is committed there and then.
However!!!
(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that?
(a) within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or
(b) it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or
(c) it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced
The above relates to Insurance and Test Certificates but Driving Licences and Registration Documents have the same provisions.
The HO/RT1 (Producer) is not an official document it is just to assist in the administration of the production process.
|
|
Do you issue many of them these days ?
|
in the old days Form HO/RT1 (producer) was dished out far more than nowadays.
Some years back, there was a 'diktat' that they would not be processed by admin units unless they were for a specific reason e.g. accompanied by an accident book or traffic offence report book... so the issuing of the things because an officer thought someone might not have insurance has virtually ceased..and surprise, surprise nowadays there are near record numbers of people with no insurance... that was a good 15 years ago, plus.
i think it was done because admin units didn't want to spend so much time chasing them up and wanted to concentrate on crime admin
|
|
Most of the details that you need are on PNC though aren't they ?
|
|
nowadays yes...and with Mobile Data Terminals you can check yourself instead of having to call a control room on the radio...but for a good 10 years there was a big void
|
Only for Insurance when it cannot be validated. Oh my *** what have I just said ;-0
For those with mobile data its a breeze. For those without its a radio check with an operator. At busy times sometimes its easier to dish out an HORT to avoid unnecessarily delaying the driver; unless of course they are prepared to wait.
Now I wonder whether our £5.5 M in the Icelandic bank account was our mobile data fund?
|
Now I wonder whether our £5.5 M in the Icelandic bank account was our mobile data fund?
>>
nah that was your pension
|
Hypothetically, let's say there is now a procedural review, and it is decided to go back to producers where drivers cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt they are insured.
Police stop a car flagged as uninsured, but the driver (or passengers including the person who took out the policy) cannot say who the insurer is.
Guidelines now state car cannot be seized as status is unproven and must assume driver is honest and innocent. Car later turns out to be uninsured, then causes an accident and huge carnage.
Where would the posters opposed to the current system stand? Would they all be applauding the Police for not using these draconian powers to hold the car 'to ransom'? Or would there be a general baying for blood asking how the Police could allow these drivers to be on the road, with just a producer?
Personally I don't believe the Police seize these cars so they can be thankful all cars are insured when they attend accidents. I do however believe it is more the case they, and everyone else involved is hoping none of the cars involved are uninsured.
|
Guidelines now state car cannot be seized as status is unproven and must assume driver is honest and innocent. Car later turns out to be uninsured, then causes an accident and huge carnage.
My preferred solution would be to issue a producer provided that that driver can be positively identified, and that the officer is satisfied that he can be apprehended later if the car does turn out to be uninsured. Seizure should be reserved for cases where there is a high degree of certainty that the car is uninsured, or where the driver cannot be identified as someone who can be nicked later if required.
So don't ditch these draconian powers, just use them as a last resort ... and if they turn out to have been used in error, the police should promptly apologise, return the car to the driver and compensate them to ensure that they are not out of pocket. It's a disgrace that the current system requires the innocent to pay for police mistakes, and if the police want to blame the insurers for a database failure, they should argue it out with the insurer rather than with the innocent party.
The accident scenario is just an an emotive red herring: being uninsured neither causes accidents nor increases the level of carnage, it just affects compensation. I don't want law-abiding drivers to cover the costs of the uninsured, but insurance doesn't fix broken limbs or bring back the dead.
|
To a certain degree I agree with you on this. If the Police are the ones who took the money from the driver, then yes they should return the money, and bill the insurer for any costs incurred through their error.
Can anyone confirm if the insurer would then pursue the Police to recoup the costs returned to the driver? If the Police are keeping the money, then this the costs incurred will only be passed back to the driver.
Where I work our bonus system is tailored so that corrective work is correctly not included- and has a much greater impact on quality awareness (incidentally 95% accuracy would not be tolerated- has to 100% all the time).
|
To a certain degree I agree with you on this. If the Police are the ones who took the money from the driver then yes they should return the money and bill the insurer for any costs incurred through their error.
Police don't collect the money..keep it..make a profit from it. It's paid directly to the recovery agent.
Sometimes People don't pay and the recovery yard loses out. It's the chance they take when they apply to be on the scheme.
(Can't believe that I've just been responsible for keeping this thread running..still, some posters will have nothing else to do if it ends ;) )
|
Police don't collect the money..keep it..make a profit from it. It's paid directly to the recovery agent. Sometimes People don't pay and the recovery yard loses out. It's the chance they take when they apply to be on the scheme.
It doesn't surprise me that the police have contracted out the service, but that doesn't alter the fact that the service was engaged by the police rather the person whose car was towed.
If the car is seized due a police mistake (whatever the cause of that mistake), then it's the responsibility of the police to foot the bill rather than leave it to be paid by the victim.
AFAIK, this already applies in other cases. If the police break down my front door in their hunt for some hoodlum and it turns out that a computer error sent them here instead of somewhere else, they'll pay to have it reinstated. Why not do the same if they seize my car because they relied on a computer which turned out to be wrong?
|
being uninsured neither causes accidents nor increases the level of carnage, it just affects compensation.
It doesn't even do that, does it? Isn't there some central fund?
|
>> being uninsured neither causes accidents nor increases the level of carnage it just affects >> compensation. It doesn't even do that does it? Isn't there some central fund?
Mappie, you're right. I should have written something like "it affects who pays the compensation". The central fund is of course paid for by insurers, who get their funds from those who do insure their cars, so we are picking up the bills for the uninsured.
|
My preferred solution would be to issue a producer provided that that driver can be positively identified,
If I was a BiB with discretion to use my own mind, rather be required to follow "guidelines" as if they were tablets of stone, I might approach it as follows:
Computer says "NO" insurance. Stop the car, check driver Driving Licence, MOT, cursory look to check if car appears well maintained/roadworthy. If all OK, then allow driver to explain why computer says NO. Form an opinion of whether in light of answers/story given, decide whether driver is likely to be telling porkies.
Make judgement call on whether to give producer or take car off the road there and then.
Commonsense as per Fullchat's link, not the Little Britain "Computer says NO" approach.
|
"Form an opinion of whether in light of answers/story given, decide whether driver is likely to be telling porkies."
And if you're opinions wrong?? Just hope they're not carrying children or are members of UKIP. NowWheels will have her henchmen after you :)
Edited by Pugugly on 13/10/2008 at 18:41
|
And if you're opinions wrong?? Just hope they're not carrying children or are members of UKIP. NowWheels will have her henchmen after you :)
Her henchwomen, probably. :)
Though we might turn a blind eye if it's a member of UKIP who's been nicked ... at least until UKIP is prepared to have men clean behind their own fridges: news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3912205.stm
|
Just hope they're not carrying children or are members of UKIP.
Membership of UKIP has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. The only reaon it has become relevant is that maybe a person who has the initiative to join such an organisation is also one who is unlikely to let instances of abuses of power go by without questioning them.
In the case in question, if ticked all the boxes for ID/driving-licence, MOT, VED, well maintained car, then I would have jsudged his story to be extremely believable.
The presence of his wife and children would have counted towards handing a producer.
Commonsense. As Fullchat laments, it seems to be all to lacking.
Guidelines are guidelines.
To be applied within reason by a resonable human being, not by an automaton who is the caricature featured in Little Britain's "Computer says NO". Otherwise we are living in a Stasi Police State.
|
But that's still not really enough evidence though is it? There are plenty of MOT'd and well maintained cars driving around with no insurance. By those tests the driver of the Mercedes SL that I saw seized on Road Wars would have driven off when in fact the car was un-insured. If the driver in that case had named an insurer then of course the situation would have been avoided.
For me I'm afraid the forgetfulness re the insurance company name would have tipped me towards seizure every time. Obviously some people have lower standards than I do :)
|
For me I'm afraid the forgetfulness re the insurance company name would have tipped me towards seizure every time. Obviously some people have lower standards than I do :)
Can't speak for others, but my problem is that I have higher standards: I don't think people should have their car removed just 'cos they don't remember who it's insured with.
It should have been fairly easy to establish on-the-spot that the car was taxed and MOTed, and registered to the driver or his wife. There'd have beeen plenty of time to seize the car later if the driver hadn't produced the insurance docs with 7 days.
From the police repies on this thread, it seem sthat the reason the police resort so rapidly to seizure is that their admin staff don't like chasing up producers, but seizures are handled by a bounty-hunting private company which makes its money out of he seizures. It's another revenue-raising approach to policing, except that in this case the revenue apparently goes not to the police but to a private company.
|
Sadly though for every genuine driver who simply cannot recall who they're insured with the Police deal with thousands who trot out the same line in the vain attempt to get away with a producer.
To quote from the OP on this thread
Some gorey details for you to chew on:-
Yes, the officer did ask me who I was insured with. In fact that was the second thing that he asked me after asking if I was the owner of the vehicle. It seems, from an entry on another forum by a policeman, that this is what the experienced ones have learned to do to try and cross-check the info from the ANPR. Truth is that I couldn't remember on them spot,
So, it would seem the officers did make a concerted effort to resolve this without resorting to seizing the car. The only other option would have been to take the OP at face value and call every insurance company. Daily experience may well have hardened their attitude, no matter how honest or genuine this situation may have appeared.
The onus really needs to be on improving the MID and simply not tolerating it. One solution could be motorists receiving 2-3 months free cover if is found the car is not added within 24 hours. Would guess a hit on revenue would spur the insurers into action.
|
So it would seem the officers did make a concerted effort to resolve this without resorting to seizing the car. The only other option would have been to take the OP at face value and call every insurance company.
Not so, because the question did not have to be resolved on-the-spot. The commonsense option was to establish whether the driver or his spouse was the registered owner of the vehicle, and issue a producer.
|
NowWheels - you're right that this would have been a legal recourse for the Police, but it's hardly very effective is it? If they have no insurance they simply don't produce it and can carry on driving for ages before they will get caught.
This way they are off the road immediately. Judging by the huge successes I still think that I'd rather they were as pro-active as they are rather than relying on an archaic producer system that has never been very successful.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree :)
|
NowWheels - you're right that this would have been a legal recourse for the Police but it's hardly very effective is it? If they have no insurance they simply don't produce it and can carry on driving for ages before they will get caught.
Nope, it can work perfectly well. They have seven days to produce the insurance, and if they haven't done it by then the registration is flagged on the police computer and the car does get seized. It'll be spotted quickly enough by the ANPR cameras which bristle all over thre roads.
This way they are off the road immediately. Judging by the huge successes I still think that I'd rather they were as pro-active as they are rather than relying on an archaic producer system that has never been very successful.
Read what the traffic cops themselves say: the producer system has been unsuccessful because police admin staff have chosen not to bother using it. When combined with the ANPR system which caight the uninsured car in the first place, there's no reason at all why it can't work ... except that police having been given a draconian power that they can use without financial penalty have no incentive to show restraint.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree :)
Don't expect any sympathy if your car gets seized :)
|
Whilst I would happily share the tale if it did get seized I certainly wouldn't be looking for sympathy after my arguments :)
|
Whilst I would happily share the tale if it did get seized I certainly wouldn't be looking for sympathy after my arguments :)
How about putting it another way then.
You get stopped as your insurer has not put the details on the database. But you have your insurance certificate with you. Which do you think the Police will believe? I bet you £100 it wont be the bit of paper you have on you.
So they then take it a step further and call the insurance company, it's a Sunday and they are having computer maintenance so can't access the system, but the telephone CS agent says their records are almost always 100% accurate.
End result, your car gets seized, your left to sort out 2 other peoples laziness!!!!
I hope it never happens to you!!
|
Nope it can work perfectly well. They have seven days to produce the insurance and if they haven't done it by then the registration is flagged on the police computer and the car does get seized. It'll be spotted quickly enough by the ANPR cameras which bristle all over thre roads.
So car is caught again by ANPR camera and stopped.
Driver " Sorry Guv..I was stopped a week ago but have got it insured now. Learnt my lesson. I only insured it yesterday and it's not showing up yet. Can't remember who I insured it with..been busy"
Not as simple as it sounds is it!
|
Can't remember who I insured it with..been busy" Not as simple as it sounds is it!
The only conclusion I can draw from your posts is that your judgement is now seriously inpaired due to the number of crooks you come in to contact with in your profession.
In the bad old days, the Police had no way of telling if any car on the road was insured or not, and if for some suspicious reason the driver was stopped, he/she would given a producer.
Now with the MID database, some Police such as MLC seem to regard it as an infallible tool and seem to have lost all commonsense just because there are some untrustworthy people out there. You do not even trust a paper certificate as proof any more. you seem instead to have a blind faith in a flawed database, which as anyone who knows anything about databses will tell you, can never be 100% reliable. Computers are only as accurate as the dumb people who use them, including some [not all] daft Police who seem to think these things are infallible.
The MID database should be used as a tool that gives you reason to stop a car and make further enquiries. What it does is that if you pass 100% cars in a day and 5% are flagged up as uninsured, the Police should think "this car requires further investigation, it may be uninsured or it may be a databasee error. Let us see if driver has some some 'previous' or other 'suspicious' circumstances about him to merit further action. Otherwise give him a producer, and if he is genuine he will have a chance to get his Insurer to correct the MID databse. If he is lying, the failure to respond to the producer will sort that out."
p.s. Some daft people do not know that if you alter records/files on a computer, the changes can be tracked and discovered. Tony Blair's WMD dodgy dossier, and Andrew Gilligan's notes of meeting with Dr. Kelly were all found to have been "altered". This led to Microsoft issuing a special tool to allow such tracks to be erased. However, yesterday a Met Officer giving evidence in the Menezes inquest has been found out to have altered some computer notes! Computers, who can trust them?
|
The MID database should be used as a tool that gives you reason to stop a car and make further enquiries.
If you look at the relevant legislation which I posted above (see www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68037&...e ), that is all the only legally-authorised purpose of the Motor Insurance Database.
Section 4(4) of the regulations say that: "A constable may use the processed information referred to in paragraph (1) or the further processed information referred to in paragraph (2) to determine whether to use his powers under section 165 of the 1988 Act to require a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of Part VI of the 1988 Act."
Any officer stoopid enough to rely on the database rather than on other evidence may find himself facing a legal challenge for unlawful seizure of the vehicle.
|
Any officer stoopid enough to rely on the database rather than on other evidence
NW - I agree fully with all your comments in this thread.
|
seem to regard it as an infallible tool and seem to have lost all commonsense just because there are some untrustworthy people out there. You do not even trust a paper certificate as proof any more. you seem instead to have a blind faith in a flawed database which as anyone who knows anything about databses will tell you can never be 100% reliable. Computers are only as accurate as the dumb people who use them including some [not all] daft Police who seem to think these things are infallible.
NW, I'm beginning to think you are deliberately baiting this for a response, i believe the terminology is a troll.
Has it occurred to you, that maybe a huge number of people using this database KNOW it has flaws, but like they do in a number of other ways with other legislation or guidelines, 'just get on with it', flaws or not, working on the basis that the good it does outweighs the bad..in this case an enormous amount of good versus some high profile boo-boos where it has gone wrong. With a wife in the teaching profession and a close family member as a GP, i'm aware it is the same in their professions as well..i.e. we don't live in that dream world where everything is 100% correct, back in the real world many, many people have to do their best with what they've got and trying to change things for the better is like swimming in quick sand.
Terminology like 'infallible tool', 'blind faith' and 'dumb people' is presumptious, rude and ignorant. A number of people inc myself have, at great length, tried to explain the intracies.
The current law is a damned good tool to prevent people driving around with no insurance. In some respects it is the best bit of legislation for years to directly benefit the street cop..but as discussed, there are flaws that need ironing out. Ultimately as our legislators have provided it, it works very well in most respects, there are guidelines to junior officers try to iron out difficulties and these are closely managed by police managers and the legislation directly, mostly, hurts people with no inclination to purchase insurance, then it is used by the police..and i'm glad of that
The MID database should be used as a tool that gives you reason to stop a car and make further enquiries. What it does is that if you pass 100% cars in a day and 5% are flagged up as uninsured the Police should think "this car requires further investigation it may be uninsured or it may be a databasee error.
that is what goes on now... day in day out
Otherwise give him a producer and if he is genuine he will have a chance to get his Insurer to correct the MID databse. If he is lying the failure to respond to the producer will sort that out."
How?..... When my lot parade for work and are apprised of what has been going on and briefed who is wanted, what arrest enquiries are needed that shift, what crime priority patrols there are, any vulnerable victims of crime aqnd the plethora of other things required of them etc, etc...and then deal with the calls that come in for the day they struggle to achieve that work quota and more often than not stuff gets left behind. It is frightening the callls via 999 or less urgent ones that are not even responded to, let alone dealt with days later..many police areas near me have a 50% or so success? rate for achieving 'I' (Immediate) calls within 12 miniutes, which is dreadful...who is going to do these follow up 'no insurance' enquiries? Traffic officer posts have been slashed, some CID officers have more than 40 crimes sat on their desks... When you stop someone for no insurance, it's deal then or not deal at all.
I'd agree in an ideal world it wouldn't be like it...but back with reality, it is. It is total 100% pie in the sky to expect a producer to be issued and then follow up enqs after 7 days...it will not, can not happen with present resources.
I find it amazing how armchair experts presume to know how to deal with these things, yet with other professions you wouldn't begin to bother.
|
Oh, come on.
One of the pleasures of joining in a forum is being an armchair expert. And I'm sure everyone has criticised the medical, teaching, public sector professions from time to time; the public sector in general often gets a kicking on here.
The law may be ok. The tool - the database - is not. And the argument that the good outweighing the bad justifies the bad is very dodgy indeed, I think. Why not calibrate speed cams to 95% accuracy and say that's ok, too?
Is it really resources or is it use of resource time that's the problem? Why can't one of the numerous support people follow up on producers?
|
Why can't one of the numerous support people follow up on producers?
concentrating on crime case papers, PCSO's not qualified and wanted for patrol on the streets, employed to do specific work unrelated to investigative working with public role......not my area of expertise, so only informed opinion
would please me greatly if there were people allocated to such a task
|
NW, I'm beginning to think you are deliberately baiting this for a response
You mean me, and no I am not baiting anyone.
it's deal then or not deal at all.
Fair enough, make a decision on how trustworthy the driver is based on his compliance with other matters [MOT, VED, well maintained car, etc.] and let them go if you do NOT have the necessary resources to do a proper job.
I find it amazing how armchair experts presume to know how to deal with these things, yet with other professions you wouldn't begin to bother.
I certainly hope that the case in question will lead to re-examination of the way in which the Police are currently defending their actions in this particular case, and how they handle future MIB database false-positives. The presumption on each and every occasion must be that the MIB database is wrong when out of every 100 cars you pass, 5 are shown as being without insurance [due to the inherent errors in the MIB data].
As NW has pointed out, the database is a starting point for further enquiries to be made, not the end. That is how the law was drafted but is being misapplied but the BiBs at the coalface seem to be rigidly misapplying it.
Unfortunately not uncommon in the UK today, as I find it in many other walks of life where a blanket pat answer is given by the "customer-facing" staff who have
either not been trained properly,
and/or had the opportunity to be made fully conversant with the intricate details of the matter they are dealing with
and/or do not have the discretion to apply commonsense
and/or do not have the mental capacity to do any of the above.
|
apologies to NW...(although it makes us even now)..:-)
>>and let them go if you do NOT have the necessary resources to do a proper job.
that is not what the legislators have asked us to do, is it. They've given us a package, it works pretty well most of the time, but has some flaws. We get on with it and try our best, in difficult circs to make it work. Not our place to ignore it...particularly as mostly it's working
>>The presumption on each and every occasion must be that the MIB database is wrong when out of every 100 cars you pass 5 are shown as being without insurance [due to the inherent errors in the MIB data].
If you did that the law would be unworkable. What about other indices...shall we ignore the PNC (Police National Computer), that must have errors some times. Or do we get on with it as best we can, using a number of lines of enquiry..and if still in doubt seize the car, as govt has enacted.
Look at it another way. To arrest someone for an offence a Constable only has to have 'reasonable suspicion' of a relevant offence. They don't go around dragging in everyone they fancy, but there are people on occasions that are arrested, who susbesequently are proven to be wholly innocent. They are dusted down, apologised to if it is appropriate (some don't help themselves in the slightest and could avoid it)...would you propose a ban of the power of arrest generally unless the power was used 100% correctly, with the benefit of that lovely thing we all wish we could have earlier..hindsight?
No. You'd ensure there were decent guidelines, tighten up the law if you need to, make sure staff are reasonably or well trained, well managed and remind them of their responsibilities, in particualr with maintaining public confidence.
In the case of no insurance seizures, there are decent guidelines, the law does need tightening, staff have been trained, they are closely managed (some think too closely) and nowadays the Old Bill are constantly reminded of their responsibilities to the public
|
Look at it another way. To arrest someone for an offence a Constable only has to have 'reasonable suspicion' of a relevant offence. They don't go around dragging in everyone they fancy but there are people on occasions that are arrested who susbesequently are proven to be wholly innocent.
I believe it still to be the case that a person can resist a wrongful arrest, so if you know your car is insured yet you are arrested you can legally resist that arrest!! Can't wait for the first case like that to happen.
And I have a better knowledge then you realise of the Police Force, both my sister and BIL are in the force, maybe thats why I am so anti the databases as I am only too well aware of their fallibility!!!!!
|
I believe it still to be the case that a person can resist a wrongful arrest so if you know your car is insured yet you are arrested you can legally resist that arrest!! Can't wait for the first case like that to happen.
an arrest can be perfectly lawful..i.e. it was correct at the time or the officer believed it to be correct at the time with the 'reasonable suspicion'...(obviously they'd have to have something to form their reasonable suspicion)
then, when more facts become available e.g. a witness statement or viewing of CCTV it transpires that person was not the culprit...then the person would be released pronto
nothing unlawful about the whole process and if that person had resisted arrest in the first place, they'd be in serious doo-doo
which just goes to show what a limited knowledge of the system can do to your thought processes on a subject matter
|
which just goes to show what a limited knowledge of the system can do to your thought processes on a subject matter
Or even "What limited information in a system can do your thought process on a subject matter"
I rest my case!
|
Here we go again eh WP, a bad work man always blames their tools!!!
"We have to use it", "We don't make the rules" etc, etc, etc.
If I use a system that is floored then I report it and stop using it until it is fixed. Stop using the get out clauses above.
A system that gets 1000 criminals but then gets 1 law abiding person should be scrapped, why should the law abiding amongst us have to suffer because "it's the best we have". It is not, we had a better system, the 7 day special, but the Police decide it is easier to use the MID, as I said earlier it is laziness.
|
A system that gets 1000 criminals but then gets 1 law abiding person should be scrapped why should the law abiding amongst us have to suffer because "it's the >>best we have".
how wonderfully simplistic...can you tell me of anything else on an subject, anywhere in the world that is 100% perfect?
>>It is not we had a better system the 7 day special but the Police decide it is easier
to use the MID as I said earlier it is laziness.
total tosh of the highest order. You don't have to believe me, or any of the other similar posters on here. It is relatively easy to arrange a visit to your local police, most areas do a 'ride-along' type scheme, where you sign a disclaimer and go out on patrol for a night. See for yourself.
|
So car is caught again by ANPR camera and stopped. Driver " Sorry Guv..I was stopped a week ago but have got it insured now. Learnt my lesson. I only insured it yesterday and it's not showing up yet. Can't remember who I insured it with..been busy" Not as simple as it sounds is it!
It's very simple. The answer is:
You had seven days to produce your insurance documents and show that the vehicle was insured at the time you were stopped a week ago. You didn't do that, which is an offence in itself ... and you have also just told me that you only insured it yesterday, so that means you were not insured last week. So on your own admission all your answers last week were a pile of porkies, which gives me no resaon to believe you now.
So we're seizing your car. We hope you're not too busy to appear in court and defend yoyrself on a string of charges.
|
Daily experience may well have hardened their attitude, no matter how honest or genuine this situation may have appeared The onus really needs to be on improving the MID and simply not tolerating it. One solution could be motorists receiving 2-3 months free cover if is found the car is not added within 24 hours. Would guess a hit on revenue would spur the insurers into action.
Agreed. Commonsense.
In this particular case, I think an apology from all parties after the event might have defused the situation.
|
>> Now I wonder whether our £5.5 M in the Icelandic bank account was our mobile >> data fund? >> nah that was your pension
And this year the Christmas party will be at Dunkin Donuts.
|
mlc said >> So car is caught again by ANPR camera and stopped.
Driver " Sorry Guv..I was stopped a week ago but have got it insured now. Learnt my lesson. I only insured it yesterday and it's not showing up yet. Can't remember who I insured it with..been busy"
Not as simple as it sounds is it! >>
Er, yes. A week has gone by. Are you saying the bloke has or hasn't complied with the producer? If he has, no doubt you can check. If he hasn't, whatever he says, he's still uninsured and that's when you seize the car.
If this isn't "reasonable suspicion" as in the statute, I don't know what is!
Edited by Optimist on 14/10/2008 at 10:40
|
"Why can't one of the numerous support people follow up on producers?"
I'm sure a resident officer will confirm that one of the big downsides with a producer is the vehicle driver has the opportunity to choose which station he is to present himself at. This is to cover the issue of those who may live miles away from the offence and may not return to the area they were stopped ever again. They can produce at their local station.
I have occasional dealings with police admin and even dealing across stations in the same city can be a nightmare - I currently have a situation which has been picked up by two different area police stations and they are unaware of each others enquiry. Imagine trying to match up a producer given in one area with a force miles away who uses a call centre to answer calls. It could take days for each one.
|
I have occasional dealings with police admin and even dealing across stations in the same city can be a nightmare >>
Why? Most large organisations can manage. Scan the paper in at one place and send it to the one the punter chooses.
If you went into your bank and they said you couldn't have any money because it wasn't your branch, I'd imagine you'd be furious. What's the difference? It's just a bit of technology.
|
Why? Most large organisations can manage. Scan the paper in at one place and send it to the one the punter chooses.
it is normally sent via post (internal if the same outfit) so you have the originals. Usually for a prosecution good evidence is to have the originals, although not always essential.
It's not the technology that is the problem, although some of that can be woeful due to budget restraints.
it's usually not enough staff to do all the jobs that are necessary. The unimportant stuff drops off the bottom. HO/RT1's (producers) are not a high priority and haven't been for many years.
|
it's usually not enough staff to do all the jobs that are necessary. The unimportant stuff drops off the bottom. HO/RT1's (producers) are not a high priority and haven't been for many years.
So, the real issue here is of police priorities; VED, insurance and MOT compliance haven't been high on your list. Everyone has to prioritise, and that may or may not be an unreasonable set of priorities, but the problem her is the way that it became a high priority when you had draconian powers.
Do you now have some targets to meet?
|
If you went into your bank and they said you couldn't have any money because it wasn't your branch I'd imagine you'd be furious. What's the difference? It's just a bit of technology.
Big difference. We have a choice of banks, but not a choice of police officers.
If my bank messes me around, I can use another one ... but if my local police force decides it's seizing my car because it couldn't be bothered to sort out the admin systems which would make immediate seizure unnecessary, I can't choose another force without moving house ... so we have to rely on them to deal with us in a spirit of public service.
I just checked the mission statement of West Yorkshire Police (at tinyurl.com/4crfbg ):
The purpose of West Yorkshire Police is to uphold the law fairly and firmly: to prevent crime; to pursue and bring to justice those who break the law; to keep the Queen's peace; to protect, help and reassure the community: and to be seen to do all this with integrity, common sense and sound judgement.
We must be compassionate, courteous and patient, acting without fear or favour or prejudice to the rights of others. We need to be professional, calm and restrained in the face of violence and apply only that force which is necessary to accomplish our lawful duty.
We must strive to reduce the fears of the public and, so far as we can, to reflect their priorities in the action we take. We must respond to well-founded criticism with a willingness to change.
The officers participating in this thread haven't offered much evidence that they are trying to "protect, help and reassure the community", let alone that they "respond to well-founded criticism with a willingness to change".
Maybe they aren't from West Yorkshire, but the Met promises to "build trust by listening and responding" and to "learn from experience and find ways to be even better (see www.met.police.uk/about/mission.htm). GMP promises to be "a Force which listens and learns", and is "open and accountable" (see www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/forcevision.htm ).
Other forces make similar promises, but this thread doesn't give me much confidence that this is what's happening. The attitude I'm picking up here is that there's listening but no learning, and a distinct unwillingness to strive to use police powers in a way which minimises hassle to the public. The response seems to me to amount to "we have a power, so we'll use it" and "we can't fix our admin systems, so we'll just use our draconian powers instead". Not very encouraging :(
|
NW,
If you had poor service at your local A&E would you chastise the poor sod behind the counter, chew the head off the nearest stressed nurse, march up to the only doctor and berate them
or
write to your MP, the Chief Executive etc and try to get the issue addressed by the PEOPLE THAT CAN CHANGE IT
lumping 'the police' together shows either ignorance or an underlying issue that is pushing this. You don't come across as all that ignorant.
|
If you had poor service at your local A&E would you chastise the poor sod behind the counter chew the head off the nearest stressed nurse march up to the only doctor and berate them
I haven't had poor service myself. I'm talking about a case in which I had no involvement, discussing it with people within the system while I try to learn as much as I can about how it actually works and what their attitude is to it.
write to your MP the Chief Executive etc and try to get the issue addressed by the PEOPLE THAT CAN CHANGE IT
When approaching any issue, I always start from the bottom and work up. Systems very rarely work the way that the people in charge think they do, let alone how those who designed them intended that they should work, and the story from the frontline is crucial to any understanding what's happening.
lumping 'the police' together shows either ignorance or an underlying issue that is pushing this. You don't come across as all that ignorant.
Underlying issue? Very simple, I don't like seeing ordinary people propelled into a bureaucratic nightmare. It's far too common these days, to find a system whose intent may have been laudable, but which ends up making life impossible for people who get caught in its corners.
When that system is a police system, the consequences for the public tend to be much more severe than if it's a commercial company.
|
I'm sure a resident officer will confirm that one of the big downsides with a producer is the vehicle driver has the opportunity to choose which station he is to present himself at. This is to cover the issue of those who may live miles away from the offence and may not return to the area they were stopped ever again. They can produce at their local station.
Why is this a problem? The police have computers, and can use them for this sort of situation.
When a producer is issued, log it on the computer, along with any relevant notes. (That can either be done on the spot if the force concerned has mobile data, or done by back-office staff). Then when the person presents the documents, at whatever station, they can be assessed in the light of any comments made by the officer who stopped them. I'm sure we'll have a traffic officer along in a moment to moan about the paperwork involved, but it need be no more paperwork than is involved in seizing a vehicle.
The question of being able to lodge at any police station is really important. If someone lives in London but is driving in Cumbria, then a round-trip to show the paperwork in Carlisle is a journey of 600 miles. If the driver isn't breaking the law, why require them to do that?
Unfortunately, that's exactly what will be involved if the car is seized. Get out of car, take taxi to station. Return train fare to London for immediate travel could easily cost £200, then add in £300 costs to be paid to the bounty-hunting private company who towed the car, and there's a bill of £500 even if there is only one person involved and no accommodation costs.
Once again it seems that because police forces haven't sorted out their admin, the system is being run in a way which places all the burden on the citizen. :(
|
Once again it seems that because police forces haven't sorted out their admin the system is being run in a way which places all the burden on the citizen. :(
the admin is one element of it...and for some years police admins have not concentrated on form HO/RT1. The other element is the staffing levels needed to chase up people who don't comply. As things stand today, the system could not cope with that, when i joined over 25 years ago, it mostly did so.
if you argued that considerably more police officers across the country were needed to do what they used to do 20 years ago plus i.e. stop people, issue producers and run around after people when they didn't comply...then i'd agree with you
sadly that isn't going to happen..due to the costs alone...so we've got a compromise. That compromise works quite well..but has flaws. I'd agree about the civil liberty element i.e. losing your car when you have in fact got insurance..but there's another angle of civil liberty...and that is driving around not having to worry about some clown with no insurance...because the authorities are taking them off the road
what grates with me, is when the people trying to make the system work, get the jip for all the ails e.g. underfunding, skewed priorities, flawed legislation, etc...
ho hum, there's a saying in the police "If you can't take a joke don't join the Job."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
