sol
depends
the information is potentially available on the computer system that you can read in a car..but... not everyone is authorised to access it i.e. unless you've had training, you're not allowed to have that level of access and it won't show up on the machine, the bit you want is 'greyed' out
many officers have to rely on the radio and an operator in a control room to do their searches for them...and that assistance can be variable, because that role has a noticeable turn over rate...although to be fair, quite a few are spot on.
the other thing is... are your own insurance details on the database, have you checked ASKMID...because obviously if they're not, then there would be a hint that you maybe you haven't got insurance...albeit obviously you have
|
Sol- you appear to have had all the relevant answers already on the other forum. If you're not happy, complain. It matters not if you turn out to be wrong. And get the slip on the ticket in to request a court hearing asap - you can't afford to miss the cut off date.
I'm slightly perplexed as to why you're going through the whole thing on a second forum. The devil is in the detail as you've already been advised and you may have to get this tested in court. No amount of forum use will prevent that if the ticket has been issued correctly. If the officers are wrong, you're able to do as you see fit.
|
There are a lot of grey areas with DOC cover and the use you described in the other forum is really an abuse of the what was originally intended with DOC cover - the idea was that, for example, if your car was blocked in at a party then you could legally (with the owners permission) move the other car out of the way if the owner was over the limit. It was never intended that people would regularly use other cars relying on the DOC cover. There was talk a few years ago of DOC cover being dis-continued but that doesn't seem to have happened.
Having said that, I accept that legally you probably were covered. What some Police Officers seem to do (this has come up a few times on forums now) is that if there is any doubt in their minds then they issue a ticket. There have been reports of cars being seized too, and the Police refusing to pay costs even when they've been shown to be wrong.
If you're going to regularly use another car then you should get yourself on the policy as a named driver.
|
Also - I just read through the other forum thread and you're on very dodgy ground regularly using another car that isn't insured. Can you always be certain that wherever you take it you'll be able to park somewhere that isn't considered to be part of the public highway?
(DOC cover has been shown to allow for an incidental stop on a journey, ie to pick something up, but you can't leave the car for any period of time).
|
|
|
Quote from my insurance certificate: 'The policyholder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car that they do not own.'
Clear, unequivocal and no mention of any exclusions.
Having said that, I always understood that part of the cover was, as BP says above, for very limited use - named driver unable to continue due to illness, that sort of thing.
The schedule points out the driving other cars cover is for: 'Liability to other people and their property.
'You will not be covered for any loss or damage to the car you are driving.'
Were I driving another car regularly, I would want 'proper' insurance as a named driver.
|
''The policyholder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car that they do not own.''
Having checked my policies for 3 cars ( all issued by the Norwich Union ) this has been replaced with ' any vehicle loaned to the policy holder for a maximum of seven days from a garage, motor engineer or vehicle repairer while the vehicle registration described above is being either serviced, repaired or having an MOT "
I can see only one reason for this and that is to make you go on the policy of other vehicles as a named driver, thus bumping the premium for that vehicle in an upwards direction.
The Norwich rang with a sales call recently as I am getting near renewals time and the salesman disagreed with the clause on my policy , telling me I was wrong and that it was still
''The policyholder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car that they do not own.''.
I offered to fax him a copy of the policies but he just hung up.
|
Having checked my policies for 3 cars ( all issued by the Norwich Union ) t
NU were the first to drop the general DOC facility a year or two ago.
It sounds like they have added in its place the ability to drive a loan car.
I think they lost a fair bit of business when they dropped DOC.
tinyurl.com/cd9z6q
6 October 2005
MOTORISTS with fully comprehensive insurance are to lose their right to cover while driving other cars.
Norwich Union says it is removing the option from its polices because too many drivers are using it as part of scams to reduce the cost of their insurance.
|
The last time I looked about 2 weeks ago they still include driving other cars.
They made a big fan fare that they were going to drop them and that everyone else would follow but they forgot that car insurance is highly competitive so as their competitors did not drop it NU did not drop it as all of their customers would have gone to their competitors!
There is talk again of it being dropped by the whole market but I cannot see this happening unless the government insist on it otherwise you will get one or 2 companies that will keep it and will gain loads and loads of new customers as every one wants driving other cars just in case they ever need it
|
|
|
I think they lost a fair bit of business when they dropped DOC.
That's worrying if true, as DOC cover is so misused. There must be a lot of people out there who might be technically legal, but are really pushing the envelope.
|
Bill Payer NU have not with drawn the driving other cars extension, as I stated before they made a big fan fare that they would do it. As normal they think that whatever they say the rest of the market will follow. As normal everyone ignores them and then NU drop it quietly (They do this on lots of their great ideas, ask any broker that deals with them).
Here is a link to their current policy www.norwichunion.com/library/pdfs/car/nmdoc5616-co...f go to page 13 on the bottom right hand corner and it confirms that you have driving other cars subject to certain criteria.
To save you looking it up here is a copy and paste.
Driving other cars:
We will insure you whilst you are driving
any other car within Great Britain, Northern
Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of
Man providing:
The car does not belong to you or is
not hired to you under a hire purchase
agreement,
you are driving the car with the
owners express consent
you still have your car and it has
not been damaged beyond cost
effective repair,
you are aged 25 or above,
your certificate of motor insurance
indicates that you can drive
such a vehicle.
If you google the NU and driving other cars they made a big thing of it, all the brokers were very amused as if you read their press releases it was made out to be that by withdrawing it they were doing their customers a favour. They realised it did not make commercial sense as they would lose all of their customers so they never with drew it. If it was such a good thing for their customers why did they not with draw it! lol
As stated before it is being discussed again about withdrawing it by a few different companies at the moment but I cannot see it happening unless the government steps in as other companies would have seen how NU handled it and realised its only worth withdrawing if all the companies withdraw from it
ONCE AGAIN NU HAVE NOT WITH DRAWN DRIVING OTHER CARS (PLEASE CHECK YOUR POLICY THOUGH AS THEY DO NOT GIVE IT TO EVERYONE BUT THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE)
|
|
I can understand that some people might abuse it but I have found it very useful on two occasions in the last 4 years. Once when my dad went in to hospital for a routine test and they decided to keep him in. I got a lift and brought his car home and once when my mum broke down and I had to return and collect her car later that day.
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is not an offence in the united kingdom to drive a vehicle which is not insured as long as the driver at the time has third party insurance and the policy written by an agreed member of the insurance scheme
DVD will hopefully be along shortly. But in the meantime I think you'll find it is an offence to drive a vehicle that hasn't been insured by someone else on your insurance policy. Otherwise what is there to stop me going out and buying a Ferrari / Lamborgini / Bugati Veron, etc; registering it in someone else's name and then driving it on my insurance policy which costs £350 instead of the policy costing £5000 ?
|
Otherwise what is there to stop me going out and buying ...
Absolutely nothing, and a worrying number of people do do this - even registering cars in their spouses name. Of course the insurance is only ever 3rd party so it would be a risky thing to do on a Ferrari / Lamborgini / Bugati Veron etc.
|
|
Too many people only read the certificate and not the policy;always read the "SMALL PRINT".The certificate is only a summary.
|
I usually query this when I change insurers and none have ever required that the other vehicle has to be insured in it's own right.
Dont forget it will be third party only and you can't leave it unattended anywhere public.
Edited by martint123 on 12/02/2009 at 12:04
|
Just out of interest the policy on the pick up has been transfrerred to a commercial vehicle poicy this renewal, seems the NFU is doing this across the board, maybe a lot of customers are now using these vehicles for private use.
Anyway they have drawn attention in very bold print to the fact that i can longer drive anyone else's vehicle as i used to be able to.
It may be as well to check your policies when you renew in case NFU are one of the first and this becomes common.
|
Have I missed something here, since when did it become illegal to PARK an uninsured vehicle on a public highway ?
I know it has to have a VED licence (tax) and I know it has to be insured at the time of obtaining a VED, but if the insurance runs out during the VED period and the vehicle is not being driven, does the insurance now have to be renewed ?
(reasons and legal references please).
|
Have I missed something here since when did it become illegal to PARK an uninsured vehicle on a public highway ?
Since a long, long time ago.
Edited by midlifecrisis on 12/02/2009 at 13:57
|
|
|
Kith
Road Traffic Act 1988
Section 143 - Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act?
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and............
For the purposes of this legislation uses also means keeps (ie parked) .
|
|
|
|
hi
first of all many thanks for all the comments
i didnt come on this forum to double check answers against the other forum
my question on this forum was "does anyone know about police computers" which i had not asked in the other forum
i am going to court anyway because i know i am in the right in this instance verified by legal opinion.
but what i am unsure about and considering is whether i should make a formal complaint against the officer for discrimination. if he did not have the full picture via the computer records then it can be argued he had reasonlable cause to issue a ticket and i fully appreciate that. but if he did have the full picture then his behaviour towards me was discriminatory to say the least.
re some of the commenst about DOC please remember that as long as you abide by the written law you are innocent irrespective that there may be loopholes within the writings.
and you must always be treated as innocent till proven guilty not the other way round and a public servant is there to serve the public and never to abuse authority.
|
>but what i am unsure about and considering is whether i should make a formal complaint >against the officer for discrimination
Because of your race? colour? sex? disability? age?
Have you asked the one people who can get you out of this hole? your insurance company? It is, after all, they who will be providing the incriminating or clearing evidence.
Do let us know how you get on in court. we are genuinely interested.
|
Please bear in mind that the driving other cars extension sometimes is subject to the other vehicle you are driving being insured. It will not say this on your certificate but will contain it in your policy. If you are not sure ring your Insurers.
If you are driving a car under your driving other cars extension and the other vehicle is not insured you are likely to be pulled over by the police as that registration will show as not being insured on their computer as it uses the registration number to retrieve the Insurance details. You will then need to prove to the policeman that you are insured to drive other cars by showing him / her your certificate.
With regards to the other poster about the wording on his Norwich Union certificate, the wording you state has been put on their certificates where it used to show your car registration number, They have done this to make it easier for you and them for instance when you have a courtesy car you can ring them up to add it and you do not need to wiat for a covernote to come through as you can show the garage your certificate.
You probably still have the driving other cars extension, look further down your certificate near where it says who is covered to drive. Underneath there it will also say something to the effect of "The policy holder may also drive other cars not belonging to him or loand to him under a hire purchase agreement with the owners permision. Ring NU and confirm this.
I hope this helps
P.S To the chap with the NFU commercial vehicle policy, Insurers do not give the driving other cars cover on van policies only on car policies, its the same with all of the companies not just NFU
|
So you have Fully Comp on your own insurance but spend more time driving your 'friends' BMW around. What type of car do you have insured?
The Police spent 2 hours with you so it hardly seems a spur of the moment decision, nor did they seize the car, hardly an abuse of authority.
So it's easier to dish out a ticket 'just in case'? Not really, having to attend court is a real PITA, usually rostered on a day off or middle of night week. Nor is it very satisfying to see someone found 'not guilty'.
As far as I am aware Mobile Data does not reach into the fine depths of the policy.
You have got into this situation by seemingly exploiting the limits of your policy. You would be far better expending your energy getting a written decision from your Insurance company ASAP and then approach the Fixed Penalty Office that is dealing with your ticket. If you have the necessary proof then they may well withdraw the ticket thereby removing the need for a court case. You have 28 days from issue.
An ANPR site would have flagged the car up as uninsured as well.
|
|
My other half has a car in her name and the insurance is in her name. I am a named driver on her policy. If I am stop checked, how do I prove that I am a named driver. Mr Plod will get very excited because the car is registered in a womans name and insured in a womans name and I in no way, look like a woman ( believe me ! ).
|
Police would check on the records of MIB from VRM of the vehicle stopped and not the name of the driver. MIB records are not 100% 24/7. Possible therefore No Insurance flag may have been activated. Further enquiries then carried out if possible, in this case with the Insurance Co of the driver. MIB check may well show he has Insurance for his own vehicle but I understand not whether he has a DOC clause which would have to be investigated either there and then through phone or issue of RT/1 for production with 7 days.
Notice in this post that no mention of vehicle being seized which Police can if No Insurance but instead just issued FPN. I wonder why?
Ah DOC clause........, it used to be simple and almost all Insurance Certificates held the clause that the PH may DRIVE (Taking it from point A to B) not USE (left parked on a road or public place) a vehicle not belonging to them etc etc. No longer and in relation to this many Insurance Companies are putting restrictions on this in the Policy which superceeds the Certificate.
If DOC exists the wording on both Certificate and Policy should be examined to see just what exactly is allowed.
If DOC does exist it will ONLY COVER third part risks i.e. damge to an others vehicle/property and not the vehicle driven. So that MUFA Ferrari pranged last month if it had been driven on DOC by R the Insurance would pay out for damage to the bridge and R would have to settle the cost of repair to the car out of his own pocket.
Poster has one of two options IMHO
(1) Take the matter up now by visiting Plodshop personally with Insurance that covered him on date and time in question and FPN. Speak to Duty POLICE officer (not the Front Office Clerk) with a view to having the FPN invalidated. Raise a complaint if thought necessary bearing in mind officer may have been working from corrupt record of MIB.
(2) Write in to say that FPN is not accepted and that a Court date requested for a NG plea when again all matters can be aired and proven.
No 1 looks most attractive IMHO.
dvd
|
To the chap with the NFU commercial vehicle policy Insurers do not give theall of the companies not just NFU
Thanks for that, was a little surprised when this came through, i've only used the extension maybe a couple of times in the last 5 years, so i'll hardly miss it.
|
|
|
|
|
