On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him within
the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't and are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an insurance
search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance liable for any
costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way am I paying a third
party that I have never heard of to check my own insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its on the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database you are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database, then
yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences can only
occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and the
certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would seem to a
reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates were
actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had anti-forgery
measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my own laser printer
from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as hell. I wouldn't have
any confidence in a paper certificate not being doctored. I reckon it
would take me no more than an hour to forge one for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/04/2019 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him
within the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't and are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an insurance
search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance liable for any
costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way am I paying a
third party that I have never heard of to check my own insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its on the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database you are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database, then
yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences can only
occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and the
certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would seem to
a reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates were
actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had anti-forgery
measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my own laser printer
from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as hell. I wouldn't have
any confidence in a paper certificate not being doctored. I reckon it
would take me no more than an hour to forge one for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.

A call will show you are insured without having to have any certificate
available. The problem is that if your vehicle is not on the database
and you don't have the certificate available, the police will try
calling, but not all insurers can confirm 24/7 (at least judging by
various real-life TV programmes). Without confirmation, the police will
impound your vehicle and charge you to have it released when the proof
is available.

SteveW

On 02/04/2019 20:30, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice
within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him
within the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't and are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an insurance
search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance liable for any
costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way am I paying a
third party that I have never heard of to check my own insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its on the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database you
are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database, then
yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences can only
occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and the
certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would seem to
a reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates were
actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had anti-forgery
measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my own laser
printer from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as hell. I
wouldn't have any confidence in a paper certificate not being
doctored. I reckon it would take me no more than an hour to forge one
for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.

A call will show you are insured without having to have any certificate
available. The problem is that if your vehicle is not on the database
and you don't have the certificate available, the police will try
calling, but not all insurers can confirm 24/7 (at least judging by
various real-life TV programmes). Without confirmation, the police will
impound your vehicle and charge you to have it released when the proof
is available.

Not difficult though is it... forward a copy of the renewal docs from
the insurer to your phone etc, and then you can get to them whenever you
need.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 02/04/2019 21:17, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 20:30, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice
within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him
within the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't and
are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an
insurance search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance
liable for any costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way
am I paying a third party that I have never heard of to check my own
insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its on
the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database
you are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database,
then yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences can
only occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and
the certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would
seem to a reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates were
actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had anti-forgery
measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my own laser
printer from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as hell. I
wouldn't have any confidence in a paper certificate not being
doctored. I reckon it would take me no more than an hour to forge
one for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.

A call will show you are insured without having to have any
certificate available. The problem is that if your vehicle is not on
the database and you don't have the certificate available, the police
will try calling, but not all insurers can confirm 24/7 (at least
judging by various real-life TV programmes). Without confirmation, the
police will impound your vehicle and charge you to have it released
when the proof is available.

Not difficult though is it... forward a copy of the renewal docs from
the insurer to your phone etc, and then you can get to them whenever you
need.

Unfortunately that proves nothing. Even a physical certificate is often
not accepted - as, if your car is not on the database, and the
certificate is not brand new, they "assume" that you could have
cancelled the monthly payments and therefore actually be uninsured.

SteveW

On 03/04/2019 00:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 21:17, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 20:30, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice
within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him
within the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the
insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't
and are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an
insurance search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance
liable for any costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way
am I paying a third party that I have never heard of to check my
own insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its
on the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database
you are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database,
then yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences
can only occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and
the certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would
seem to a reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates were
actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had anti-forgery
measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my own laser
printer from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as hell. I
wouldn't have any confidence in a paper certificate not being
doctored. I reckon it would take me no more than an hour to forge
one for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.

A call will show you are insured without having to have any
certificate available. The problem is that if your vehicle is not on
the database and you don't have the certificate available, the police
will try calling, but not all insurers can confirm 24/7 (at least
judging by various real-life TV programmes). Without confirmation,
the police will impound your vehicle and charge you to have it
released when the proof is available.

Not difficult though is it... forward a copy of the renewal docs from
the insurer to your phone etc, and then you can get to them whenever
you need.

Unfortunately that proves nothing. Even a physical certificate is often
not accepted - as, if your car is not on the database, and the
certificate is not brand new, they "assume" that you could have
cancelled the monthly payments and therefore actually be uninsured.

Until they write it into law that it is the owners responsibility to
ensure the vehicle is on the database (which is seems to me is something
which is not going to happen for many reasons - however if you know
different, then a citation of the legislation would be helpful?), then
all you need to demonstrate is that you have acted in good faith, and
carried out what is required - i.e. bought and paid for insurance which
you believe to be valid. As you have highlighted, you can't actually
*prove* that the vehicle is insured - all you can do is demonstrate that
you have carried out the right steps and have reasonable cause to
believe its insured.

It is now the responsibility of the police to *prove* that is not the
case. They can't do that by referral to the database in isolation, since
it is known that it is not completely reliable or necessarily up to
date. The database serves as a convenience, a way of doing a quick
filter. It lets the police quickly eliminate the bulk of vehicles on the
road for further enquiry wrt to insurance. If they wish to issue a fine
or take other action, then I am doubtful that they are going to do that
without verifying with the insurers what the actual status is.

So by all means, check its on the DB yourself - a sensible thing to do.
However the majority of people I suspect don't do this, and are probably
unaware that its even possible.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 03/04/2019 09:04, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/04/2019 00:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 21:17, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 20:30, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice
within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him
within the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the
insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't
and are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an
insurance search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance
liable for any costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way
am I paying a third party that I have never heard of to check my
own insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its
on the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database
you are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may
also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database,
then yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences
can only occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and
the certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would
seem to a reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates
were actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had
anti-forgery measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my
own laser printer from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as
hell. I wouldn't have any confidence in a paper certificate not
being doctored. I reckon it would take me no more than an hour to
forge one for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.

A call will show you are insured without having to have any
certificate available. The problem is that if your vehicle is not on
the database and you don't have the certificate available, the
police will try calling, but not all insurers can confirm 24/7 (at
least judging by various real-life TV programmes). Without
confirmation, the police will impound your vehicle and charge you to
have it released when the proof is available.

Not difficult though is it... forward a copy of the renewal docs from
the insurer to your phone etc, and then you can get to them whenever
you need.

Unfortunately that proves nothing. Even a physical certificate is
often not accepted - as, if your car is not on the database, and the
certificate is not brand new, they "assume" that you could have
cancelled the monthly payments and therefore actually be uninsured.

Until they write it into law that it is the owners responsibility to
ensure the vehicle is on the database (which is seems to me is something
which is not going to happen for many reasons - however if you know
different, then a citation of the legislation would be helpful?), then
all you need to demonstrate is that you have acted in good faith, and
carried out what is required - i.e. bought and paid for insurance which
you believe to be valid. As you have highlighted, you can't actually
*prove* that the vehicle is insured - all you can do is demonstrate that
you have carried out the right steps and have reasonable cause to
believe its insured.

It is now the responsibility of the police to *prove* that is not the
case. They can't do that by referral to the database in isolation, since
it is known that it is not completely reliable or necessarily up to
date. The database serves as a convenience, a way of doing a quick
filter. It lets the police quickly eliminate the bulk of vehicles on the
road for further enquiry wrt to insurance. If they wish to issue a fine
or take other action, then I am doubtful that they are going to do that
without verifying with the insurers what the actual status is.

It is not a fine or points that is the problem - that will go away when
you can actually show them proof that you were insured in the next day
or two. The problem is that they can impound your car there and then at
the roadside (simply because it is not on the database and they cannot
get information from the insurers at that time).

To get it back you have to show that you were insured, and pay the
towage and release fee. Even though you have since shown that they were
incorrect in their assumptions, you still have to pay to get your car
back - and that fee is not cancelled just because you were completely
innocent!

You may also have had to pay a taxi fare to get home; lost pay with time
off sorting it out the next day; another taxi fare to get to where your
car is stored. Some people may not even have the money to get it out of
the pound immediately and therefore may be unable to work.

Hence why, in an earlier post, I suggested using the small claims court
to get your insurer, who failed to update the database, to refund the
costs you have ignored due to their failure.

SteveW

In message , John
Rumm writes

Until they write it into law that it is the owners responsibility to
ensure the vehicle is on the database (which is seems to me is
something which is not going to happen for many reasons - however if
you know different, then a citation of the legislation would be
helpful?), then all you need to demonstrate is that you have acted in
good faith, and carried out what is required - i.e. bought and paid for
insurance which you believe to be valid. As you have highlighted, you
can't actually *prove* that the vehicle is insured - all you can do is
demonstrate that you have carried out the right steps and have
reasonable cause to believe its insured.

It is now the responsibility of the police to *prove* that is not the
case. They can't do that by referral to the database in isolation,
since it is known that it is not completely reliable or necessarily up
to date. The database serves as a convenience, a way of doing a quick
filter. It lets the police quickly eliminate the bulk of vehicles on
the road for further enquiry wrt to insurance. If they wish to issue a
fine or take other action, then I am doubtful that they are going to do
that without verifying with the insurers what the actual status is.

So by all means, check its on the DB yourself - a sensible thing to do.
However the majority of people I suspect don't do this, and are
probably unaware that its even possible.

Don't forget the database is checked by DVLA every time you renew your
road fund licence.
They even do it for my tractors for which there is zero charge!


--
Tim Lamb

On 03/04/2019 09:04, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/04/2019 00:02, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 21:17, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 20:30, Steve Walker wrote:
On 02/04/2019 19:15, John Rumm wrote:
On 02/04/2019 09:33, Martin Brown wrote:
On 28/03/2019 10:49, John Rumm wrote:
On 25/03/2019 10:29, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 10:15:52 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 25/03/2019 09:50, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019 22:03:57 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

On 24/03/2019 15:52, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]

Some do. The ones around the Trafford Centre shopping centre
certainly
were doing 18 months ago. My cousin's car was flagged twice
within a
week as having no insurance and police actually stopped him
within the
car parks both times. As it happened it was a problem at the
insurance
company end - they'd forgotten to put his details on the
insurance
database the first time and still failed to have done so by the
second.

It's now incumbent on a driver to ensure their vehicle is on the
database themselves via http://www.askmid.com/ If they don't
and are
stopped as a result, they're liable for the costs.

Hang on that is a commercial site that charges you to do an
insurance search. I will be holding my insurers legal assistance
liable for any costs I incur because of their *negligence*. No way
am I paying a third party that I have never heard of to check my
own insurance status.

Where does it say its the drivers responsibility to ensure its
on the
MID?

On the site:

QUOTE
If your vehicle details are NOT on the Motor Insurance Database
you are
at risk of being fined and facing court prosecution. You may
also be
stopped by the police and have your vehicle impounded, and possibly
disposed of, if proof of insurance cannot be provided.
ENDQUOTE

You seem to be ignoring the qualifier at the end "if proof of
insurance cannot be provided.". i.e. if it not on the database,
then yes you may be stopped. However all the other consequences
can only occur if you are unable to prove its insured.

So if you can say here are the docs provided by the insurer, and
the certificate of insurance, and the receipt etc. Then it would
seem to a reasonable person that they have done was is required.

That might have worked in the past when insurance certificates
were actually certificate like, issued by insurers and had
anti-forgery measures. My insurance certificate was printed on my
own laser printer from a PDF sent by the insurer and is as poxy as
hell. I wouldn't have any confidence in a paper certificate not
being doctored. I reckon it would take me no more than an hour to
forge one for Mr Donald Duck.


If there is any doubt, a call to the insurer would produce adequate
verification that its insured.

A call will show you are insured without having to have any
certificate available. The problem is that if your vehicle is not on
the database and you don't have the certificate available, the
police will try calling, but not all insurers can confirm 24/7 (at
least judging by various real-life TV programmes). Without
confirmation, the police will impound your vehicle and charge you to
have it released when the proof is available.

Not difficult though is it... forward a copy of the renewal docs from
the insurer to your phone etc, and then you can get to them whenever
you need.

Unfortunately that proves nothing. Even a physical certificate is
often not accepted - as, if your car is not on the database, and the
certificate is not brand new, they "assume" that you could have
cancelled the monthly payments and therefore actually be uninsured.

Until they write it into law that it is the owners responsibility to
ensure the vehicle is on the database (which is seems to me is something
which is not going to happen for many reasons - however if you know
different, then a citation of the legislation would be helpful?), then
all you need to demonstrate is that you have acted in good faith, and
carried out what is required - i.e. bought and paid for insurance which
you believe to be valid. As you have highlighted, you can't actually
*prove* that the vehicle is insured - all you can do is demonstrate that
you have carried out the right steps and have reasonable cause to
believe its insured.

It is now the responsibility of the police to *prove* that is not the
case. They can't do that by referral to the database in isolation, since
it is known that it is not completely reliable or necessarily up to
date. The database serves as a convenience, a way of doing a quick
filter. It lets the police quickly eliminate the bulk of vehicles on the
road for further enquiry wrt to insurance. If they wish to issue a fine
or take other action, then I am doubtful that they are going to do that
without verifying with the insurers what the actual status is.

That is not quite how the law now stands. Crucially the police do /not/
have to /prove/ anything in order to seize the car. Under s.165A FTA
1988 (inserted in 2005 as part of the move to "continuous insurance")
the power to seize exists where "the constable has reasonable grounds
for believing that the vehicle is or was" being driven without
insurance. That "reasonable" allows for lawful seizure where there was
insurance but the constable wasn't satisfied with the evidence of it.

But, as has been stated repeatedly, the police don't just take vehicles
because they are not on the database. They'll try to phone the insurer.
If they can't contact them they'll take account of an insurance
certificate but they can indeed be forged easily, or used after a policy
has been cancelled. So it comes down to judgment which takes account
also of other things - eg if the driver has ID that matches the certificate.

And the Met at least do in practice refund the fee in some hundreds of
cases a year where there was insurance but no certificate and no way to
contact the insurer.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 03/04/2019 11:29, Robin wrote:

That is not quite how the law now stands.Â* Crucially the police do /not/
have to /prove/ anything in order to seize the car.Â* Under s.165A FTA
1988 (inserted in 2005 as part of the move to "continuous insurance") ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
That (^) was a senior moment - ie total ********.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 03/04/2019 11:54, Robin wrote:
On 03/04/2019 11:29, Robin wrote:

That is not quite how the law now stands.Â* Crucially the police do
/not/ have to /prove/ anything in order to seize the car.Â* Under
s.165A FTA 1988 (inserted in 2005 ...
Â*Â*Â*Â*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That (^) was a senior moment - ie total ********.


Sorry. Sodding word wrap. It was 'as part of the move to "continuous
insurance"' that was ********. If anyone cares by now; I don't .

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid