Car Insurance Cock-Up Any Redress?

[davebro3]

A friend was stopped by the police & had his car towed for no insurance. In fact he was/is insured so the insurance database was wrong or the cops failed to interrogate it properly.

He had to pay £170 to get his car back and missed 2 days work as a self-employed plaster.

Does he have any legal redress for compensation & how would he go about getting that?

[DDIL]

Does he now have proof that he was insured?

Has he checked his number plate on the gov checker to see if it is showing up as insured?

 

[DDIL]

Sorry pressed send to soon.

Without something from the insurance company its going to be very difficult to prove.

I would say start with the proof and then contact the police to make a complaint

[Hymie]

Your friend’s problem is that they don’t know whether the insurance data base was wrong, or the police failed to interrogate it correctly.

 

You friend should have checked the data base themselves (as soon as possible, after they were arrested).

 

Whoever was at fault (if proven), I would expect your friend would have a good case for compensation.

 

Have the police admitted the error, or is your friend still looking at 6 points on their licence?

[davebro3]

He hasn't been done for an offence so they must have accepted it was a mistake.

[New Judge]

"He hasn't been done for an offence so they must have accepted it was a mistake."

But not necessarily a mistake made by the police.

Section 165a of the Road Traffic Act gives police officers the power to seize vehicles that are being driven without insurance. 

The conditions that make that power available are that:

- the officer must require the driver to produce evidence of insurance cover

- the driver fails to produce that evidence and

- the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

The usual order of events is that the police detect a vehicle that is not insured (courtesy of their ANPR system). They stop the car and ask the driver to produce evidence of cover. If he cannot they can consider seizing he car (their “reasonable grounds for believing… being satisfied by no cover being shown on the Motor insurers’ Database which is linked to their ANPR system).

So before your friend sets out to get his compo, he needs to establish whether his car was or was not shown as covered on he MID. If it was not, and he did not produce other evidence of cover, the seizure was lawful. In fact even if he did produce evidence, the police could still seize the vehicle if they doubted the veracity of that evidence.

[douglas9401]

"Have the police admitted the error"

Pigs will fly. 😉

[david small]

They would have to come out of the station first.

[Hymie]

Based on what NJ says, if the MID data base is in error and you aren’t carrying a copy of your insurance details – your vehicle will very likely be impounded and there is not a lot you can do about it (until you prove the MID wrong).

 

This has come about after the law was changed, that allowed you to produce proof of insurance within 5 days (I think that was the time limit).

 

I wonder if anyone has sued MID for this – it’s rather like me telling a police officer that I know a vehicle is not insured, and as a result the vehicle was impounded.  Surely the vehicle owner would have the right to sue me for providing false information that led to the impound of the vehicle.

[newmodarmy]

I don't think it's like that Hymie. 

[New Judge]

The officer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being driven uninsured.

If the driver insists that cover is in place he doesn't necessarily have to produce a certificate. If he can provide the officer with the name of his insurers the officer can contact them. They often do this when they suspect that even if a vehicle is shown as insured on the MID, they may still suspect that the person (who perhaps says he is a named driver) is not actually covered.

The danger is that some officers simply take the view that if a vehicle is not on MID then no cover exists and I believe that is not good practice.

It is that third requirement ("to have reasonable grounds...") that is often not properly explored. Tht is not always so black and white as some officers like to believe it is.

[Canary42]

Unfortunately the officers "on the ground" can make mistakes. Many years ago when the 5 days rule still applied I received a notification during a standard police check. The following day I took the "pink slip" which the cop had filled out along to the police station, together with my driving licence and insurance, and the Desk Sergeant pointed out that the slip also demanded an MOT certificate. I then drew his attention to the fact that the car was less than a year old, to which he replied the cop was under training on that occasion.  

 

[Quenched]

Sounds like lightning really does strike twice in the same place 🙄

[barry1010]

As far as I'm aware you still have 7 days to produce your insurance certificate if you are given a HO/RT1 (a producer), but if the database shows the car is not insured and you can't give the police officer the name of the insurance company then the car may well be towed.

 

[New Judge]

"As far as I'm aware you still have 7 days to produce your insurance certificate..." 

Not where potential seizure under s165a is concerned.

The seven day concession will avoid prosecution under s165 (for failing to produce licence/insurance) but it is not provided under s165a (power to seize vehicles). It would be pointless if it did because the purpose of s165a is to immediately prevent uninsured or unlicenced drivers from continuing to drive.

This seemingly makes the two sections contradictory, leaving the driver with no protection against seizure if he does not carry his licence/insurance. But that protection should be provided by the third requirement ("reasonable grounds for believing..."). 

Unfortunately many officers regard the MID as their sole basis for "reasonable grounds". Whilst in the majority (probably the overwhelming majority) of cases that is indeed reasonable, in a few it is not.

[barry1010]

I have a piece of paper with the name of my insurance company, the policy number and the dates of cover (not my name or address) tucked behind my visor.  I also have my policy documents on my phone.  Makes it easy for the police to verify my insurance.

I only mentioned the producer because Hymie has said the law changed.   Producers are useful in some circumstances.

[davebro3]

yes - I keep my licence in my wallet & a copy of my insurance cert in the car.

[davebro3]

and some mints for the breathalyser. 🤣

[Quenched]

Surely if your friend had a paper copy of their insurance certificate it would have saved all that hassle? 

[barry1010]

If he had the details on his phone or a bit of paper it could have saved all the hassle.

There is nothing to stop you printing out your insurance certificate, Quenched

[davebro3]

//Surely if your friend had a paper copy of their insurance certificate it would have saved all that hassle? //

Yes 20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing! Not everyone is so organised AND you could have a paper copy of your insurance certificate but have cancelled/had it cancelled later. It's not proof of current insurance.