i got pulled over in febuary and had to sit in the police car and he had all my details including how many times i had amendid my inshurance polacy in the last 12 mounths
But its only as good as the info provided by the DVLA - I was watching a prog where they followed the Police around and it was quite often wrong - saying the car was uninsured when it was, etc - seems its a case of rubbish in - rubbish out!
Yes this is true. All insurance details are now supposedly linked to a computer which the police can access. But have heard several people complaining on a local radio phone in about instances in which the plod have towed away their car because they've been unable to produce a valid insurance certificate on the spot as the computer, as in the Little Britain sketch, says no. They then have to pay to have it released and claim the money back.
Originally posted by Wobbletastic: I bet they make the computer say 'no' to generate more money.
I suspect that its more along the lines of "only as good as the stuff put into it" - it seems that its not the Plod's fault here, but the fault lies with the Insurance Companies who seem to be a tad lethargic in supplying the DVLA with correct and accurate info......
Originally posted by peejdj: Yes this is true. All insurance details are now supposedly linked to a computer which the police can access. But have heard several people complaining on a local radio phone in about instances in which the plod have towed away their car because they've been unable to produce a valid insurance certificate on the spot as the computer, as in the Little Britain sketch, says no. They then have to pay to have it released and claim the money back.
This cannot be right. I'm sure it's not a legal requirement in this country to carry PROOF of insurance, only to HAVE insurance.
I for one do not carry insurance details in the car in case the car gets stolen. I might have to make a little card with the details on to keep in my wallet. Why don't DVLA and insurance companies supply separate documentation to produce if we get stopped?
Well we're safe for now. Thank goodness we're in a bowling alley.
I bought my tax disc online last month. The only way they can do this is by checking their database which contains insurance, and MOT details. We already know that they've got the tax details online so it's hardly a massive stretch to add in the insurance and MOT stuff as well. Of course it's a government database so it's probably full of flaws.
This is why I still feel the coppers MUST challenge you in person.
They cannot demand a car is clamped or towed because the computer says no insurance.
Why? You may be driving a friend's uninsured car ( he has no policy ) on YOUR insurance, the driving other vehicle's extension most of us have.
If the police or wardens started to clamp or tow cars without double checking the DRIVER's insurance, it would be bedlam.
We are still on borrowed time, though - the insurance companies have noticed many people use the above as a means to not insure a 2nd car, and if they do remove this extension, the police will have a field day.
What you are talking about is illegal. Your insurance only covers you to drive another car if that car is covered by it own insurance policy. There are three main reasons for this.
1) Everyone would insure the cheapest car possible and then drive a 2nd more expensive uninsured car at a reduced rate. The insurance compaines are not going to let that happen as they would lose money. This is built into your policy if you read the small print. Thus makes your insurance void anyway.
2) 3rd party claims. You park the car up and get out. At this point the hand break fails and it rolls into another car. Now your insurance company would not honour this because you are only covered to drive the car and as you have gotten out of the vechile the car is now uninsured.
3)Theft, if someone steals the car. Even if you are drving it, the insurance company will not payout. As you are only covered to drive it.
I had a friend who had the right to drive another car on his own insurance but was caught driving their girlfriends uninsured car and got 6 points for it.
I did have a sneaking suspicion it was now like that, Vectra, as I can remember the insurance companies getting wise to people doing just as you say - buying a fancy car bit also a clapped out Clio, then using the Clio's insurance to drive the fancy car.
Was you friend 25 or under, though? I thought this was step 1 of the bans, that the driving other vehicles was abolished for that age group?
To be honest, I can't see how an insurance company which gives YOU the right to drive another vehicle TPO, then insists the owner of said care has a policy - any policy.
For if you bash it and intend to use YOUR company, what does it matter the owner has his own policy?
Did your friend contest it?
I'm convinced I saw a Traffic Cops on the telly only weeks ago when the cops pulled a car as it showed no insurance. It was being delivered to a customer by a mechanic who used the driving other vehicles argument.
They called the owner who confirmed he had given PERMISSION for the mechanic to drive....and the copper reluctantly agree he had to let him go.
Still, interesting and I can certainly fear what you say is true.
Insurance details held on separate database, but police, dVLA have access, as do other insurers.....if your insurer has entered the details correctly/in time.
Most ANPR stuff done when looking for specific motors.....rather than randomely.
quote:
For if you bash it and intend to use YOUR company, what does it matter the owner has his own policy?
..it will matter if you are not a named driver!
and it WILL matter when the Ferrari you've just rammed into the back of a bus needs repairing...YOUR policy wont pay for it...just the bus's damage....never mind tho'...you could always mend it with a kit car?
I've just read the small print on my certificate. It says ' the policyholder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a car not belonging to, or hired or leased to them - provided the person driving holds a valid licence. You comprehensive policy will only cover youTPO in this instance.
Says nothing about the other vehicle needing to be insured.
Which is why in your example, Queen, my company should indeed pay out if I ram the Ferrari, so long as I am driving a car the owner has given me permission too.
Yes, I will not be covered for the damage to the vehicle I was driving.
I can't see any small print on my policy or schedule to say otherwise!
