ANPR insurance issue

[stuckinthemud]

Be aware that ANPR only carries the most recent insurance policy details on a vehicle. If you have piggy backed a short term policy, like while teaching your child to drive when your normal underwriter doesn’t insure learners, it replaces your main insurance policy on the ANPR. Then if you are stopped for any reason and don’t have the same name as your child and can’t produce your insurance certificate, your vehicle will be seized and you get 6 points for driving without insurance. You can appeal against the points and possibly get the insurer to give you back the tow away fee but it’s a right royal pain trying to get home with no car, getting to the police station to show that you do actually hold insurance and finding someone to get you to the vehicle pound. Please don’t ask how I found this out

 

[artie]

What happened to producing your docs within 5 days?

 

[stuckinthemud]

Not an option as that is allowing an uninsured driver to continue on their way. You need to prove the ANPR is wrong to the officer at the scene and before they lose patience and call it in. What really burns is that you have no way of knowing what details ANPR is using and you have all this to deal with when you have done nothing wrong and are completely within the law

 

[artie]

Guilty till proved innocent then.?

 

[stuckinthemud]

Yes

 

[Jameshow]

Are your insurance docs not in your email accessed by phone?

 

[stuckinthemud]

Nope, mine are on my insurers website. Thing is I was at the other end of a phone while my son was being pulled over (named driver). The officers weren’t over impressed by the idea of waiting while I reset my 13 digit password since I hadn’t accessed my account for 9 months then screenshot my docs and sent them across. They also didn’t like the idea of my daughter coming to retrieve the car as she was the only one insured to drive it, according to ANPR. Quote “the offence has already taken place, this is a legal seizure “

 

[stuckinthemud]

Also, what happens if your phone battery is flat?

 

[baldkev]

Sounds like a nightmare.... and im not suprised in the slightest
I'd be the same with regards insurance policy details. Ive always thought i should photocopy them and keep a set with me but ive never got round to it yet, let alone each year it renews

 

[akirk]

Sounds like an over-officious officer
No offence has occurred by doing what you did, and a car can be insured without being on MID
Rather than trying to login you should have said what has happened and told him your insurance company and left him to check it - the police have a better ability to get through to an insurance company than you do… I would be putting in a formal complaint

 

[artie]

Did he take your vehicle without your consent?

That's an offence.

 

[Sideways]

Formal letters of complaint to the chief constable of that force, to your police and crime commissioner and to your MP. They are using a defective system and falsely accusing you on that basis. It is not your responsibility to make their system work.
Don't get mad at the copper on the spot. He / she no doubt believes that they have reasonable grounds for doing what they did, but raising awareness and causing embarrassment to the seniors is the way to make them change the policy.

 

[1steven]

Always video any interaction with police. You can also ask for a copy of the video taKen by them and use it as a base for a formal complaint.
This type of policing is not the way forward and needs to be addressed.
I do keep a paper copy of vehicle documents in the car.

 

[Fergie 307]

Nope, mine are on my insurers website. Thing is I was at the other end of a phone while my son was being pulled over (named driver). The officers weren’t over impressed by the idea of waiting while I reset my 13 digit password since I hadn’t accessed my account for 9 months then screenshot my docs and sent them across. They also didn’t like the idea of my daughter coming to retrieve the car as she was the only one insured to drive it, according to ANPR. Quote “the offence has already taken place, this is a legal seizure “

Similar thing happened to my son. He had just bought the car and transferred a personal plate on to it. Unfortunately the insurance company had failed to update the details on the database. They had removed the vehicle on its original plate, and failed to put the personal plate on. So no insurance recorded under either! Car was seized. After numerous calls to the insurance company they sorted it out so we had the correct paperwork, and confirmed that it had been insured at the time. We got the car back the following day, and the insurance company refunded the tow fees, and gave him £250 for the inconvenience. A right PITA altogether.

 

[Rodpr]

Like 1Stephen, I always print a copy of my insurance certificate to keep in the car.

 

[Geoff_S]

A physical copy of a car insurance is no good. It only proves that there was insurance at the time it was issued not necessarily in force now.

But it does provide a reference for the police to check with the insurance company, if they feel inclined to do so.

 

[Pedronicus]

I understood that only one policy can be active on a vehicle at a time and am somewhat surprised that this wasn't pointed out to the OP when the short-term cover was taken out. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to have their name added as an additional driver to the child's policy who appears to be the policy holder.

 

[Tris]

It seems you can have more than one policy on a car but it would be a nightmare to sort out a claim. Looks like you might be liable for two lots of excess and get one payout

 

[johna.clements]

Formal letters of complaint to the chief constable of that force, to your police and crime commissioner and to your MP. They are using a defective system and falsely accusing you on that basis. It is not your responsibility to make their system work.
Don't get mad at the copper on the spot. He / she no doubt believes that they have reasonable grounds for doing what they did, but raising awareness and causing embarrassment to the seniors is the way to make them change the policy.

Certainly sounds like a defective system.
And it certainly is not your responsibility to make there system work.
But some people may wish to take action to counter the defect before they have to deal with the consequences.

 

[akirk]

I understood that only one policy can be active on a vehicle at a time and am somewhat surprised that this wasn't pointed out to the OP when the short-term cover was taken out. Perhaps it would have been a good idea to have their name added as an additional driver to the child's policy who appears to be the policy holder.

It seems you can have more than one policy on a car but it would be a nightmare to sort out a claim. Looks like you might be liable for two lots of excess and get one payout

There is a lot of nonsense quoted about this on the internet
For example, I used to have motor insurance which allowed me to drive any car, belonging to anyone - with fully comprehensive insurance cover.
Therefore instantly every car in the country had more than one policy covering it - whether the driver knew or not
There is zero issue in having more than one policy on a car - and most policies will have clauses to deal with the priority on which policy pays out - so with my cover - if the car I borrowed had a policy allowing any driver fully comprehensive (i.e. a similar policy) then by default that policy took priority, otherwise mine kicked in. In fact under that insurance the other car had no need to have any insurance - while I was driving it the car was insured and I was covered - so if I had done that, the car would not appear on MID at all and yet I would be driving it legally - of course there are other legal issues such as the need to have insurance in force continually unless sorned...

ultimately what appears to have happened here is that a policeman has acted beyond their powers, and with a distinct lack of understanding as to how insurance works (and it is even more complex than above when you get to trade insurances and even companies who legally self-insure). There is no legal requirement for a car / person combination to be on MID for you to be legally covered driving that car - however, with a society which trends to the normative and that seems to also be the lowest common denominator, so perhaps it makes sense to not assume that the police will actually know or understand the law - and therefore it seems to make sense to carry a copy of a policy. As for the comment that a printout is only valid on the day - not so, the insurance is valid or not regardless of the printout, so if the insurance is still valid, so is the printout - it is for the police to show that it is no longer valid, not for the driver to prove their innocence - and the police are used to doing this and do so by ringing the insurance company - not tricky and saves the huge embarrassment of getting it wrong.