Maz unlcle aint a 19 year old chav in a corsa hes a propper person in a decent car with a valid excuse for Mids not showing insurance, the copper is just being an arse, i thought you were innocent until proven guilty in this country.
Some traffic police.....a load of *******!
- Thread starter Maz
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
I would imagine (with some knowledge) that most non insured drivers are not 19 year old chavs... Also at what point has he been found guilty, all he did was prove he had insurance when the database said he didnt.
Or would you prefer that they uphold the Road Traffic Act and report drivers for non production of documents?
It might be down to the history of the car. maybe it has not had insurance for some time?. Then the police have to believe that insurance was taken out just a few days before they stopped it which I'm sure they have heard a million times before
So you think its quite acceptable to be made to wake people up in the middle of the night to confirm insurance instead of just giving him a producer?
And what i meant by found guilty was in cases where electronic tests dont work, ie cant call insurance co's in the middle of the night, a producer should be issued not be called a liar and made to wake people in the middle of the night.
Last edited:
The insurance company is Aviva, they are contactable 24 hours a day!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
It's really not that hard to grasp.
1) Producers are very rarely issued for insurance
2) The Veh would have shown as not insured, no keeper details, in trade, out of area previous keeper details - are you really suggesting a producer should be issued to someone where there are no confirmed R/O details for followup should the person claiming to be the owner not come in with the producer?
Not to mention 'yeah its covered by 7 day insurance by nephews trader policy that i dont have a copy of, honest guv'
I honestly cant think of anything that would make that seem a logical set of circumstances to issue a producer!
1) Producers are very rarely issued for insurance
2) The Veh would have shown as not insured, no keeper details, in trade, out of area previous keeper details - are you really suggesting a producer should be issued to someone where there are no confirmed R/O details for followup should the person claiming to be the owner not come in with the producer?
Not to mention 'yeah its covered by 7 day insurance by nephews trader policy that i dont have a copy of, honest guv'
I honestly cant think of anything that would make that seem a logical set of circumstances to issue a producer!
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
Did he know that, and they're not 24/7 - claims line is but they often will not play ball and confirm insurance or not.
Yea, absolutely a producer should have been issued, it worked for 30 years.
He proved who he was so hes not going anywhere, give the man a producer.
I suppose you would have called for a tow truck and wasted another 500 quid of tax payers money towing and storing it instead. Top man.
No...no it didn't? Which is why they bought in the power to seize uninsured vehicles...
Personally, i think it is one of the best powers the police have been given.
Police refused to do so, I even offered them the 24 hour number and policy number over the phone but they wanted paper proof.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
It didn't work thats why we have MID (paid for by insurance companies)
Tow truck would only be called if he couldn't show a valid insurance cert, at that point its paid for by the driver - no tax payers money wasted!
I honestly dont get it - prove you have insurance - he did and all is ok. Waking someone up is inconvenient but its the drivers problem not the Police - if he had insurance document that he is legally obliged to have then there is no issue. The title should be 'Some people who dont have insurance certs... a load of*********!'
I know its annoying that a traffic cop stopping a car (no doubt showing ANPR no insurance) and asking them to prove they are insured is a dereliction of duty and that they should be in the Police station filling out paperwork instead but lets cut them some slack ehh!
Insurance was through Aviva, nothing to do with my traders policy.
I even offered the PO the insurance policy number and phone number over the phone.
He had his driving licence with him in his current address, he had various letters etc inc bank statements with him.
Imagine if he had just bought insurance that night through an online company, he'd have been covered straight away but no covernote for at least 2-3 days - what would the police have done then?
Im all for seizing uninsured vehicles, but do wait till its been proven.
This bloke had his driving license and a reasonable excuse, i just dont see why a producer couldnt have been given.
Sure if they cant prove his identity then drag it away, but not in those circumstances.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 4,171
- Location
- Norwich
If the policy is in his name calling Aviva and asking would be the normal course!
I've been stopped on many occasions at all times of the night, because I have a traders policy it's my responsibility to make sure I update MID, and I'm not obliged to update MID unless the car is in my possesion for over two weeks.
Never have I been forced to prove that I have insurance on the spot, always just been given producers and the latest being about 4 weeks ago.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 359
- Location
- North Wales
they certainly do, however only rarely during the day, most insurance producers would be given at night