![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
As you'd expect it to, given it simply looks up the cars details in order to ascertain whether its logged as having an insurance policy in force on it. No insurance policy = not on the database, irrespective of whether somebody is actually insured to drive it.
ask_sodding_MID
- Thread starter stockhausen
- Start date
As you'd expect it to, given it simply looks up the cars details in order to ascertain whether its logged as having an insurance policy in force on it. No insurance policy = not on the database, irrespective of whether somebody is actually insured to drive it.
Fair enough, in which case there should be a punishment for those companies who consistently make mistakes.
Any officer worth their salt would call the company to check the policy anyway. I've never been pulled over for a spot-check but I would expect them to call my insurer to verify my cover letter at the roadside.
Soldato
Yes I have had this before, car picked up with insurance but not on MID yet.Sadly Jigger has raised a valid point.
That for the police the MID = all.
If your car isn't on it, then its not insured. If you insist it is insured, then its not on MID because you canceled the policy, stopped making regular monthly payments, or some other step which caused the policy to cease to exist.
The idea that the MID could in fact be wrong (because it so rarely is) means that sometimes, perfectly innocent people can end up having their cars seized for no insurance.
They do not have to appear in court, they do not get fined or prosecuted.
But you do end up landed with the recovery and impound costs
Car was siezed and ended up costing the police, most likely, recovery money because the policeman was a total dumbass who didn't understand that an insurance policy that states any car owned or lent to the policyholder is insured, even if the insurance company doesn't have the registration number on their computers whatsoever.
Luckily there was no impound costs or whatever to pay from our side.
Caporegime
I'm sure i read that this happened to somebody's wife on here.
Let me see if i can find the thread.
*edit*
No can't find it
I'm sure it was somebody's wife. He produced the insurance certificate and got his car back. But he still had to pay the recovery costs. Maybe somebody else remembers it ? i couldn't believe that just because it was night and couldn't phone the insurer, they seized it and landed him with the costs because of insurer error.
Last edited:
Soldato
Totally depends on the officer you are dealing with, I've been stopped and told my car has "no insurance" then given a producer and later that day shown my documents.
There was no talk of taking the car away (they had the power to). It's all more of a inconvenience than anything else, Some times large it would seem.
There was no talk of taking the car away (they had the power to). It's all more of a inconvenience than anything else, Some times large it would seem.
Last edited:
Agreed, the power to seize conferred on the constable under S.165A is discretionary as the law states that "the constable may..."
The implication of this is that individual police forces should have in place policy and guidance for how their constables should exercise this discretion.
The implication of this is that individual police forces should have in place policy and guidance for how their constables should exercise this discretion.
But the car was still wrongfully confiscated?
