Unfortunately that proves nothing. Even a physical certificate is often not accepted - as, if your car is not on the database, and the certificate is not brand new, they "assume" that you could have cancelled the monthly payments and therefore actually be uninsured.
SteveW
Until they write it into law that it is the owners responsibility to ensure the vehicle is on the database (which is seems to me is something which is not going to happen for many reasons - however if you know different, then a citation of the legislation would be helpful?), then all you need to demonstrate is that you have acted in good faith, and carried out what is required - i.e. bought and paid for insurance which you believe to be valid. As you have highlighted, you can't actually
*prove* that the vehicle is insured - all you can do is demonstrate that you have carried out the right steps and have reasonable cause to believe its insured.It is now the responsibility of the police to *prove* that is not the case. They can't do that by referral to the database in isolation, since it is known that it is not completely reliable or necessarily up to date. The database serves as a convenience, a way of doing a quick filter. It lets the police quickly eliminate the bulk of vehicles on the road for further enquiry wrt to insurance. If they wish to issue a fine or take other action, then I am doubtful that they are going to do that without verifying with the insurers what the actual status is.
So by all means, check its on the DB yourself - a sensible thing to do. However the majority of people I suspect don't do this, and are probably unaware that its even possible.
It is not a fine or points that is the problem - that will go away when you can actually show them proof that you were insured in the next day or two. The problem is that they can impound your car there and then at the roadside (simply because it is not on the database and they cannot get information from the insurers at that time).
To get it back you have to show that you were insured, and pay the towage and release fee. Even though you have since shown that they were incorrect in their assumptions, you still have to pay to get your car back - and that fee is not cancelled just because you were completely innocent!
You may also have had to pay a taxi fare to get home; lost pay with time off sorting it out the next day; another taxi fare to get to where your car is stored. Some people may not even have the money to get it out of the pound immediately and therefore may be unable to work.
Hence why, in an earlier post, I suggested using the small claims court to get your insurer, who failed to update the database, to refund the costs you have ignored due to their failure.
SteveW
In message snipped-for-privacy@brightview.co.uk>, John Rumm snipped-for-privacy@nowhere.null writes
Don't forget the database is checked by DVLA every time you renew your road fund licence. They even do it for my tractors for which there is zero charge!
>
That is not quite how the law now stands. Crucially the police do /not/ have to /prove/ anything in order to seize the car. Under s.165A FTA
1988 (inserted in 2005 as part of the move to "continuous insurance") the power to seize exists where "the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was" being driven without insurance. That "reasonable" allows for lawful seizure where there was insurance but the constable wasn't satisfied with the evidence of it.But, as has been stated repeatedly, the police don't just take vehicles because they are not on the database. They'll try to phone the insurer. If they can't contact them they'll take account of an insurance certificate but they can indeed be forged easily, or used after a policy has been cancelled. So it comes down to judgment which takes account also of other things - eg if the driver has ID that matches the certificate.
And the Met at least do in practice refund the fee in some hundreds of cases a year where there was insurance but no certificate and no way to contact the insurer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That (^) was a senior moment - ie total bollocks.
Sorry. Sodding word wrap. It was 'as part of the move to "continuous insurance"' that was bollocks. If anyone cares by now; I don't .
? This article was amended on 3 April 2019. Because of an incorrect conversion of 3,000 gallons during the editing process, an earlier version referred to a tanker load of the fatberg being 136 cubic metres. This has been corrected to 13.6 cubic metres.
:-)
When I first drove to Slovakia (1999) my insurance co did not include cover for Slovakia. So I just made up my own insurance certificate on the computer added Slovakia to the list of insured countries and printed it off.
Sometimes you have to take chances in life.
and that they do a different job?
Wonder if matters have improved in the 5 years since 2014?
And my cover for driving other people's cars states the car must be insured by the owner...
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.