Correcting a motor Insurance bureau error.

[Peter Crosland]

I have a lease car the cost of which includes the insurance provided by
the lease company. Out of curiosity I checked my vehicle details on the
askmid.com website. Much to my surprise it said the vehicle was insured
but it was "Unspecified group 1 modified vehicle" rather than the
Citroen C4 Grand Picasso it actually is. So I rang the insurer and they
are adamant that the vehicle is correctly specified on their records and
that the MIB database is wrong. They also told me that there is no way
to correct the MIB database and that their records are regularly sent to
MIB.

AIUI the police regard the MIB as the definitive answer and will ignore
the paper documentation that I have. Whilst I well understand that there
is significant fraud involving paper certificates of insurance this
seems an entirely unsatisfactory state of affairs that needs addressing.

AFAIK the MIB are unlikely to correct the details unless the insurer
tells them to. So how do I resolve this impasse or should I just ignore
it and hope the police don't stop me?

--
Peter Crosland

[A.Lee]

Peter Crosland wrote:

> I have a lease car the cost of which includes the insurance provided by
> the lease company. Out of curiosity I checked my vehicle details on the
> askmid.com website. Much to my surprise it said the vehicle was insured
> but it was "Unspecified group 1 modified vehicle" rather than the

> Citroen C4 Grand Picasso it actually is. ...

So it is listed as 'Insured'.
Hence it is unlikely that the Police will pull you over for no
insurance, as all they want to know is that it is insured, not what
cover it has got.

> AIUI the police regard the MIB as the definitive answer and will ignore

> the paper documentation that I have. .

Not quite. On TV programmes, this can be the case, but a call to the
Insurer, or other evidence will generally be enough for them to let you
carry on, subject to further checks, such as when the Insurer is shut
for the weekend etc.
But, being as the vehicle is insured, it makes no difference.
--
Alan
To reply by mail, change '+' to 'plus'

[Peter Crosland]

Noted. However, the fact that the vehicle details do not match the
vehicle registration number would, I think, make any copper suspicious.
Having said that the real question is how to get the MIB to correct
there records. I have emailed them and await their reply with interest
but I am not holding my breath!


--
Peter Crosland

[Doctor Dave]

How about emailing the insurance company outlining the problem and what you are afraid of and then carrying the ensuing dialogue with you in the car lest you are stopped?

[Rob Morley]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:13:55 +0000
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Noted. However, the fact that the vehicle details do not match the
> vehicle registration number would, I think, make any copper
> suspicious. Having said that the real question is how to get the MIB
> to correct there records. I have emailed them and await their reply
> with interest but I am not holding my breath!
>

Is it just an odd way of saying that it's covered by fleet rather than
individual insurance?

[newshound]

But the police would also have access to DVLA records which should
confirm the "match", including the VIN number if they were being very picky.

[Alex Heney]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:13:55 +0000, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 28/02/2014 17:09, A.Lee wrote:
>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>>> I have a lease car the cost of which includes the insurance provided by
>>> the lease company. Out of curiosity I checked my vehicle details on the
>>> askmid.com website. Much to my surprise it said the vehicle was insured
>>> but it was "Unspecified group 1 modified vehicle" rather than the
>>> Citroen C4 Grand Picasso it actually is. ...
>>
>> So it is listed as 'Insured'.
>> Hence it is unlikely that the Police will pull you over for no
>> insurance, as all they want to know is that it is insured, not what
>> cover it has got.
>>
>>> AIUI the police regard the MIB as the definitive answer and will ignore
>>> the paper documentation that I have. .
>>
>> Not quite. On TV programmes, this can be the case, but a call to the
>> Insurer, or other evidence will generally be enough for them to let you
>> carry on, subject to further checks, such as when the Insurer is shut
>> for the weekend etc.
>> But, being as the vehicle is insured, it makes no difference.
>
>Noted. However, the fact that the vehicle details do not match the
>vehicle registration number would, I think, make any copper suspicious.

But the vehicle details do match the registration details.

That will be sufficient for the police.

The fact that the insurance specifies details which don't match the
registration won't matter - they almost certainly won't even look
beyond the fact it comes back "insured".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Those who can't write, write help files.
To reply by email, my address is alexDOTheneyATgmailDOTcom

[Peter Crosland]

That is not the point. The police are daily confronted with a
significant percentage of the population who try and cheat on their
insurance in various ways. According to my local friendly plod they
check that the vehicle details correspond with both the DVLA and MIB
records. So in this case it would raise obvious suspicions. Having said
that the automated ANPR checking system will not, I presume, flag it up
as a rogue vehicle. However, in the case of manual check by plod it will
ring alarm bells.

--
Peter Crosland

[s_pick...@yahoo.com]

If the MIB store the registered keeper's or owner's information, too, then you could remind them that it is their obligation to store correct personal information under the Data Protection Act.

[Peter Crosland]

I did!


--
Peter Crosland