ASKMID and DVLA

[Roland Perry]

I bought a new (to me) car today, having rung my insurance company
yesterday to provide it cover ahead of me collecting it today.

They said I didn't actually need to ring, because the situation of
trading in one car for another was already within the product they
offered; but I told them the details anyway.

It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA online
*did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped needing proof
of insurance before they grab your cash, or do they have a different
database where the car would show up as insured today, even though ASMID
are oblivious?

(The vehicle has a fresh MOT from a couple of weeks ago, so I don't
expect that to be an issue taxing it).
--
Roland Perry

[steve robinson]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 16:54:38 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Ask Mid is not real time, it can take several days, I would check it
again Monday morning, carry your policy with you though if your using
the car

[Juan Carr]

On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 16:54:38 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

There's something of an urban legend doing the rounds that the
database masquerading as ASKMID = the same database that the Police
interrogate in real time.

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,

Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.

(NB evidence of insurance is still required in NI .)

--
Robin
reply to address is (meant to be) valid

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Saturday, 4 July 2015 17:10:14 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA online
> *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped needing proof
> of insurance before they grab your cash,

The ASKMID website mentions a press release:

9 December 2013 - Motorists will no longer need motor insurance policies to be checked when getting their vehicle tax. The change, announced today by Roads Minister Robert Goodwill, is part of a package of measures to get rid of unnecessary red tape.

So DVLA now grab your cash and then chase you later if they find out you're not insured (or don't find positive confirmation that you are insured, more likely).

Owain

[Roland Perry]

In message <mn92lr$4fc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:48:23 on Sat, 4 Jul 2015,
Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,
>
>Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.

No, it's DVLA online.

(And still not showing as insured on AskMID this morning)
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <c86gpadf6lk1iil0g...@4ax.com>, at 18:35:50 on
Sat, 4 Jul 2015, steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
remarked:

>Ask Mid is not real time, it can take several days, I would check it
>again Monday morning, carry your policy with you though if your using
>the car

I've got the certificate for the old car - the company said they'd post
me a new one within six days. (Amazon can get things to me in under
24hrs seven days a week).
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <mn92lr$4fc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:48:23 on Sat, 4 Jul
> 2015, Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,
>>
>> Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.
>
> No, it's DVLA online.

Yes, I know. I read your post. But you referred to cash and I could
not see why you'd do that unless you had the PO in mind. And the answer
is of course the same either way.

> (And still not showing as insured on AskMID this morning)

Do you simply not believe that the MID is not and was never designed to
be updated in real time? I posted on 26 June in the thread "Vehicle
wrongly seized":

"I ask as I am surprised given the industry makes clear the MID is not
(and was never designed to be) updated in real time. As the BIBA said in
response to the DFT's consultation on abolishing paper certificates of
insurance:
"In principle we support the long term policy objectives with the MID
being used by Police as the main method of checking and we do not
disagree with the rationale, but it is just too early with too many
complex issues to resolve first.

For the MID to be fit for purpose as the 'proof insurance', with no
'back up' of a certificate, 'real time' updates to the MID would be
necessary. Whilst this may be achievable for policies covering
individual vehicles (MID population currently stands at 98.9% in 7 days)
It is likely to prove impractical for MID2 policyholders with only 95.5%
of vehicles on MID2 within 21 days."

But perhaps you did not read that: it was in response to someone
purporting to be Roland Perry.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnao64$jif$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:37 on Sun, 5 Jul 2015,

Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <mn92lr$4fc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:48:23 on Sat, 4 Jul
>> 2015, Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>>>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>>>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,
>>>
>>> Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.
>>
>> No, it's DVLA online.
>
>Yes, I know. I read your post. But you referred to cash

You are over-reading that word.

>and I could
>not see why you'd do that unless you had the PO in mind. And the answer
>is of course the same either way.
>
>> (And still not showing as insured on AskMID this morning)
>
>Do you simply not believe that the MID is not and was never designed to
>be updated in real time? I posted on 26 June in the thread "Vehicle
>wrongly seized":

The question was, "do DVLA use the same non-real-time database".

The answer is apparently "no, they don't use any database".

>"I ask as I am surprised given the industry makes clear the MID is not
>(and was never designed to be) updated in real time. As the BIBA said in
>response to the DFT's consultation on abolishing paper certificates of
>insurance:
>"In principle we support the long term policy objectives with the MID
>being used by Police

I was asking about DVLA.

>as the main method of checking and we do not
>disagree with the rationale, but it is just too early with too many
>complex issues to resolve first.

Their statement was two and a half years ago.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <mnao64$jif$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:37 on Sun, 5 Jul
> 2015, Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <mn92lr$4fc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 17:48:23 on Sat, 4 Jul
>>> 2015, Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>>>>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>>>>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,
>>>>
>>>> Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.
>>>
>>> No, it's DVLA online.
>>
>> Yes, I know. I read your post. But you referred to cash
>
> You are over-reading that word.
>
>> and I could
>> not see why you'd do that unless you had the PO in mind. And the
>> answer is of course the same either way.
>>
>>> (And still not showing as insured on AskMID this morning)
>>
>> Do you simply not believe that the MID is not and was never designed
>> to be updated in real time? I posted on 26 June in the thread
>> "Vehicle wrongly seized":
>
> The question was, "do DVLA use the same non-real-time database".
>
> The answer is apparently "no, they don't use any database".

I was responding to your statement "And still not showing as insured on
AskMID this morning". That was why I inserted my question under that
statement. I know that DVLA don't access any insurance database: I said
so in response to your question.

>> "I ask as I am surprised given the industry makes clear the MID is
>> not (and was never designed to be) updated in real time. As the BIBA
>> said in response to the DFT's consultation on abolishing paper
>> certificates of insurance:
>> "In principle we support the long term policy objectives with the MID
>> being used by Police
>
> I was asking about DVLA.

>> as the main method of checking and we do not
>> disagree with the rationale, but it is just too early with too many
>> complex issues to resolve first.
>
> Their statement was two and a half years ago.

I quoted that stgatement as it gives a couple of data points for the
*extent* to which the database is not up to date. I posted in the same
thread a link to the *current* FAQ for AskMID (which I seem to recall
having quoted previously).

http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/MID+Faqs/Rules+for+speed+of+loading+data.htm.


As of 1 minute ago that read:

"Are there any rules about how quickly the data has to be loaded to the
MID?

Yes, for privately owned vehicles, the rules state data must be on the
MID within 7 days of a policy starting, or 7 days from a change being
made to a policy.

For commercial fleet-type policies or motor trade policies it is
different. In these cases the data must be on the MID within 14 days of
a policy starting or within 14 days of a change being made on the
policy.

MIB monitors these targets very closely for every insurance company and
they all strive to ensure they exceed these targets so as to avoid any
disruption to their policyholders."

[steve robinson]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 07:46:24 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Amazons postal and delivery system is client integrated for the most
part , insurance companies are a different ball game Roland, they are
all moving to electronic platforms of certificate distribution, snail
mail is so last century , i am sre you could download the certificate
through thier online service unless your going through a brokered
service

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnaurc$7lc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:30 on Sun, 5 Jul 2015,
Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>> The question was, "do DVLA use the same non-real-time database".
>>
>> The answer is apparently "no, they don't use any database".
>
>I was responding to your statement "And still not showing as insured on
>AskMID this morning". That was why I inserted my question under that
>statement. I know that DVLA don't access any insurance database: I said
>so in response to your question.

Unless you also post as "Owain", you didn't.

>> Their statement was two and a half years ago.
>
>I quoted that stgatement as it gives a couple of data points for the
>*extent* to which the database is not up to date.

The extent to which it wasn't up to date two and a half years ago.

>I posted in the same thread

Which "same thread"?

>a link to the *current* FAQ for AskMID (which I seem to recall
>having quoted previously).
>
>http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database/en/MID+Faqs/Rules+for+speed+of+loading+data.htm.
>
>
>As of 1 minute ago that read:
>
>"Are there any rules about how quickly the data has to be loaded to the
>MID?
>
>Yes, for privately owned vehicles, the rules state data must be on the
>MID within 7 days of a policy starting, or 7 days from a change being
>made to a policy.

And is somewhat at odds (not that I disbelieve the numbers) this other
FAQ:

What do I do if www.askmid.com says my vehicle is not on the MID?

You need to contact your insurance provider immediately to enquire why
there is no MID record. They need to rectify this as quickly as
possible to minimise the possibility of you being stopped by the
police and questioned about why you appear not to have insurance.

In my case "immediately" would have been 4.30pm yesterday when I checked
askMID to see what it said, ahead attempting to tax the vehicle. I was
unaware that they had stopped checking insurance.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <vp0ipaltli78b3ib5...@4ax.com>, at 11:17:27 on
Sun, 5 Jul 2015, steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>

remarked:
>>>Ask Mid is not real time, it can take several days, I would check it
>>>again Monday morning, carry your policy with you though if your using
>>>the car
>>
>>I've got the certificate for the old car - the company said they'd post
>>me a new one within six days. (Amazon can get things to me in under
>>24hrs seven days a week).
>
>Amazons postal and delivery system is client integrated for the most
>part , insurance companies are a different ball game Roland, they are
>all moving to electronic platforms of certificate distribution, snail
>mail is so last century ,

I'm not seriously expecting the insurance company to send the
certificate round by courier (although Amazon did send a courier again
today - it's quite difficult to get used to realising who might be
knocking on your door early on a Sunday morning).

> i am sre you could download the certificate through thier online
>service unless your going through a brokered service

Some companies do email certificates immediately, and mine sent me an
email. It asks me to log into their website, and there it has the
details of the new car. But when I click to download a copy of the
certificate it says "Your current documents are not available to view
online."
--
Roland Perry

[newshound]

Interesting. I wonder whether DVLA do, actually, go back and check
following each taxation, or whether they assume that miscreants will
eventually get caught by mobile ANPR.

I and another family member have both been pulled over after insurance
companies mangled registration numbers when posting them. Worth checking
ASKMID!

[Roland Perry]

In message <tJ6dneamX-eE3QTI...@brightview.co.uk>, at
15:32:58 on Sun, 5 Jul 2015, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com>
remarked:

>> The ASKMID website mentions a press release:
>>
>> 9 December 2013 - Motorists will no longer need motor insurance policies to be checked when getting their vehicle tax. The change, announced
>>today by Roads Minister Robert Goodwill, is part of a package of measures to get rid of unnecessary red tape.
>>
>> So DVLA now grab your cash and then chase you later if they find out you're not insured (or don't find positive confirmation that you are
>>insured, more likely).
>>
>> Owain
>>
>Interesting. I wonder whether DVLA do, actually, go back and check
>following each taxation, or whether they assume that miscreants will
>eventually get caught by mobile ANPR.

It'd be easy for them to automate, assuming a database with almost all
the records put on it. I wonder why the insurers are so bad, compared to
(say) MOT testers?

They could also automate doing a check when the insurance is due to
expire, to see if the vehicle has been either re-insured or SORNed.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <mnaurc$7lc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:30 on Sun, 5 Jul
> 2015, Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
>>> The question was, "do DVLA use the same non-real-time database".
>>>
>>> The answer is apparently "no, they don't use any database".
>>
>> I was responding to your statement "And still not showing as insured
>> on AskMID this morning". That was why I inserted my question under
>> that statement. I know that DVLA don't access any insurance
>> database: I said so in response to your question.
>
> Unless you also post as "Owain", you didn't.
>

I posted in response to your original post:

"> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,

Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.

(NB evidence of insurance is still required in NI .)"

I am sorry that an indication that DVLA have stopped needing evidence of
insurance was not seen as an indication that they do not accces an
online database of motor vehicle insurance. (DVLA would be lemming-like
to do so given the PAC et al. take a rather dim view of unauthorised
expenditure.)

--
Robin
posting from the naughty step?

[newshound]

Given their appalling reputation, they should probably be doing less
software development rather than more! I suspect that they are
under-resourced.

[Robin]

newshound wrote:
> Interesting. I wonder whether DVLA do, actually, go back and check
> following each taxation, or whether they assume that miscreants will
> eventually get caught by mobile ANPR.
>

DVLA use the DVLA vehicle register and the Motor Insurance Database to
identify registered keepers of uninsured vehicles. The MIB then write
to the keepers. If the vehicle stays uninsured DVLA churn out Fixed
Penalty Notices - £50 if paid within 21 days.

Patently doesn't even get out the starting blocks if the car is
unregistered and untaxed. And not much use if the registered keeper's
name/address is false.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:36:07 +0100, Robin put finger to keyboard and typed:

If it's unregistered then, unless it has never been registered, the DVLA
will have a record of the most recent registered keeper. Who will,
therefore, get the penalty.

If the keeper's address is false, then that won't reach the actual owner.
But if the car is used on the road it will be flagged up the first time it
gets checked by ANPR. So the prospect of getting away with it for any
significant length of time is minimal.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on security and privacy on the Internet: http://meyu.eu/ao
My blog: http://www.markgoodge.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnbhsv$a82$1...@dont-email.me>, at 16:20:26 on Sun, 5 Jul 2015,

Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <mnaurc$7lc$1...@dont-email.me>, at 10:56:30 on Sun, 5 Jul
>> 2015, Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>>> The question was, "do DVLA use the same non-real-time database".
>>>>
>>>> The answer is apparently "no, they don't use any database".
>>>
>>> I was responding to your statement "And still not showing as insured
>>> on AskMID this morning". That was why I inserted my question under
>>> that statement. I know that DVLA don't access any insurance
>>> database: I said so in response to your question.
>>
>> Unless you also post as "Owain", you didn't.
>
>I posted in response to your original post:
>
>"> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash,
>
>Yes - asssuming "cash" is a nod to transaction at a Post Office.

It wasn't a transaction at a Post Office, but direct with DVLA.

>(NB evidence of insurance is still required in NI .)"
>
>I am sorry that an indication that DVLA have stopped needing evidence of
>insurance was not seen as an indication that they do not accces an
>online database of motor vehicle insurance.

You only mentioned the Post Office not requiring proof. Now that it's
all online, one might reasonably not expect the Post Office to have
access to the insurance database.

--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:36:07 +0100, Robin put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> newshound wrote:
>>> Interesting. I wonder whether DVLA do, actually, go back and check
>>> following each taxation, or whether they assume that miscreants will
>>> eventually get caught by mobile ANPR.
>>>
>>
>> DVLA use the DVLA vehicle register and the Motor Insurance Database
>> to identify registered keepers of uninsured vehicles. The MIB then
>> write to the keepers. If the vehicle stays uninsured DVLA churn
>> out Fixed Penalty Notices - £50 if paid within 21 days.
>>
>> Patently doesn't even get out the starting blocks if the car is
>> unregistered and untaxed. And not much use if the registered
>> keeper's name/address is false.
>
> If it's unregistered then, unless it has never been registered, the
> DVLA will have a record of the most recent registered keeper. Who
> will, therefore, get the penalty.

Sorry for my sloppy use of "unregistered". I had in mind vehicles not
registered in the UK. They are a significant issue in some areas; and
can even avoid the 6 month rule by a quick trip to Calais.

> If the keeper's address is false, then that won't reach the actual
> owner. But if the car is used on the road it will be flagged up the
> first time it gets checked by ANPR. So the prospect of getting away
> with it for any significant length of time is minimal.
>

Do you know the odds now please? Last time I had cause to look the odds
of being caught were around 1 in 10 a year. Things may have improved
since - although I think the MIB still estimate c.1 million uninsured
drivers on the roads.

[Flop]

On 05/07/2015 16:03, Roland Perry wrote:

I wonder why the insurers are so bad, compared to
> (say) MOT testers?
>

Recently insured with Nationwide.

Within 5 minutes of completing the transaction, I had, by email, the
policy, the certificate and a letter [including instructions to derive
the password for the certificate].

What was disappointing was the basic nature of the policy. It could have
been produced by Word in a couple of minutes with just a graphics
signature to insert.

--

Flop

Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 17:46:27 +0100, Robin put finger to keyboard and typed:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2015 16:36:07 +0100, Robin put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>>> newshound wrote:
>>>> Interesting. I wonder whether DVLA do, actually, go back and check
>>>> following each taxation, or whether they assume that miscreants will
>>>> eventually get caught by mobile ANPR.
>>>>
>>>
>>> DVLA use the DVLA vehicle register and the Motor Insurance Database
>>> to identify registered keepers of uninsured vehicles. The MIB then
>>> write to the keepers. If the vehicle stays uninsured DVLA churn
>>> out Fixed Penalty Notices - £50 if paid within 21 days.
>>>
>>> Patently doesn't even get out the starting blocks if the car is
>>> unregistered and untaxed. And not much use if the registered
>>> keeper's name/address is false.
>>
>> If it's unregistered then, unless it has never been registered, the
>> DVLA will have a record of the most recent registered keeper. Who
>> will, therefore, get the penalty.
>
>Sorry for my sloppy use of "unregistered". I had in mind vehicles not
>registered in the UK. They are a significant issue in some areas; and
>can even avoid the 6 month rule by a quick trip to Calais.

That's an entirely different issue, though. The problem of foreign
registered vehicles evading UK traffic laws isn't new.

>> If the keeper's address is false, then that won't reach the actual
>> owner. But if the car is used on the road it will be flagged up the
>> first time it gets checked by ANPR. So the prospect of getting away
>> with it for any significant length of time is minimal.
>>
>Do you know the odds now please? Last time I had cause to look the odds
>of being caught were around 1 in 10 a year. Things may have improved
>since - although I think the MIB still estimate c.1 million uninsured
>drivers on the roads.

It depends on how often the car is used, and where it is used. The chances
of getting away with it on a daily commute into a big city are considerably
lower than the occasional jaunt in the countryside.

[newshound]

On my very limited data sample I would say the ANPR checking is higher
than this. I was picked up within a week, for example, and I don't do
high mileages.

[Neil Williams]

On 2015-07-04 15:54:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash

Yes, I believe the insurance and MoT checks have been removed, and
these are now checked and enforced separately.

Neil
--
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the @ to reply.

[Neil Williams]

On 2015-07-05 20:40:23 +0000, Neil Williams said:

> Yes, I believe the insurance and MoT checks have been removed, and
> these are now checked and enforced separately.

Correction, only the insurance check was removed.

[Robin]

Neil Williams wrote:
> On 2015-07-04 15:54:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:
>
>> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash
>
> Yes, I believe the insurance and MoT checks have been removed, and
> these are now checked and enforced separately.
>

You still cannot tax a vehicle without an MoT test certificate (if one
is required) for the date the tax starts.


--
Robin

[Roland Perry]

In message <laudnVSJL8h78ATI...@brightview.co.uk>, at
18:48:21 on Sun, 5 Jul 2015, Flop <Fl...@flop.knot.me.uk> remarked:

> I wonder why the insurers are so bad, compared to
>> (say) MOT testers?
>>
>
>Recently insured with Nationwide.
>
>Within 5 minutes of completing the transaction, I had, by email, the
>policy, the certificate and a letter [including instructions to derive
>the password for the certificate].

I had those, so why are they (generically) apparently bad at also
updating ASKMID?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <iMKdnUoEedyREQTI...@brightview.co.uk>, at
20:57:00 on Sun, 5 Jul 2015, newshound <news...@stevejqr.plus.com>
remarked:

>>>if the car is used on the road it will be flagged up the
>>> first time it gets checked by ANPR. So the prospect of getting away
>>> with it for any significant length of time is minimal.
>>>
>> Do you know the odds now please? Last time I had cause to look the odds
>> of being caught were around 1 in 10 a year. Things may have improved
>> since - although I think the MIB still estimate c.1 million uninsured
>> drivers on the roads.
>>
>On my very limited data sample I would say the ANPR checking is higher
>than this. I was picked up within a week, for example, and I don't do
>high mileages.

This will depend on where the ANPR cameras are installed. There are
strong hints that they are mainly mobile cameras inside DVLA's own
vehicles. And possibly inside police vehicles, although they may only
have a database of "vehicles of interest" rather than all of them

<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/use-of-automatic-number-
plate-recognition>
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <cvtj13...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:40:23 on Sun, 5 Jul
2015, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>> It hasn't shown up as insured on ASKMID (as of just now) but DVLA
>> online *did* allow me to tax the vehicle. Have the latter stopped
>> needing proof of insurance before they grab your cash
>
>Yes, I believe the insurance and MoT checks have been removed, and
>these are now checked and enforced separately.

The MOT test results are on a DVLA IT system, and I have no reason to
suspect that this isn't checked.

https://www.gov.uk/get-vehicle-information-from-dvla
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <mnc8g9$vcb$1...@dont-email.me>, r...@hotmail.com (Robin) wrote:

> You still cannot tax a vehicle without an MoT test certificate (if
> one is required) for the date the tax starts.

But if you are paying your tax monthly, they will take your instalment,
even if you don't have an MOT.

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Please Help us dispose of unwanted virtual currency:
Bitcoin: 1LzAJBqzoaEudhsZ14W7YrdYSmLZ5m1seZ

[Adam Funk]

Just out of curiosity, is it possible in the UK to buy 3rd party
insurance for a named person to drive any car without specifying a car
in the policy? If so, how would this be dealt with by the police?

[Paul Cummins]

In article <mndlp2$87i$6...@dont-email.me>, jeth...@hotmailbin.com
(Jethro_uk) wrote:

> For many years I drove on such a policy, as a
> director of a motor repair business. It specifically permitted me
> to drive a car *uninsured* on any other policy.

My current policy allows me to drive any car not owned by me third party -
it doesn't require that car to be insured under any other policy.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 14:05:00
on Mon, 6 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> For many years I drove on such a policy, as a
>> director of a motor repair business. It specifically permitted me
>> to drive a car *uninsured* on any other policy.
>
>My current policy allows me to drive any car not owned by me third party -
>it doesn't require that car to be insured under any other policy.

Are you sure - this has been a change over the last few years and may be
in the small-print. It's mainly to stop you releasing a friend's
uninsured vehicle from the car pound.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <nCvWaPSW...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

>
> Are you sure - this has been a change over the last few years and
> may be in the small-print. It's mainly to stop you releasing a
> friend's uninsured vehicle from the car pound.

The certificate stops it being used to release a car from the pound, but
the small print is clear - no restrictions other than permission, taxed,
roadworthy.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mne3v6$87i$9...@dont-email.me>, at 14:39:34 on Mon, 6 Jul 2015,
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> remarked:
>our policy also allowed us to drive untaxed cars, since trade
>plates used to be (no idea what the current situation is) taxed, and
>would cover the vehicle.
>
>Technically you were supposed to physically cover the vehicles own
>plates. However there were gangs in London in the 80s who would lift them
>off a car stuck in traffic - usually without the driver realising.

I can't remember the last time I saw a trade plate anywhere other than
invisible and horizontal on the front facia of a car.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:08 +0100 (BST), Paul Cummins put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>In article <mnc8g9$vcb$1...@dont-email.me>, r...@hotmail.com (Robin) wrote:
>
>> You still cannot tax a vehicle without an MoT test certificate (if
>> one is required) for the date the tax starts.
>
>But if you are paying your tax monthly, they will take your instalment,
>even if you don't have an MOT.

That's consistent with the old system. If your MOT expired on 29th July and
your tax expired on 31st July, you could still get away with re-taxing it
on the 28th July. The MOT only needs to be valid on the day that the tax is
applied for.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <9kilpa10i7bnuiiq0...@news.markshouse.net>,

use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk (Mark Goodge) wrote:

> That's consistent with the old system. If your MOT expired on 29th
> July and your tax expired on 31st July, you could still get away with
> re-taxing it on the 28th July. The MOT only needs to be valid on the
> day that the tax is applied for.

Try:

MOT expired on 14 March, vehicle taken offroad, Direct debit drawn on 1
April, new MOT from 16 April.

Also, if you cancel the direct debit, even to move banks, you lose a
months tax.

[Robin]

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:08 +0100 (BST), Paul Cummins put finger to
> keyboard and typed:
>
>> In article <mnc8g9$vcb$1...@dont-email.me>, r...@hotmail.com (Robin)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You still cannot tax a vehicle without an MoT test certificate (if
>>> one is required) for the date the tax starts.
>>
>> But if you are paying your tax monthly, they will take your
>> instalment, even if you don't have an MOT.
>
> That's consistent with the old system. If your MOT expired on 29th
> July and your tax expired on 31st July, you could still get away with
> re-taxing it on the 28th July. The MOT only needs to be valid on the
> day that the tax is applied for.
>

I think they have changed that. My MoT expires on 29 May and tax at end
of May. I cannot buy new tax online until I have a new MoT. And what I
said above is what gov.uk has. See eg:

https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-tax-disc-in-advance
"an MOT or Goods Vehicle Testing (GVT) certificate (if you need one for
your vehicle), which must be valid when the new tax starts"

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-tax
"MOT test certificate if required (must be valid when the tax starts)"

[Neil Williams]

On 2015-07-06 14:05:10 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> Are you sure - this has been a change over the last few years and may
> be in the small-print. It's mainly to stop you releasing a friend's
> uninsured vehicle from the car pound.

And also because once you park it and walk away from it you are no
longer driving it, so if you do so on a road it is potentially
confusing as to whether it is insured or not.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <d01ff8...@mid.individual.net>,

wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk (Neil Williams) wrote:

> And also because once you park it and walk away from it you are no
> longer driving it, so if you do so on a road it is potentially
> confusing as to whether it is insured or not.

If that were the case, then no-one would have to pay parking tickets,
since the driver is liable, and no-one is driving if the vehicle is
parked.

The vehicle is insured for third party risks while I am using it.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 09:14:00
on Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> And also because once you park it and walk away from it you are no
>> longer driving it, so if you do so on a road it is potentially
>> confusing as to whether it is insured or not.
>
>If that were the case, then no-one would have to pay parking tickets,
>since the driver is liable, and no-one is driving if the vehicle is
>parked.

The keeper is responsible for paying, or for fingering the driver.

>The vehicle is insured for third party risks while I am using it.

Only while you are driving it. If you park it on the street it's not
being "used by you" in that sense.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <lKDWYUzn...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

> The keeper is responsible for paying, or for fingering the driver.

Not true. Not even close to true in many cases, especially with Private
tickets where most companies involved still can't get their head around
compliance for Keeper Liability.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 11:48:00

on Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> The keeper is responsible for paying, or for fingering the driver.
>
>Not true. Not even close to true in many cases, especially with Private
>tickets where most companies involved still can't get their head around
>compliance for Keeper Liability.

Weren't we talking about official parking tickets?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <lkE2jp47...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, at 15:40:59 on Sun, 5
Jul 2015, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>> i am sre you could download the certificate through thier online
>>service unless your going through a brokered service
>
>Some companies do email certificates immediately, and mine sent me an
>email. It asks me to log into their website, and there it has the
>details of the new car. But when I click to download a copy of the
>certificate it says "Your current documents are not available to view
>online."

Cover note arrived in the post this morning. ASKMID still saying "not
insured" and insurer's website still saying "Your current documents are
not available to view online."
--
Roland Perry

[Neil Williams]

On 2015-07-07 11:21:41 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> Cover note arrived in the post this morning. ASKMID still saying "not
> insured" and insurer's website still saying "Your current documents are
> not available to view online."

Sounds dodgy, I'd give them a call. I have been caught out in that
situation before with a major insurer where the policy wasn't issued
properly, and even though I had a cover note technically did not exist.

[Roland Perry]

In message <d02aef...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:44:45 on Tue, 7 Jul
2015, Neil Williams <wensl...@pacersplace.org.uk> remarked:

>> Cover note arrived in the post this morning. ASKMID still saying "not
>> insured" and insurer's website still saying "Your current documents are
>> not available to view online."
>
>Sounds dodgy, I'd give them a call. I have been caught out in that
>situation before with a major insurer where the policy wasn't issued
>properly, and even though I had a cover note technically did not exist.

They said it would take six days [without specifying working vs
calendar].

I'll check every now and again to see how they are doing.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <Too7gi2JT7mVFA$f...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

> Weren't we talking about official parking tickets?

According to Parking Eye v Beavis, private parking tickets are official.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 20:40:00

on Tue, 7 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> Weren't we talking about official parking tickets?
>
>According to Parking Eye v Beavis, private parking tickets are official.

Can we get back to the original issue?
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <ZyOZG$$XODn...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

> Can we get back to the original issue?

Certainly.

My insurer (Direct Line) has confirmed that my third party any vehicle
cover means that from the moments I am given the keys to the moment I
hand them back, I am using the vehicle, and therefore they cover third
party risk.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 02:27:00
on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> Can we get back to the original issue?
>
>Certainly.
>
>My insurer (Direct Line) has confirmed that my third party any vehicle
>cover means that from the moments I am given the keys to the moment I
>hand them back, I am using the vehicle, and therefore they cover third
>party risk.

That's very noble of them. The policy only talks about "driving" other
cars.

It sounds like a good way to be able to help other people out - a friend
of mine was worried a few years ago because his insurer wouldn't issue
overlapping cover for his old and new car[1], but he wanted to have the
old car available for sale (ie not SORNed). It appeared the only way to
do that would be to take out an additional short-term policy. If I had
been insured by DL, then he could simply have sent me a set of keys in
the post and my cover would have allowed him to continue parking it in
his drive while prospective buyers viewed it.

(If they wanted a test drive then that would have to be covered by the
buyer's "other car" insurance).

[1] My own insurer recently told me that I had automatic cover for the
situation of trading in one for another (as long as I tell them as
soon as practicable afterwards), although I can't this situation
that mentioned in the policy.

I can drive "other cars" as long as 'the other car is insured in its
own right'; and a further restriction that the primary car on the
policy is still owned by me, and isn't stolen or written off. They
clearly don't want to cover substitute cars rather than occasional
'emergency' driving.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
> It sounds like a good way to be able to help other people out - a
> friend of mine was worried a few years ago because his insurer
> wouldn't issue overlapping cover for his old and new car[1], but he
> wanted to have the old car available for sale (ie not SORNed). It
> appeared the only way to do that would be to take out an additional
> short-term policy. If I had been insured by DL, then he could simply
> have sent me a set of keys in the post and my cover would have
> allowed him to continue parking it in his drive while prospective
> buyers viewed it.

Where the car would have failed to meet the "insurance requirements" in
s.144A RTA 1988 so risking a letter from the MIB, followed by a FPN
i.d.c.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnimqo$2fe$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:27:27 on Wed, 8 Jul 2015,
Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

On my current insurance, but previously I was with Direct Line.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

I know. I did read your sentence beginning "If I had been insured by
DL...". But I did not, and still do not, see how your being covered to
drive any car on your policy meets the requirements of the Act when the
owner's policy has lapsed (and assuming the car's on no other policy).
Can you help me with how it would meet either the first or second
condition in s.144A?

[Roger Hayter]

Is it the registered keeper who is responsible for meeting s.144A? I
know I could read it, but you might know! It seems entirely possible
that Roland might be driving a car perfectly legally, with appropriate
third party cover, while the keeper was simultaneously in breach of
s.144A.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnj05u$1bg$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:07:00 on Wed, 8 Jul 2015,

Agreed, the law does appear to require the vehicle to be insured to the
named keeper.

Where does this leave people like Paul who are apparently comfortable
driving a car without that?
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <HugehQLv...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

> Where does this leave people like Paul who are apparently
> comfortable driving a car without that?

Legal, according to the letter and the spirit of the law.

If you feel that I have misinterpreted my policy documents, then please
show me how and where, from the original documents.

Otherwise, your comments could be seen to be casting aspersions on my
conduct, which would not be appropriate for this group.

[PJK]

On 08/07/2015 14:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <mnj05u$1bg$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:07:00 on Wed, 8 Jul 2015,
> Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>> I know. I did read your sentence beginning "If I had been insured by
>> DL...". But I did not, and still do not, see how your being covered to
>> drive any car on your policy meets the requirements of the Act when the
>> owner's policy has lapsed (and assuming the car's on no other policy).
>> Can you help me with how it would meet either the first or second
>> condition in s.144A?
>
> Agreed, the law does appear to require the vehicle to be insured to the
> named keeper.
>
> Where does this leave people like Paul who are apparently comfortable
> driving a car without that?

I read it that Paul would be insured to drive under his policy but the
keeper would be guilty of an offence of keeping an uninsured vehicle.

Peter

[Robin]

I have seen nothing in Paul Cummins' posts which is either (a)
inconsistent with my comments and questions or (b) evidence that he is
in any way commiting an offence. So I don't really understand your
question.

Am I allowed to ask if have actually read s.144A and/or suggest it might
help if you did so?

[Robin]

Since I seem to be on the naughty step already I shall refrain from the
response which first came to mind.

> It seems entirely possible
> that Roland might be driving a car perfectly legally, with
> appropriate third party cover, while the keeper was simultaneously in
> breach of s.144A.

I shall instead merely point out that:

a. I never said Roland would be driving the car unlawfully. I was
pointing out that AFAICS it would leave the offence under s.144A; and
b. yes, it is thre registered the keeper who would be guilty of the
offence under s.144A

There may be some provision of which I am unware which means it does all
work. It's by no means my "specialist subject". But bearing in mind a
vehicle which does not meet s.144A can be clamped and removed I'd rather
hoped Roland had more to say to comfort adopters of his cunning plan.
--
Robin
(Assuming there's no law against *sitting* on the step)

[Robin]

August West wrote:

> And, as a result, Paul would be at risk of being stopped, and having
> the vehicle he was driving siezed, despite him, personally, being
> legally insured, and committing no offence? Is that the upshot?

No, no, no, no. Or at least not necessarily.

Consider a very common scenario :

a. A is registered keeper of a car and takes out a policy covering A
and named driver B;
b. A would like friend P to drive the car but is worried P would not
be insured;
c. P shows A the policy which covers P to drive any car (albeit only
statutory cover/TP).

The difference from Roland's scheme is patent: there is no offence under
s.144A because of the policy A has. In contradistinction Roland posited
using a policy such as Paul's to get round the fact A's policy had
lapsed or been cancelled.

[Roger Hayter]

So Roland might be ok if he only uses the car as often and in the
circumustances his insurer permits; but he would be well advised not
to leave the car unattended in a public place. Or could they
confiscate it from him under s.144A even though he was driving it
lawfully?


--
Roger Hayter

[Robin]

August West wrote:
> The latter (keeper uninsured, driver insured) was the scenario I
> thought was being considered.

Apologies for doubting you. I can only plead in mitigation that I
thought I had already dealt with that point in reply to Roger Hayter;
and that I may have been conditioned by the many assumptions made in
this thread.

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 16:27:00
on Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> Where does this leave people like Paul who are apparently
>> comfortable driving a car without that?
>
>Legal, according to the letter and the spirit of the law.
>
>If you feel that I have misinterpreted my policy documents, then please
>show me how and where, from the original documents.
>
>Otherwise, your comments could be seen to be casting aspersions on my
>conduct, which would not be appropriate for this group.

It's not your conduct which is in question - I have read the DL policy
and in conjunction with the letter you have from DL clarifying what they
mean by "driving", that part of the equation is above board. But see my
recent reply to Roger.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1m79gkj.46omfp2wemoyN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 22:23:05 on Wed,
8 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> a. I never said Roland would be driving the car unlawfully. I was
>> pointing out that AFAICS it would leave the offence under s.144A; and
>> b. yes, it is thre registered the keeper who would be guilty of the
>> offence under s.144A
>>
>> There may be some provision of which I am unware which means it does all
>> work. It's by no means my "specialist subject". But bearing in mind a
>> vehicle which does not meet s.144A can be clamped and removed I'd rather
>> hoped Roland had more to say to comfort adopters of his cunning plan.
>
>So Roland might be ok if he only uses the car as often and in the
>circumustances his insurer permits; but he would be well advised not
>to leave the car unattended in a public place. Or could they
>confiscate it from him under s.144A even though he was driving it
>lawfully?

I've never used the "cunning plan", but now s.144A has come to light, I
do wonder if the keeper of whatever car Paul is able to drive is risking
prosecution/seizure by not having independent insurance.

And of course, the reason why DL don't mention "insured in its own
right" in their policy could well be because they regard that situation
as moot; although it does protect the driver from 3rd party claims, even
if it doesn't protect the keeper from prosecution.
--
Roland Perry

[Paul Cummins]

In article <J6Nd0XZZ...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

> It's not your conduct which is in question - I have read the DL
> policy and in conjunction with the letter you have from DL
> clarifying what they mean by "driving", that part of the equation
> is above board.

Thank you.

> But see my
> recent reply to Roger.

Section 144A doesn't concern me, as the insured driver.

[Robin]

Roger Hayter wrote:

> So Roland might be ok if he only uses the car as often and in the
> circumustances his insurer permits; but he would be well advised not
> to leave the car unattended in a public place. Or could they
> confiscate it from him under s.144A even though he was driving it
> lawfully?

I don't know if by "confiscate" you mean seize and remove; and I have no
intention of reading the legislation, including regulations, to seek a
firm answer. I'm also not in the habit of making up whatever answer
seems to me to be what the law ought to provide;) All I will say is
that (a) it seems to me any police officer with ANPR would have
reasonable grounds to stop the car and (b) once the car is stopped then,
assuming it is in a public place, it seems to me liable to be clamped
(as I have already indicated). But I've no idea of police practice.

[Paul Cummins]

In article <c6fYUfYR...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk

(Roland Perry) wrote:

> And of course, the reason why DL don't mention "insured in its own
> right" in their policy could well be because they regard that
> situation as moot;

Insurance is a contract of "ultimate faith" - they have as much duty to
disclose all aspects to me as I do to them.

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnk5gk$pjt$1...@dont-email.me>, at 22:44:10 on Wed, 8 Jul 2015,
Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>Roger Hayter wrote:
>
>> So Roland might be ok if he only uses the car as often and in the
>> circumustances his insurer permits; but he would be well advised not
>> to leave the car unattended in a public place. Or could they
>> confiscate it from him under s.144A even though he was driving it
>> lawfully?
>
>I don't know if by "confiscate" you mean seize and remove; and I have no
>intention of reading the legislation, including regulations, to seek a
>firm answer.

Given the FUD on the ASKMID site (and the occasional article in the
Daily Mail) you'd expect cars to be seized and crushed really quite
often. Although doubtless staying outside the M25 (and the equivalent in
other big cities) you might find the police have better things to do.
Not parking illegally might help a lot too.

> I'm also not in the habit of making up whatever answer
>seems to me to be what the law ought to provide;) All I will say is
>that (a) it seems to me any police officer with ANPR would have
>reasonable grounds to stop the car and (b) once the car is stopped then,
>assuming it is in a public place, it seems to me liable to be clamped
>(as I have already indicated). But I've no idea of police practice.

--

Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 09:19:00
on Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> But see my recent reply to Roger.
>
>Section 144A doesn't concern me, as the insured driver.

It might if you park the car somewhere and come back to find it has been
impounded. Not least because your policy *doesn't* allow you to release
the car. There's also the risk that you'll be stopped while driving, and
that will be time consuming and an opportunity for the police to have a
poke around.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <memo.2015070...@postmaster.cix.co.uk>, at 09:19:00
on Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk>
remarked:

>> And of course, the reason why DL don't mention "insured in its own
>> right" in their policy could well be because they regard that
>> situation as moot;
>
>Insurance is a contract of "ultimate faith" - they have as much duty to
>disclose all aspects to me as I do to them.

A primer on s144A (or their actual reason for failing to include the
restriction) isn't part of that, though.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <1m79gkj.46omfp2wemoyN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 22:23:05 on
> Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>> a. I never said Roland would be driving the car unlawfully. I
>>> was pointing out that AFAICS it would leave the offence under
>>> s.144A; and b. yes, it is thre registered the keeper who would
>>> be guilty of the offence under s.144A
>>>
>>> There may be some provision of which I am unware which means it
>>> does all work. It's by no means my "specialist subject". But
>>> bearing in mind a vehicle which does not meet s.144A can be clamped
>>> and removed I'd rather hoped Roland had more to say to comfort
>>> adopters of his cunning plan.
>>
>> So Roland might be ok if he only uses the car as often and in the
>> circumustances his insurer permits; but he would be well advised
>> not to leave the car unattended in a public place. Or could they
>> confiscate it from him under s.144A even though he was driving it
>> lawfully?
>
> I've never used the "cunning plan", but now s.144A has come to light,
> I do wonder if the keeper of whatever car Paul is able to drive is
> risking prosecution/seizure by not having independent insurance.

Yes. That is what I meant by "it would leave the offence under s.144A"
and "the keeper who would be guilty of the offence under s.144A"

> And of course, the reason why DL don't mention "insured in its own
> right" in their policy could well be because they regard that
> situation as moot; although it does protect the driver from 3rd party
> claims, even if it doesn't protect the keeper from prosecution.

Sorry but I can't why the situation would be seen by DL as moot. It can
be difficult for a driver who is borrowing a car to check that the car
meets the conditions in s.144A (and that's before we get into the
exceptions in 144B). If DL don't require their driver to check that
there is no offence under s.144A then they have presumably factored that
into their actuarial decisions on premium etc. and market advantage in
protecting drivers from fines/points for unintentionally driving
uninsured.

[Roger Hayter]

Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <J6Nd0XZZ...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk
> (Roland Perry) wrote:
>
> > It's not your conduct which is in question - I have read the DL
> > policy and in conjunction with the letter you have from DL
> > clarifying what they mean by "driving", that part of the equation
> > is above board.
>
> Thank you.
>
> > But see my
> > recent reply to Roger.
>
> Section 144A doesn't concern me, as the insured driver.

It would if you left the car parked for ten minutes and it got perfectly
lawfully clamped and removed. The fact that you were insured to drive
it would not, afaics, make the removal unlawful, nor, possibly, could
you reclaim it under your policy.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:

> In article <c6fYUfYR...@cf-f8.perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk
> (Roland Perry) wrote:
>
> > And of course, the reason why DL don't mention "insured in its own
> > right" in their policy could well be because they regard that
> > situation as moot;
>
> Insurance is a contract of "ultimate faith" - they have as much duty to
> disclose all aspects to me as I do to them.

No longer true of consumer insurance. Not that I think that negates
your point, just saying!

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

It seemed to me that the reference to clamping implied that this clause
was specifically intended to apply to cars not accompanied by a driver
(and thus, presumably, the keys) and that the drafters envisaged the law
about uninsured use to apply as before if the driver was present.
Though, of course, the actual words may be more relevant than the
intentisons of the legislators. Should an extra power to mop up
uninsured cars even when not in use be applied against a lawful, insured
driver? I have no ideal.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnlc6h$41t$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:44:27 on Thu, 9 Jul 2015,
Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

>Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <1m79gkj.46omfp2wemoyN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 22:23:05 on
>> Wed, 8 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>>>> a. I never said Roland would be driving the car unlawfully. I
>>>> was pointing out that AFAICS it would leave the offence under
>>>> s.144A; and b. yes, it is thre registered the keeper who would
>>>> be guilty of the offence under s.144A
>>>>
>>>> There may be some provision of which I am unware which means it
>>>> does all work. It's by no means my "specialist subject". But
>>>> bearing in mind a vehicle which does not meet s.144A can be clamped
>>>> and removed I'd rather hoped Roland had more to say to comfort
>>>> adopters of his cunning plan.
>>>
>>> So Roland might be ok if he only uses the car as often and in the
>>> circumustances his insurer permits; but he would be well advised
>>> not to leave the car unattended in a public place. Or could they
>>> confiscate it from him under s.144A even though he was driving it
>>> lawfully?
>>
>> I've never used the "cunning plan", but now s.144A has come to light,
>> I do wonder if the keeper of whatever car Paul is able to drive is
>> risking prosecution/seizure by not having independent insurance.
>
>Yes. That is what I meant by "it would leave the offence under s.144A"
>and "the keeper who would be guilty of the offence under s.144A"

Indeed, and a point I took on board quite some way back up the thread.

>> And of course, the reason why DL don't mention "insured in its own
>> right" in their policy could well be because they regard that
>> situation as moot; although it does protect the driver from 3rd party
>> claims, even if it doesn't protect the keeper from prosecution.
>
>Sorry but I can't why the situation would be seen by DL as moot.

Because there ought not to be any such thing as car on the road without
its own insurance. Offering to cover such a car might even be seen as
aiding and abetting.

>It can be difficult for a driver who is borrowing a car to check that
>the car meets the conditions in s.144A

Isn't that where ASKMID comes in (again)? Then there are the DVLA
facilities to check that it's taxed [in the absence of a disc these
days] - although is *driving* an untaxed car rather than *keeping*[1]
one an offence - and MOT, where I suspect the driver will cop the
ticket.

>(and that's before we get into the
>exceptions in 144B). If DL don't require their driver to check that
>there is no offence under s.144A then they have presumably factored that
>into their actuarial decisions on premium etc. and market advantage in
>protecting drivers from fines/points for unintentionally driving
>uninsured.

That's another possibility. Although as I explain above, perhaps they
don't think that situation should arise in the first place.

[1] There is of course also the definition of "keeping", and whether
hypothetically having such a car on long term loan might require one
to register as the keeper (which is a property quite distinct from
being the owner).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1m7afe9.t02sx21i5pd4oN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 10:23:43 on
Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> Section 144A doesn't concern me, as the insured driver.
>
>It would if you left the car parked for ten minutes and it got perfectly
>lawfully clamped and removed. The fact that you were insured to drive
>it would not, afaics, make the removal unlawful, nor, possibly, could
>you reclaim it under your policy.

There's a specific exception:

"8. Recovery of seized cars

We will not cover securing the release of a motor car, other than
your car, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or
public authority."

And of course, if the car is stolen then although both the lender and
borrower ought to be aware that there's no cover in place, there could
be a moral obligation on the borrower to make restitution. But that's
not a s144A issue.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87r3ohu...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 10:53:43 on Thu, 9 Jul
2015, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:

>> Insurance is a contract of "ultimate faith" - they have as much duty
>> to disclose all aspects to me as I do to them.
>

>It previously was.

Do you think that duty would have extended to educating customers about
the provisions of s144a? (Genuine question).

>But it it's not as absolute as that now, thanks to the Consumer
>Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012.
>
>There's a lot of reform ongoing on in insurance law, and much of the
>conventional wisdom is now obsolete, or soon will be.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1m7aesi.im2j9s17yp8x0N%ro...@hayter.org>, at 10:23:42 on
Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

I could be wrong, but my recollection is that the law was one of those
things that was piloted in London before being rolled out everywhere and
the main trigger was to allow local authorities to clear the streets of
uninsured (and quite possibly abandoned) cars.

While there are stories in the press which imply that every so often
they crush a brand new £50k car 'to encourage the others', if true I
would regard that as state sponsored vandalism. At the very least such
cars should be returned to the leasing company etc for a modest fee, or
sold at auction to raise funds for the same pot as parking tickets.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

Roland Perry wrote:
>> Sorry but I can't why the situation would be seen by DL as moot.
>
> Because there ought not to be any such thing as car on the road
> without its own insurance. Offering to cover such a car might even be
> seen as aiding and abetting.
>
>> It can be difficult for a driver who is borrowing a car to check that
>> the car meets the conditions in s.144A
>
> Isn't that where ASKMID comes in (again)? Then there are the DVLA
> facilities to check that it's taxed [in the absence of a disc these
> days] - although is *driving* an untaxed car rather than *keeping*[1]
> one an offence - and MOT, where I suspect the driver will cop the
> ticket.
>
>> (and that's before we get into the
>> exceptions in 144B). If DL don't require their driver to check that
>> there is no offence under s.144A then they have presumably factored
>> that into their actuarial decisions on premium etc. and market
>> advantage in protecting drivers from fines/points for
>> unintentionally driving uninsured.
>
> That's another possibility. Although as I explain above, perhaps they
> don't think that situation should arise in the first place.
>

That analysis proceeds from "there ought not to be any such thing as car
on the road without its own insurance". I am not sure that is correct.
There are (at least) 2 distinct offences: driving without insurance and
keeping a car without insurance. The latter (the s.144A offence) has
exceptions (as I think I mentioned in s.144B). An obvious one is SORN
(s.144B(5)). Driving a SORN'd car to a pre-arranged MoT test is
permitted without tax so long as as that use of the car is insured -
although I must stress I have not checked the statutes on that. So ISTM
the DL policy is well suited to cover such use; and that there is no
clear public policy argument against DL providing such cover.

[Robin]

Robin wrote:
> That analysis proceeds from "there ought not to be any such thing as
> car on the road without its own insurance". I am not sure that is
> correct. There are (at least) 2 distinct offences: driving without
> insurance and keeping a car without insurance. The latter (the
> s.144A offence) has exceptions (as I think I mentioned in s.144B). An
> obvious one is SORN (s.144B(5)). Driving a SORN'd car to a
> pre-arranged MoT test is permitted without tax so long as as that use
> of the car is insured - although I must stress I have not checked the
> statutes on that. So ISTM the DL policy is well suited to cover such
> use; and that there is no clear public policy argument against DL
> providing such cover.

PS
My final sentence was too firm given I now recall the exception for
trips to MoT tests preceded s.144A and is not mentioned in s.144B. It
may be that s.144A does have to be met even for a trip to the MoT
testing centre.

[Roland Perry]

In message <87mvz5t...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 11:21:42 on Thu, 9 Jul

2015, August West <aug...@kororaa.com> remarked:
>>>> Insurance is a contract of "ultimate faith" - they have as much duty
>>>> to disclose all aspects to me as I do to them.
>>>
>>>It previously was.
>>
>> Do you think that duty would have extended to educating customers
>> about the provisions of s144a? (Genuine question).
>

>And an intereting one. It's not a term they are chosing to impose, so
>there's no obligation there to draw attention to it. It's also part of
>statute law, and it's hard to see why there would an obligation to
>mention it, any more than informing customers that must have a valid
>driving licence and an MOT.

Actually, both the latter are mentioned in the policy.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <mnlkpd$18q$1...@dont-email.me>, at 12:10:59 on Thu, 9 Jul 2015,
Robin <r...@hotmail.com> remarked:

I always thought that SORN didn't have any exceptions, but haven't
looked into it in great detail.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

snip



Why on earth not? I can think of several circumstances when this is
appropriate. What there "ought not to be" is people owning and
running cars without insurance. Just because the government has brought
in a sweeping law which covers a wide range of other circumstances
doesn't mean everyone "ought" to put up with it. I can think of one
or two other examples of wide-ranging laws to crack what turns out to be
a very minor little nut.


--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

Indeed, there exists a number of firms providing short-term, otten
immediate, insurance cover which is useful in this sort of circumstance.
I don't see why they should be made unlawful because of the government's
efforts to extrac more money from the poor.



--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <1m7amfc.jtrtpm12lsv5sN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 13:06:55 on
Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> >Sorry but I can't why the situation would be seen by DL as moot.
>>
>> Because there ought not to be any such thing as car on the road without
>> its own insurance. Offering to cover such a car might even be seen as
>> aiding and abetting.
>
>snip
>
>Why on earth not? I can think of several circumstances when this is
>appropriate. What there "ought not to be" is people owning and
>running cars without insurance. Just because the government has brought
>in a sweeping law which covers a wide range of other circumstances
>doesn't mean everyone "ought" to put up with it. I can think of one
>or two other examples of wide-ranging laws to crack what turns out to be
>a very minor little nut.

The number of uninsured cars on the road, either being driven or
abandoned, is not a "very minor little nut".

There are around 1.2 million such vehicles [which is a little over 3%]
and around 25,000 claims a year have to be paid by the MIB - which is
funded by the people who do buy insurance.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <1m7amtr.tj7xvu1wx6kcgN%ro...@hayter.org>, at 13:06:55 on
Thu, 9 Jul 2015, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>> That analysis proceeds from "there ought not to be any such thing as car
>> on the road without its own insurance". I am not sure that is correct.
>> There are (at least) 2 distinct offences: driving without insurance and
>> keeping a car without insurance. The latter (the s.144A offence) has
>> exceptions (as I think I mentioned in s.144B). An obvious one is SORN
>> (s.144B(5)). Driving a SORN'd car to a pre-arranged MoT test is
>> permitted without tax so long as as that use of the car is insured -
>> although I must stress I have not checked the statutes on that. So ISTM
>> the DL policy is well suited to cover such use; and that there is no
>> clear public policy argument against DL providing such cover.
>
>Indeed, there exists a number of firms providing short-term, otten
>immediate, insurance cover which is useful in this sort of circumstance.
>I don't see why they should be made unlawful because of the government's
>efforts to extrac more money from the poor.

I'm puzzled because that sort of short-term insurance means the vehicle
*is* insured in its own right.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <87fv4xt...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 12:45:03 on Thu, 9 Jul

>They might well be, but that's different from it being a duty to be
>there.

If the insurance company wishes to impose restrictions (eg only licenced
drivers and MOT'd cars) then it does have to say so in the policy.
--
Roland Perry

[Roger Hayter]

Who can afford to. I'm not enormously upset by this.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

But not necessarily for the keeper to use, and it seems unlikely that
the information will be put on the MID in a timely way, i.e. before it
expires.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roland Perry]

In message <877fq9t...@news2.kororaa.com>, at 14:02:09 on Thu, 9 Jul

>Yes, if they form part of the terms. That's stating the obvious. It's
>different from mentioning s144a requirements, which do not. Which was
>the topic of this subthread, was it not?

We've drifted off that precise topic, and I would be surprised to find
an insurer who didn't restrict driving to those with licences. Perhaps
some specialist trade insurers will cover non-MOT'd cars.
--
Roland Perry