[briers]

Originally Posted by ihpj

Dude I don't wanna know what you do in your spare time in dark alleys ;0)

I dont think he needs dark alleys, the women he likes would eclipse most light sources.

[ab2pcs]

Originally Posted by andymc0001

I did later when i had to show them to release my car, just not at 0320 in the morning. Incidently my wife googled the MID whilst i was in the police car and it was listed as covered. The policeman stated it wasn't on the PNC.

What a jobs worth eh

[kaishang]

Originally Posted by ihpj

You would be right to be angry, but if at the time the action is taken the information is correct, then the ensuing actions are justifiable. Ys it's an inconvenience, but it surely isn't the Polices fault.

So if it isn't your fault and it isn't the Police's fault either - so who is left?

In this case OP had a plausible story about why it came up as no insurance.

OPs wife also googled the insurance database from inside the car at the time and that showed it was insured. Since the PNC gets it's data from the insurance database, after a time delay, then this is consistent with the story that OP told the police officer and presumably the police officer was informed about the direct insurance database search at the time.

So IMHO the police officer was wrong to impound the car and failed to use his judgement and common sense. It has wasted OPs time and money and also wasted police resources on nothing.

There were a range of possible options available to the officer at the time; he just chose a stupid one.

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by kaishang

There were a range of possible options available to the officer at the time; he just chose a stupid one.

We only have one side of the story and of course its easy to pre-judge what the Officer did was wrong; s/he isn't here to defend or explain their actions but I forget that in the presence of learned individuals like yourself, you are better placed to prejudge and comment on a situation in which you were neither trained to comment nor present for.

Perhaps I could make such (ludicrous) comments about your profession and field of work - would you find that acceptable?

Incidentally, a web page isn't evidence enough of proof of insurance - if it were, then you could produce that in Court or as a proof when given a producer. So to produce a web page holds no bearing as it is not admissible as evidence or worthy of consideration.

[Giff]

Originally Posted by ihpj

Perhaps I could make such (ludicrous) comments about your profession and field of work - would you find that acceptable?

I'm a Nurse but I still think Beverly Allitt deserved jail...

I think you need to get off your high horse, the guy was driving along legally, he was stopped and his car impounded, its not a mistake you need to defend.

[peterg1965]

Originally Posted by ihpj

Incidentally, a web page isn't evidence enough of proof of insurance - if it were, then you could produce that in Court or as a proof when given a producer. So to produce a web page holds no bearing as it is not admissible as evidence or worthy of consideration.

If the 'web page' in question is the MiD, which is a database and presumably the exact same one as the Police use and also the DVLA (when you tax your car on line). So, it is proof enough to tax your car and is the same database (web page) that we are encouraged to use to check to see if our car is insured, so isn't that evidence enough? Assume anyone can also check this (MiD) whilst sat in the back of a 'jam sandwich' on a smartphone?

Do the Police (via PNC) not check a live MiD database? or is there time lag in it? Surely, if there is a lag and someone is insistent that they are covered and have JUST renewed their insurance, there could be an element of doubt on behalf of the Police?

[kaishang]

Originally Posted by ihpj

Perhaps I could make such (ludicrous) comments about your profession and field of work - would you find that acceptable?

Incidentally, a web page isn't evidence enough of proof of insurance - if it were, then you could produce that in Court or as a proof when given a producer. So to produce a web page holds no bearing as it is not admissible as evidence or worthy of consideration.

Well yes, if I screwed up and caused a loss of time and money to some random chump due to failing to undertake basic research, then I would say it would be reasonable to criticise me.

A certificate of insurance is not proof of insurance either, because it is possible for me to take out insurance, get a certificate, then cancel the insurance and keep the certificate. Or it is possible to get the certificate then just terminate debits of a monthly premium, thus voiding the insurance. Or since there are so many different insurance companies, all with different letterheads making it impossible to know each one, it's possible to just fake your own certificate and print a new one each day with the previous days date on it, so that if stopped you would have a plausible story about how you could have a certificate but the car not on the PNC database. So if we are going to make up what can and can't be used to infer that there is insurance, we need to eliminate certificates of insurance as well.

Even say there is a certificate of insurance in the car with named drivers. How do we know that the driver of the car is the named driver? They may have only a paper driving licence, so the police officer would have to take their word for it that they are who they say they are.

So infact there is no way to be 100% sure on the spot, to the elimination of all doubt, that a car is insured. Police officers need to look at the documentation in front of them and listen to what the person has to say.

In this case there was electronic evidence that the car was insured and the driver had a reasonable sounding story. So again, the officer in this case chose to ignore all of that and impound the car. It is a waste of time and money for everyone.

[rsmallwo]

don't we own 335d's (tuned ones) so we can outrun the police?

I think the OP provided enough evidence to consistute resonable doubt and given the circumstances (early hours of the morning) and the type of car in question do they really fit the profile of the insurance dodging criminals.

I'd be happier to hear of stories like this If I knew that rates of insurance avoidance where low like say the murder rates in the UK, but they aren't. Lots of people are driving on the roads without insurance.

[Hotcoupe]

Originally Posted by kaishang

Well yes, if I screwed up and caused a loss of time and money to some random chump due to failing to undertake basic research, then I would say it would be reasonable to criticise me.

A certificate of insurance is not proof of insurance either, because it is possible for me to take out insurance, get a certificate, then cancel the insurance and keep the certificate. Or it is possible to get the certificate then just terminate debits of a monthly premium, thus voiding the insurance. Or since there are so many different insurance companies, all with different letterheads making it impossible to know each one, it's possible to just fake your own certificate and print a new one each day with the previous days date on it, so that if stopped you would have a plausible story about how you could have a certificate but the car not on the PNC database. So if we are going to make up what can and can't be used to infer that there is insurance, we need to eliminate certificates of insurance as well.

Even say there is a certificate of insurance in the car with named drivers. How do we know that the driver of the car is the named driver? They may have only a paper driving licence, so the police officer would have to take their word for it that they are who they say they are.

So infact there is no way to be 100% sure on the spot, to the elimination of all doubt, that a car is insured. Police officers need to look at the documentation in front of them and listen to what the person has to say.

In this case there was electronic evidence that the car was insured and the driver had a reasonable sounding story. So again, the officer in this case chose to ignore all of that and impound the car. It is a waste of time and money for everyone.

Sadly all the above is an irrelevance, the cop got a 'nick' and the fact the OP suffered inconvenience and costs is no biggy to the boys in blue. I can't imagine they lost any sleep over it or will anytime soon.

It's stories like this, that happen all too frequently, that alienate the very people these people are employed to serve.

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by kaishang

Well yes, if I screwed up and caused a loss of time and money to some random chump due to failing to undertake basic research, then I would say it would be reasonable to criticise me.

But you're going further than criticsing, you're making a judgement on the decision taken by the Officer and suggesting 'he screwed up'.

Originally Posted by kaishang

A certificate of insurance is not proof of insurance either...So if we are going to make up what can and can't be used to infer that there is insurance, we need to eliminate certificates of insurance as well.

Agree with everything you say, and this is why the PNC is cosndiered reliable as it is (supposed to be) uptodate and current.

Originally Posted by kaishang

So infact there is no way to be 100% sure on the spot, to the elimination of all doubt, that a car is insured. Police officers need to look at the documentation in front of them and listen to what the person has to say.

Again, totally agree. But you have to wieght certain factors more than others.

Originally Posted by kaishang

In this case there was electronic evidence that the car was insured and the driver had a reasonable sounding story. So again, the officer in this case chose to ignore all of that and impound the car. It is a waste of time and money for everyone.

There was no evidence to suggest the car was insured, because the PNC did not record it. A webpage is not proof enough and it isn't about 'making up' what is acceptable as proof of insurance, it is determined in Law. You can wave as many e-mails and webpages you like, but they are worth NIL because they aren't admissable.

What we know as 'fact' is:

1. When stopped car was not insured (not shown on PNC).
2. There was no evidence offered (Insurance Certificate) to suggest otherwise (again a webpage is not acceptable proof).
3. Telling is that the Officers who stopped the OP and siezed his vehicle did not appear to issue a fixed penalty notice, instead issued a producer only (lowest level of process). I would argue that discretion was used.
4. So unless you know for sure otherwise, you just take the chaps word for it? No, you go on 'fact' -> No insruance recorded on PNC, no admissableevidence forthcoming so you act accordingly.

Unfortunately sometimes innocent decent folk get caught up. The system isn't perfect, however its getting better.

[ihpj]

Originally Posted by rsmallwo

don't we own 335d's (tuned ones) so we can outrun the police?

If you got it use it!

Originally Posted by rsmallwo

I think the OP provided enough evidence to consistute resonable doubt and given the circumstances (early hours of the morning) and the type of car in question do they really fit the profile of the insurance dodging criminals.

I wanted to comment on this specifically and offer up the 'other perspective':

Most high value cars are stolen over night. They are usually driven out of the area from where stolen ASAP - fast roads are used to get them from Point A to Point B.

What you have here is a situation of a 'high value' car being driven along a route (no doubt well known to be used to drive out stolen cars) during the time of the day where such activity is at its highest (early hours of the morning) and shows when checked shows no insurance to boot - doesn't that start to sound worthy of a stop to anyone here?

All I'm saying is that

[Kerr]

Originally Posted by ihpj

If you got it use it!



I wanted to comment on this specifically and offer up the 'other perspective':

Most high value cars are stolen over night. They are usually driven out of the area from where stolen ASAP - fast roads are used to get them from Point A to Point B.

What you have here is a situation of a 'high value' car being driven along a route (no doubt well known to be used to drive out stolen cars) during the time of the day where such activity is at its highest (early hours of the morning) and shows when checked shows no insurance to boot - doesn't that start to sound worthy of a stop to anyone here?

All I'm saying is that

If the car was stolen, it probably would have been stolen from an owner who had insurance and not come up on the police system as uninsured surely?

[Kerr]

I was unaware that the database was the gospel and that's it.

I've searched for my cars in the past and found even weeks/months later they are still missing from the database.

Of my last few insurance companies, none send out documents any more. They only send an email but now from what has been said, it's pointless of me keeping it stored for easy access on my phone emails and probably every bit as useless to print off a hard copy on my on printer with no watermarks etc.

A bit rough if you are caught out by others mistakes.

[Desmondo]

I'd rather things like this happened on occassion (yes, including to me) meaning another 20 odd cars without insurance were also taken off the road than nothing at all. I think a lot of you are giving the police a hard time over this one. It's easy to judge an entire situation from your armchair with hindsight but actually think about the situation at the time. Your system tells you the driver has no insurance and in your experience it right 99.9% of the time. Do you let every driver flagged up as uninsured go just in case they're the 0.1%?

[charliesum]

I personally agree with Desmondo
we only have one side of the story.
this was a couple of weeks ago and we have not heard from the OP since.
We all sit looking at our screens and decide from the protection of our houses what is right and wrong very quickly (usually with a glass of red in our hand)
Did the OP provide proof of his Insurance and what was the outcome?
I for one would be very happy knowing that the cars without insurance are off the road full stop_ BUT IF mine was siezed for whatever reason and I had to pay money to retrieve it then Yes I would want that refunded and an apology.

[andymc0001]

I've been silently sitting on the sideline reading with interest.

The facts are i was in my Thomas Cook uniform with a valid airside pass on my way to the airport. I now have a screen print from LV showing they updated the NIB at 2300 on the previous night.

The police are yet to respond!

No doubt i could of put my boot down and left him but i had nothing to hide and was guilty of nothing except making sure 280 people got off on holiday on time!

[charliesum]

well I hope you get back your money and an apology mate
did the insurance run out the day before? in which case I think it was very rough treatment (guess they are classed as real time sources of info but to have your car seized is pretty poor show)or can the computer used not tell expiry dates just whether it is insured or not?

[Jon D]

Here's how they dealt with a 70 year old pensioner who wasn't wearing his seatbelt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10888435

[kaishang]

Originally Posted by ihpj

There was no evidence to suggest the car was insured, because the PNC did not record it. A webpage is not proof enough and it isn't about 'making up' what is acceptable as proof of insurance, it is determined in Law. You can wave as many e-mails and webpages you like, but they are worth NIL because they aren't admissable.

What we know as 'fact' is:

1. When stopped car was not insured (not shown on PNC).
2. There was no evidence offered (Insurance Certificate) to suggest otherwise (again a webpage is not acceptable proof).
3. Telling is that the Officers who stopped the OP and siezed his vehicle did not appear to issue a fixed penalty notice, instead issued a producer only (lowest level of process). I would argue that discretion was used.
4. So unless you know for sure otherwise, you just take the chaps word for it? No, you go on 'fact' -> No insruance recorded on PNC, no admissableevidence forthcoming so you act accordingly.

I'm sure that the law does not say that the PNC must show a car to be insured for it to be insured, the law will simply say that a car must be insured.

If you are correct here, then police policy is to use the PNC to check for insurance, but policy does not make law. If policy on use of the PNC was law, then there would be no "producers" because lack of proof on the PNC would be proof in itself. This is clearly not the case, so other evidence in addition to whatever is in the PNC may be accepted.

[kaishang]

Originally Posted by Jon D

Here's how they dealt with a 70 year old pensioner who wasn't wearing his seatbelt: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10888435

The pensioner did drive off after being stopped; that's a different story to just having your window smashed because you were not wearing a seatbelt.

[Jon D]

Originally Posted by kaishang

The pensioner did drive off after being stopped; that's a different story to just having your window smashed because you were not wearing a seatbelt.

Granted, but do you not think their reaction was just a touch OTT?

[Desmondo]

Not really, I think it's pretty standard procedure to stop a vehicle that's trying to get away isn't it? Change the pensioner for a 30 year old bloke and would you question it?