From "Non-motoring":
"
T'other side - LucyBC - Focus
>> Can you give an URL? I'd like to see the post.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=68927
First 2010 post.
"
That's a very encouraging post, and a complete change from previous ones there on this matter.
From LucyBC:
"The guidance now states that an MID check is only to be taken as evidence of lack of insurance - not as proof."
From Steven Farndon:
"To their credit, the officers of this constabulary were the good guys compared to the outfit known as Cumbria 2 years before. They were less trigger-happy and seemed to be aware that computers can be wrong so made a judgement accordingly. It was 11:30pm on a Saturday night so no chance for them to phone my insurance company so gave me a 7-day producer."
That is exactly what should have happened.
|
|
So they give him a producer to produce a certificate that they don't believe as it's not on the MID...
|
I must be missing something here, isn't that normal procedure?
Pat
|
>> I must be missing something here, isn't that normal procedure?
>>
No you are not missing anything...and yes it is normal procedure.
However that sort of things doesn't sell news space, so of course it will never be reported. The odd one that is a mistake or has Mr Unpleasant dealt with in an unsympathetic manner whern a 50/50 decision is to be made, can of course be ramped up by the complainant or edited in such a fashion that it looks more newsworthy.
There will be some of course where the officer is overly pedantic, unfortunately that is life.
|
|
Yes, but if you go and produce a certificate, it's then trivial for them to ring up and make sure it's legit.
|
>> Yes, but if you go and produce a certificate, it's then trivial for them to
>> ring up and make sure it's legit.
>>
No it's not, many people nowadays think that by purchasing a certificate of insurance, paying by instalments, get hold of the cert, then deliberately default on the payments, that by having the cert in your mitt you can talk your way out of it.
Wrong. Even with a cert present the MID is still checked.
Then there's the self printed certs that many companies provide nowadays, who knows what a genuine one looks like?
|
Im a motor trader
if i wanted i could put 100 pool cars for druggies burglars and thieves on my policy at the drop of a mouse
These cars would show as insured to the police and so long as they were also showing as taxed and mot ed then they will go through any police check unless its been seen acting suspiciously in an area or been flagged as might be
how do i know this
because ive seen it done by itinerent motor traders who usually also own one trade plate
the MID is seriously flawed and i agree with Stephen Farndon in everything he says (apart from where he now refuses to check the MID or ring his insurer to stop him getting anymore grief)
Its all down to pushing the grief as said onto the insurance taker , but we even pay insurance tax so you would think some of this could be used to kick insurers up the jacksie who fail to update their records,its so easy its all automatic its just a matter of pushing the right buttons on an internet link so they have no excuse whatsoever..
finally a system where all insurers are not part of the IBA is frankly in my opinion a very bad joke
and dont even start me on own insurers and the dirty tricks they can play on people caught out by wrecks repaired badly and sold by third parties
as for the mid if you have good reason you pay a fee and you get information if the 3rd party is insured,this is available to anybody and if i was in insurance or a solicitor etc then i would pay the yearly one off fee and have access 24/7 if i so wished
|
>> (apart from where he now refuses to check the MID or ring his insurer to
>> stop him getting anymore grief)
You as well, BB!
>> the MID is seriously flawed
I'm not sure its "seriously" flawed though, flawed, yes, because its only as good as the data inputted... but I reckon it would only be seriouly flawed if it wasn't fixable... and its easily fixable by, as we've all said, making the Insurance Cos pay out if the info is not updated correctly by them.
But then we get to the question of whether it can ever be 100% accurate... is anything these days where the human has to input data??
|
|
I can't say I'm bothered whether my car (or anyone else's) is on MID or not. My car is insured (comprehensive with protected no claims discount) and that's all I need to know.
|
>>>>and that's all I need to know.<<<<
Not if it you wish to tax on line,
or get pulled and have car confiscated by a copper having a bad day. Leaving you stranded in the middle of the night!
|
Whole MID concept is a farce! I'm buying a car tomorrow and it will take few days to get my details appear in MID. Right now I only have a print out from my insurer as proof of insurance.
So I can be harrassed at anytime during this time.
On other hand, my older car which was written off 3 weeks back, is still appearing as insured in MID (inspite of me sending all documents to my insurer's approved salvage agent).
|
Just what are the chances of that happenning, M? I'd say its virtually zero unless you are behaving in a strange manner when driving, in a built up area where the Police are more likely to be or there is an obvious fault on your car such as broken lights or accident damage...
I feel that this whole MID thing has been blown out of all proportion... talk about mountains and molehills...
|
>> I'd say its virtually zero unless you are behaving in a strange manner
What I understand is it is flagged by APNR cameras over motorway gantries and not by human police picking out cars at random!
|
You asume there is someone to follow it up...
I still feel that for the vast majority of insured drivers there is little to fear... and even if we are stopped if we take the right approach with the Police then the most we will get is a producer... If you get something in the post you will be able to refer them to the Insurance Company!
I agree that we need to ensure that the system is as watertight as possible but I have yet to see any proof that this whole issue is not a mountain from a molehill... and there's even a remedy for all of us, check it online... everyone has free access to the 'net at their local library!
|
>> I still feel that for the vast majority of insured drivers there is little to
>> fear... and even if we are stopped if we take the right approach with the
>> Police then the most we will get is a producer...
If we are stopped, a "producer" is the right way to go about it - however, discussions in t'other place indicated that it was quite routine to confiscate the car, on the spot - which is wrongness. "Taking the right approach" should not matter so long as one is within the law.
|
Since the police in the UK routinely ignored the law on arresting terror suspects..
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7818145/Stop-and-search-blunder-means-police-misused-power.html
it is naive to suggest they will "do the right thing" if you are not on the National Database..
Anyone who trusts the police to routinely do the right thing obviously is living in a past which never existed.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance...
Last edited by: madf on Fri 11 Jun 10 at 16:23
|
>> Since the police in the UK routinely ignored the law on arresting terror suspects..
>>
madf,
That is a tad disingenuous and I suspect you know so. Someone at the Home Office failed to get the Minister to sign it quickly enough, so it wasn't properly authorised.
It wasn't ignoring the law on arrests, it was stop/searching people without the proper authority, albeit they believed that authority had been given, because they were told it had.
|
|
Madf - you said that the police routinely ignore the laws on arresting terror suspects. Where are the arrests in stop and search? If you read the article, the error appears to be within the Home Office. Anyway, moving this argument on a bit this appears to me to be a strange law. HM government passes laws that allow stop/search under sec 44, if approved by the Home Secretary, but forces must apply for the powers, with some documented justification. Why do they bother applying? Why not suggest to ministers that they either want the power used, or they don't. If it's a matter of national security then HM Government's job to provide direction. Or perhaps they should assess current situations from their many sources of advice and direct when/where they want sec 44 used. I simply can't understand the process of: 'here's a piece of legislation but you'll have to ask to use it and tell us why'.
|
.... I simply can't understand the process of: 'here's a piece of legislation but you'll have to ask to use it and tell us why'...
Because it's a contentious piece of legislation to some - not me - so let's put the onus on the police forces and then we can blame them if anything goes wrong.
|
|
yes, that's my point, forces shouldn't apply to use it. That would force the government to tell them to use it, just like every other law.
|
Now this is a fact on MID.
Changed car recently. My new car's registration is appearing in MID as insured
BUT
the make & model are being shown as my OLD car!!!
When I logged in to my insurer's website with my details, it is correctly showing make & model.
That means make and model in MID is not fetched from DVLA database but shows what insurers supplied them. Obviously some idiot supplied wrong details to MID.
|
That means make and model in MID is not fetched from DVLA database but shows what insurers supplied them. Obviously some idiot supplied wrong details to MID
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>When i enter cars on the mid i only put registrations, never make and model though
|
>> That means make and model in MID is not fetched from DVLA database but shows
>> what insurers supplied them. Obviously some idiot supplied wrong details to MID.
Or does the MID database periodically sync with DVLA (perhaps out of owrking hours)?
|
>>
>> I simply can't understand the process of: 'here's a piece of legislation but you'll have
>> to ask to use it and tell us why'.
>>
Isn't that how normal search warrants work?
|
|
I can't see POT powers in the same way as a warrant. Both have a check/balance process but one's in the Home Office the other with an unqualified lay person. But I can see why you'd compare them in the context of my comment. Terrorism issues have a potentially far wider effect and should be addressed by the government. I'm afraid I still can't understand the process that makes forces grovel to use the powers. Simply stop asking and don't use them is the answer. If asked why there has been no application then any particular force could reply that they can't satisfy the relevant criteria. I'm sure if every force did this, or submitted weak applications that were rejected then it would place the onus straight back on the government to decide if it wanted these powers used. My point is that it shouldn't be a police decision to use the legislation, thats the task of government on behalf of the populace.
|
|
is see you havent mentioned the powers that POCA policemen have in the course of their investigations :-)
|
>> >>>>and that's all I need to know.<<<<
>>
>> Not if it you wish to tax on line,
I don't.
>> or get pulled and have car confiscated by a copper having a bad day. Leaving
>> you stranded in the middle of the night!
I'm not that neurotic about such a remote possibility.
|
|
Bellboy - What different powers do they have then?
|
They dont need to go before the cps for starters
they can have access to bank records for a certain period by getting a local circuit judge to approve it
they can confiscate any amount of money over £1000 if they believe it is laundered money
hows that?
|
|
bellboy, what it's got to do with this thread I don't know. secondly I have no idea who 'POCA' might be - enlighten me. Did you mean 'SOCA'? Thirdly, I don't know where you get your info from. Beyond a certain level of offences (as contained in the directors guidance on charging) then ALL matters are prosecuted by the CPS. There is no other prosecuting authority. Any accredited financial investigator can get access to financial records, no circuit judge needed. Plenty accredited investigators in the Police. All officers can sieze over £1000, the requirement isn't laundered money but proceeds of crime. Only suspicion required. There's no competition between authorities, it's irrelevant. Each authority has the powers it needs. As I said to a customs officer one day when he suggested he had more powers: 'I couldn't take the pay cut.' Well, he did start it!
|
thanks for the heads up Woodster
my information came from a very nice man last week
really cant say more
he asked if i had any information but im a good boy
when this one blows its going to blow big
and his card does say poca i googled iT AFTER HE LEFT
|
Not on the MID (Information from the other side). - Mapmaker
