Crosswords2 mins ago
Battle with police (Driving other cars)
19 Answers
I've so quickly come to realize the Police are a dificult bunch to deal with, Here is my story.
I was in peckham last saturday, my friend was tired after a night out and I decided to drive his car (only after logging into my online insurance and checking that i could do so). Just like winning the lottery a police van pulled up to were we were parked getting food. Stopped and searched us (All three black males) for drugs and weapons. (nothing found, code I)
While searching they found only my driving license. Without my permission they made some checks. The senior officer advised the guy who searched me to issue me a penalty notice. I told the searching officer: 'I've got insurance on my vehicle and allowed to drive other cars" but they tried to get me to sign that i said half the sentence (i refused). They were throughout being very cocky (I felt humiliated). nevertheless I called my insurance and they confirmed i could DOC though the paper insurance cert does state this
To cut the story short I've driven 200 miles pulling all documents together, returned to the MET police station only to be told I also have to get my mates certificate and come back on monday so they can also call my insurance. (100 miles journey and i finish work after 5pm when my insurance lines close, can't take time off work due to critical deadlines and probation). I was threatened to be reported for failing to provide all this info. Now ive got my mates insurance cert (ive checked his cars on MID).
Who is at fault then, the police officer who recklessly issued the IN10 ticket or my insurance for not feeding the police database that i could DOC. What should i do?, Is my insurance provider to be blamed for the embarrassment and expenses? What actions can i take towards the police (if/when i win this). i'm so stressed just for doing the right thing and think the policemen's actions were due to my color (no race card playing here).
I was in peckham last saturday, my friend was tired after a night out and I decided to drive his car (only after logging into my online insurance and checking that i could do so). Just like winning the lottery a police van pulled up to were we were parked getting food. Stopped and searched us (All three black males) for drugs and weapons. (nothing found, code I)
While searching they found only my driving license. Without my permission they made some checks. The senior officer advised the guy who searched me to issue me a penalty notice. I told the searching officer: 'I've got insurance on my vehicle and allowed to drive other cars" but they tried to get me to sign that i said half the sentence (i refused). They were throughout being very cocky (I felt humiliated). nevertheless I called my insurance and they confirmed i could DOC though the paper insurance cert does state this
To cut the story short I've driven 200 miles pulling all documents together, returned to the MET police station only to be told I also have to get my mates certificate and come back on monday so they can also call my insurance. (100 miles journey and i finish work after 5pm when my insurance lines close, can't take time off work due to critical deadlines and probation). I was threatened to be reported for failing to provide all this info. Now ive got my mates insurance cert (ive checked his cars on MID).
Who is at fault then, the police officer who recklessly issued the IN10 ticket or my insurance for not feeding the police database that i could DOC. What should i do?, Is my insurance provider to be blamed for the embarrassment and expenses? What actions can i take towards the police (if/when i win this). i'm so stressed just for doing the right thing and think the policemen's actions were due to my color (no race card playing here).
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cyberplayer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Are you American? That's by the by.
Every driver knows they have to produce all relevant documents when asked to by a police officer.
We are fortunate in that we have 7 days in which to produce the documents at a police station of our choice. Why didn't you name a station local to you?
You can no action against the police - they have done nothing wrong
Every driver knows they have to produce all relevant documents when asked to by a police officer.
We are fortunate in that we have 7 days in which to produce the documents at a police station of our choice. Why didn't you name a station local to you?
You can no action against the police - they have done nothing wrong
-- answer removed --
Yes, that is right, if the documents produced suggest you weren't driving with the correct insurance. You must produce within 7 days, not at 7 days.
A PCN is a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the council for parking offences.
Do you mean a Fixed Penalty Notice - An FPN? If you believed you were insured you should have refused to accept it and opt for court. However, you have 28 days to reject the FPN and request a court hearing. You must still produce the documents.
A PCN is a Penalty Charge Notice issued by the council for parking offences.
Do you mean a Fixed Penalty Notice - An FPN? If you believed you were insured you should have refused to accept it and opt for court. However, you have 28 days to reject the FPN and request a court hearing. You must still produce the documents.
there are a couple of things that don't quite ring true here...
a police van pulled up to were we were parked getting food. Stopped and searched us
you said you were parked up.... how did they stop you?
and surely if your parked... nobody was driving?
But anyhow.... any clause on an insurance document that says you can drive any other car is conditional on that car being fully insured by another person, else we would all insure a 2CV and drive a Porsche on that insurance so it is perfectaly resonable that you are expected to produce both insurance policies.
Also was the "local station" shut for 7days then?
(oh and the police don't need your permission to "run some checks on you", it would be hard to do their job if they did)
a police van pulled up to were we were parked getting food. Stopped and searched us
you said you were parked up.... how did they stop you?
and surely if your parked... nobody was driving?
But anyhow.... any clause on an insurance document that says you can drive any other car is conditional on that car being fully insured by another person, else we would all insure a 2CV and drive a Porsche on that insurance so it is perfectaly resonable that you are expected to produce both insurance policies.
Also was the "local station" shut for 7days then?
(oh and the police don't need your permission to "run some checks on you", it would be hard to do their job if they did)
thanks for the answers.
@Ethel. Yes i mean a FPN.
@chuck. apparently Stop and Search laws allows a police officer to search your vehicle whether or not you are in it (in this case i was sat behind the wheel but engine not running). They entered the close we were parked and surrounded the vehicle. lined us against a wall american style while rummaging through the vehicle and our pockets.
No, the local station was not shut for 7 days but being a busy person, i did not anticipate a police station could be shut on a saturday morning! Anyway i'm going back on monday (i was given a stamped note of extension to the 7days). All being well, i take it they will acknowledge the documents i produce, confirm with my insurance AND I'll still need to go to court??
I'm told that ill need myself, a lawyer, car occupants as witnesses (including vehicle owner), insurance representative against police & their lawyers. It seems a bit far fetched and smells of money & time.
Or can they not cancel the ticket in light of me successfully providing evidence of insurance??
Any other pitfalls to avoid, ive got a squeaky clean record?
@Ethel. Yes i mean a FPN.
@chuck. apparently Stop and Search laws allows a police officer to search your vehicle whether or not you are in it (in this case i was sat behind the wheel but engine not running). They entered the close we were parked and surrounded the vehicle. lined us against a wall american style while rummaging through the vehicle and our pockets.
No, the local station was not shut for 7 days but being a busy person, i did not anticipate a police station could be shut on a saturday morning! Anyway i'm going back on monday (i was given a stamped note of extension to the 7days). All being well, i take it they will acknowledge the documents i produce, confirm with my insurance AND I'll still need to go to court??
I'm told that ill need myself, a lawyer, car occupants as witnesses (including vehicle owner), insurance representative against police & their lawyers. It seems a bit far fetched and smells of money & time.
Or can they not cancel the ticket in light of me successfully providing evidence of insurance??
Any other pitfalls to avoid, ive got a squeaky clean record?
@ Ethel. dual national but more of a brit. I will wait see how it plays out and post the outcome.
Meanwhile I hope that someone can take away that in order to Drive other cars in UK;
Be insured on your main vehicle.
In most cases be over 25yrs
Confirm with your insurer you have this privilege.
Get permission from owner of other car (to drive).
Check the other car you are driving is insured: http://www.askmid.com.
Check that the other car has a valid MOT.
For worst case scenario, ensure that the MOT and principal certificate of OTHER vehicle is readily available along with your own driving documents.
Meanwhile I hope that someone can take away that in order to Drive other cars in UK;
Be insured on your main vehicle.
In most cases be over 25yrs
Confirm with your insurer you have this privilege.
Get permission from owner of other car (to drive).
Check the other car you are driving is insured: http://www.askmid.com.
Check that the other car has a valid MOT.
For worst case scenario, ensure that the MOT and principal certificate of OTHER vehicle is readily available along with your own driving documents.
"...any clause on an insurance document that says you can drive any other car is conditional on that car being fully insured by another person..."
I have lost count of the number of times on this forum that I have pointed out the fallacy of such a statement.
There is not yet* any legal obligation for a car to have two sets of insurance in place for it to be driven (although this precludes the driver exiting the car while parked in a public place) via DOC thus each insurance company is free to state the conditions under which DOC coverage exists. Some do specify such a condition but certainly not all (none of my previous policies nor my current one has such a condition).
*When Section 22 of the Road Safety Act 2006 receives a Commencement Order it will bring forth the offence of "keeping a vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements" (an extension of Continuous Insurance Enforcement) at which point the aforementioned second insurance policy (i.e. car already insured by another) requirement will come into play. However S.22 RTA 2006 is currently expected to be implemented some time in 2011.
I feel nothing but disdain for uninsured drivers but the caveat "check the other car... is insured" is a generalisation with no legal basis ahead of S.22. I suspect it is based on the presumption the DOC driver is likely to park the vehicle and should also prevent the kind of palaver highlighted above (although in this case it obviously didn't!). Unfortunately certain police powers to fine and impound were given to them years in advance of the change in insurance law which was meant to prompt those powers. It is the case that we are currently living in a limbo whereby the police can legally impound a car whilst it is being driven with the legally required insurance cover.
I have lost count of the number of times on this forum that I have pointed out the fallacy of such a statement.
There is not yet* any legal obligation for a car to have two sets of insurance in place for it to be driven (although this precludes the driver exiting the car while parked in a public place) via DOC thus each insurance company is free to state the conditions under which DOC coverage exists. Some do specify such a condition but certainly not all (none of my previous policies nor my current one has such a condition).
*When Section 22 of the Road Safety Act 2006 receives a Commencement Order it will bring forth the offence of "keeping a vehicle which does not meet insurance requirements" (an extension of Continuous Insurance Enforcement) at which point the aforementioned second insurance policy (i.e. car already insured by another) requirement will come into play. However S.22 RTA 2006 is currently expected to be implemented some time in 2011.
I feel nothing but disdain for uninsured drivers but the caveat "check the other car... is insured" is a generalisation with no legal basis ahead of S.22. I suspect it is based on the presumption the DOC driver is likely to park the vehicle and should also prevent the kind of palaver highlighted above (although in this case it obviously didn't!). Unfortunately certain police powers to fine and impound were given to them years in advance of the change in insurance law which was meant to prompt those powers. It is the case that we are currently living in a limbo whereby the police can legally impound a car whilst it is being driven with the legally required insurance cover.
Quite right, kempie.
You�ve explained this very well in the past and I looked into the anomaly. The issues of "keeping" and "driving" are separate. Regardless of the insurance law on "keeping" a motor vehicle, there certainly is (in most insurance policies) no requirement for a vehicle not owned by the driver and which he is driving under the �driving other cars� provision of his own motor policy to be insured in its own right for that insurance to be effective. I�ve just looked at mine and it makes no such provision.
In this particular case the situation the driver was insured (under his own policy) and the vehicle was insured by the owner/keeper. On what grounds the police seized the vehicle is anybody�s guess.
I hold no brief for genuinely uninsured drivers and/or vehicles. They should be taken off the road. But this situation is a mess and I believe the police often exceed their powers by seizing vehicles which are being driven legitimately. The sooner it is resolved the better and I would suggest that 2011 is not soon enough.
You�ve explained this very well in the past and I looked into the anomaly. The issues of "keeping" and "driving" are separate. Regardless of the insurance law on "keeping" a motor vehicle, there certainly is (in most insurance policies) no requirement for a vehicle not owned by the driver and which he is driving under the �driving other cars� provision of his own motor policy to be insured in its own right for that insurance to be effective. I�ve just looked at mine and it makes no such provision.
In this particular case the situation the driver was insured (under his own policy) and the vehicle was insured by the owner/keeper. On what grounds the police seized the vehicle is anybody�s guess.
I hold no brief for genuinely uninsured drivers and/or vehicles. They should be taken off the road. But this situation is a mess and I believe the police often exceed their powers by seizing vehicles which are being driven legitimately. The sooner it is resolved the better and I would suggest that 2011 is not soon enough.
@ New Judge, let me clarify that the FPN ticket says 'using' a vehicle. The vehicle was not seized and that probably ties with when police person (2) at station said they did NOT need to also see the OTHER car's principal certificate contrary to what police person (1) at same station said.
Update: I've handed over my license and opted to go to court but Police are reporting me for producing documents late anyway (even though a colleague of theirs gave me a stamped note to say i'd been in beforehand and will be back)
My court defence is as follows: I was ACTUALLY driving insured and was unable to produce insurance certificate within 7 days because insurance provider took longer than 7 days to re-issue the correctly worded certificate to me.
Having said that, is it wise to sue my car insurance provider for: Issuing me three of the same wrongly worded insurance documents resulting in prosecution by police, time and money going to court and putting my job at risk (a clean license is cruicial)? I now have the correctly worded document covering the date and time of alleged offence.
Update: I've handed over my license and opted to go to court but Police are reporting me for producing documents late anyway (even though a colleague of theirs gave me a stamped note to say i'd been in beforehand and will be back)
My court defence is as follows: I was ACTUALLY driving insured and was unable to produce insurance certificate within 7 days because insurance provider took longer than 7 days to re-issue the correctly worded certificate to me.
Having said that, is it wise to sue my car insurance provider for: Issuing me three of the same wrongly worded insurance documents resulting in prosecution by police, time and money going to court and putting my job at risk (a clean license is cruicial)? I now have the correctly worded document covering the date and time of alleged offence.
1 to 19 of 19
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.