Insurance and ANPR vans

[Guest 10110001]

I have insurance on my car and that policy allows me to drive anyone else’s car, What if the car im driving has no insurance and I am 'hit' by an ANPR van?

 

I would be stopped because ANPR assumes I have no insurance because the car doesn't.

 

Design flaw with ANPR, or has the Road Traffic Act been changed?

[patdavies]

The RTA has not been changed in regard to this.

 

ANPR will compare with the MID, which lists all insured cars by VRM. The data is supplied by the insurance companies.

 

If you are hit' by ANPR and stopped then you have to produce your insurance certificate that allows driving other cars (DOC). The Police may then phone your insurer to confirm this.

 

BTW, it is an urban myth that a car must have its own insurance on it to allow DOC usage

[Guest 10110001]

I'm sorry if I am less informed, but what is MID and DOC usage?

[Rob S]

Motor Insurers Database

 

Drive Other Cars (I think that's what it means).

[Guest 10110001]

Thanks Rob,

 

This means that anyone driving on a DOC policy, a motor trader for example, passing an ANPR van will get an automatic hit and will be required to take their insurance documents to a police station.

 

My own car has insurance cover, but if my car is nicked and the thief drives through an ANPR check then it won’t get a hit

 

This means that for DOC policy drivers ANPR is merely a public nuisance, and is somewhat ineffective against vehicle crime.

[patdavies]

Thanks Rob,

 

This means that anyone driving on a DOC policy, a motor trader for example, passing an ANPR van will get an automatic hit and will be required to take their insurance documents to a police station.

 

My own car has insurance cover, but if my car is nicked and the thief drives through an ANPR check then it won’t get a hit

 

This means that for DOC policy drivers ANPR is merely a public nuisance, and is somewhat ineffective against vehicle crime.

 

Er... Yep.

 

At least as far as insurance is concerned (until the continuous insurance rules kick in)

[Guest 10110001]

Er... Yep.

 

At least as far as insurance is concerned (until the continuous insurance rules kick in)

 

That's already in force?

 

What is SORN then?

[Rob S]

.

 

My own car has insurance cover, but if my car is nicked and the thief drives through an ANPR check then it won’t get a hit

 

.

 

If you have reported the car stolen and a stolen report has been placed on it then it will generate a hit on ANPR, assuming the number plates haven't been changed.

[Rob S]

That's already in force?

 

What is SORN then?

 

Statutory off road notification. The declaration you have to make if you decide not to re-tax your vehicle.

[Rob S]

At least as far as insurance is concerned (until the continuous insurance rules kick in)

 

When are they due to come into effect Pat?

[Guest 10110001]

Continuous insurance, can anyone explain what that is?

 

It sounds like the same rules as now - you have to have insurance to drive a car. Road Traffic Act.

 

Does it mean that a SORN car now has to have insurance?

 

Does it mean a motor dealer has to have a policy on all their stock?

 

Owners of more than one vehicle (business with fleets of vans?) insure each & every and block-policies not allowed?

[patdavies]

It means that any vehicle, including those on SORN will need to be insured. This has been driven by the insurance industry mainly.

 

Motor traders have a dispensation top both VED/SORN and have a trader's motor policy covering any vehicle.

 

Businesses with block insurances still have to supply vehicle details tot he insurance company at the moment - so this is not a problem

[patdavies]

When are they due to come into effect Pat?

 

 

AFAIK, it is a part of the recent Road Traffic Act, but has not been put into force - it is still being consulted on.

 

There are all sorts of wrinkles that need to be worked through. At the moment, in the UK we insure the driver; not the vehicle. There is no requirement for a Registered Keeper to be old enough to drive; never mind hold a licence. So how could such a vehicle be insured without making changes to other Acts? What happens when the RK is banned for a short period? Many insurance policies require the vehicle to be roadworthy or the policy is voided - how is that going to work for a SORN car in pieces?

[Rob S]

That's worrying! I've got a motorcycle in my garage that I have not ridden since March. It is SORN'ed and I have no intention of using it over the winter, but under these proposals I will still have to insure it? That's crazy! What level of cover are they proposing that you have, would it be a minimum of 3rd party only?

[Guest 10110001]

I can this as a pretext to introduce some of the most draconian motoring laws on the planet - even surpassing Calcutta and Ho Chi Minh City.

 

Forcing motorists to insure thair cars off-road contributes nothing for road safety, and spending our tax pounds on placing ANPR cameras every 100 yards of road as common as street lights seems to be a pointless government War on Motorists. It just converts Britains community of normal citizens into a de-facto nation of criminals.

 

I came accross a friends son who MOT'd his car with plenty of unexpired time remaining on his current MOT, and it failed - the rear wiper wasnt working - the current MOT was revoked and the car was immediately condemned off the road and he would be made a criminal if he drove his car. As far as motoring goes, Britain is becoming a police state.

[patdavies]

That's worrying! I've got a motorcycle in my garage that I have not ridden since March. It is SORN'ed and I have no intention of using it over the winter, but under these proposals I will still have to insure it? That's crazy! What level of cover are they proposing that you have, would it be a minimum of 3rd party only?

 

That is the only level of cover that the law requires for any vehicle.

 

Another thing, you do not have to insure a vehicle to drive it on the road. Under the law, you may deposit a pre-determined sum (£ 500,000) with HM Government and this allows you to drive any car on UK roads. (RTA1998 S.144 & RTA 1991 s.20))

[Conniff]

That's worrying! I've got a motorcycle in my garage that I have not ridden since March. It is SORN'ed and I have no intention of using it over the winter, but under these proposals I will still have to insure it? That's crazy! What level of cover are they proposing that you have, would it be a minimum of 3rd party only?

 

Can't see this happening. If in the above case the motorcycle is already insured on a general household policy, then to insure that motorcycle will be to have duplicate insurance which I believe is illegal.

[patdavies]

then to insure that motorcycle will be to have duplicate insurance which I believe is illegal.

 

No, its not.

 

Any claim would be split between the insurers. You wouldn't get paid twice - that would be illegal - fraud

[gwc1000]

Thanks Rob,

 

This means that anyone driving on a DOC policy, a motor trader for example, passing an ANPR van will get an automatic hit and will be required to take their insurance documents to a police station.

 

No, motor traders are ok. Any untaxed vehicle bought in as a stock vehicle must at all times when used on the public highway display trade plates. The trade plate number becomes the registration number of the vehicle for the duration of the journey, and the trader will have the trade plate number covered under his insurance policy so it is on the insurance database. When a trader buys a vehicle for resale that is taxed, because he will not be registering the car to himself, and it won't require trade plates he must by law put the vehicle on the insurance database himself. Insurance companies allow us to do it over the internet.

[patdavies]

I came accross a friends son who MOT'd his car with plenty of unexpired time remaining on his current MOT, and it failed - the rear wiper wasnt working - the current MOT was revoked and the car was immediately condemned off the road and he would be made a criminal if he drove his car. As far as motoring goes, Britain is becoming a police state.

 

This is not true

 

AFAIK, and I have had the debate on Police forums, an MoT failure does not revoke the old certificate. An MoT test only certifies that the vehicle is OK at the time of the test.

 

Even it it did, it is still perfectly legal to drive the vehicle to/from a test appointment or a repair appointment.

 

A rear wiper is not part of the MoT test anyway.

[Conniff]

Pat is correct, the failure of a test does not revoke the current certificate. Who revoked it?

 

Also, any remaining days left on your old certificate (up to 30 days) will be transfered to your new certificate, so you could have a certificate valid for up to 13 months.

[Guest 10110001]

Thanks for that, the garage defrauded the consumer - I had a feeling something wasn't right.

[Guest 10110001]

Pat is correct, the failure of a test does not revoke the current certificate. Who revoked it?

 

I'd love to name names but this forum has become over-moderated and there's a propensity for posts being deleted.

[buzby]

I've just discovered today, that on trying to renew my Road Tax on-line, that the DVLA refused to allow this because I had no 'valid insurance for the vehicle'. Being naturally concerned, I contacted my insurer who advised these cock-ups were common and I was indeed fully covered.

 

Tried again, nope - no valid insurance. Back at the insurer, I asked them to escalate the matter with the Motor Insurer's Register (which the DVLA interrogate to confirm insurance status, along with the police and (presumably) ANPR mobile and fixed. Strange that I had never been stopped or even queried whilst my vehicle was on the road since ANPR is supposedly so prevalent.

 

In the last 12 months I've driven an estimated 25,000 miles passing ANPR cameras and the rest with gay abandon, yet I was never challenged for not having valid insurance - however as the tax disc was up to date, perhaps there are still teething problems?

 

After a call back from my insurer it transpired that someone had input my registration details inappropriately, by transposing '0' and 'O'. Since this could also happen with '1' (numeric) and 'l' (lower case L), I am now even more convinced at the general uselessness - in the real world - of such systems. Whilst the DVLA isn;t perfect, they at least can appreciate Registration Mark syntax, however a bored clerk in one of the many insurance companies can make these mistakes with impunity, whilst down the line the hapless driver hasn;t a leg to stand on. Just as well ANPR, like the much-touted ID card system, isn't living up to its promise.

[Rob S]

Just as well ANPR, like the much-touted ID card system, isn't living up to its promise.

 

Presumably you have the hard evidence for ANPR not living up expectations (and saying "I've driven 25000 miles and not been challenged" isn't hard evidence)? [edit]

 

And the ID card system hasn't even been introduced yet, so how can you say it's not living up to the promises made? I'm sure you could make such a statement if the cards had been issued and there were problems with them, but not before the system has been put in place.