I'm not normally this stupid but need help with a speeding ticket

[patdavies]

No Pat. I'm not on dodgy ground on this having spent 11 years in insurance, part of which was as a branch manager for a firm of specialist motor insurance brokers.

 

The post I made stated that the police had already made an assumption that the policyholder and the keeper/registered keeper were one and the same. This is nothing to do with S172, but a crass uneducated wild guess the benefit which is not available to the police in law.

 

I have every confidence that the police are indeed allowed to ask anybody for details under S172, but that is well short of any obligation we have as intermediaries to provide it, particularly as we would have to fall foul of the Data Protection Act 1998 in order to do so.

 

If the police had felt that they had grounds to pursue this, then they have had over two months to do so.

 

Fair comment.

 

However, I read your (4) as

 

a) The Police were prosecuting - which they don't (CPS do) and at the stage of s.172 they are merely information gathering and not prosecuting anyway.

 

b) the implication that s.172 could only be served on the keeper, whereas an s.172 can be served on anybody.

 

In the example that you cite, I really can't see why the Police did not approach the policyholder directly with an s.172 request without any assumption as to keepership. I suspect that they may have now done that - which is why you haven't heard any more.

[Fair-Parking]

Pat. The client's company is registered with us and thus the police can only access him via our office. MID will not be aware of his home address.

 

The police may be progressing, but as each day passes the likelihood of that recedes.

[patdavies]

Why are you maintaining that the police obtaining information as to policyholder is illegal - they do it every day, dozens of times, from the roadside.

 

I'm nor arguing; I'm curious

[Fair-Parking]

Yes Pat, I agree, the roadside copper might need to ascertain amongst other things current MOT, licence and sobriety as well as to whether the vehicle is also insured.

 

However the MID is not there to provide the police admin office with private details for the pursuance of non insurance matters ie alleged speeding. In this instance the police did not concern themselves as whether the vehicle was insured, their only concern was who was driving.

 

I know that you are not arguing and I do welcome your input. You may have gathered that I tend to push the inside of the envelope outwards more than most in relation to bullying bailiffs, fraudulent councils and inept police who sometimes assume that they know the law and then procede like a bull in a china shop when they were wrong to do so.

 

Far from feeling that we are at odds on matters, I accept that you know more than many of this forum and as such you will prod my findings and ideas, which is precisely what I require.

 

I can't provide a service for the protection of motorists if it is flawed and constantly testing my theories on here is one way to ensure that this silly little man from a one horse town is right when he tackles bailiffs, councils, MID, DVLA and the police, all of whom mislead us from time to time, some deliberately so.

 

Please keep the comments coming. If I'm ill at ease with your inquiries then I'm going to struggle a lot more with the heavy weight of rule that the authorities have at their disposal.