'Police made me pay £150 after seizing car for nothing'

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Debbie Pickford and the car that was impounded Debbie Pickford and the car that was impounded

A retired police officer last night called for changes after his daughter’s car was seized leaving her with a £150 recovery bill because police computer records wrongly showed she was uninsured.

Debbie Pickford, 45, was driving home, along Leeds Road, Barkerend, Bradford, with her 13-year-old daughter Leah after a trip to the cinema when she was stopped by a police patrol car.

An Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) check showed that the divorcee’s 11-year-old Peugeot 206 was not insured due to a failure by her insurance company to update national records.

Despite her insisting she had a valid insurance certificate at her home in Cullingworth, her car was towed away and she had to pay £150 the next day to get it back.

Her father, Brian Pickford, served for nearly 30 years as a police traffic officer in Bradford.

Mr Pickford, 71, said that when he was working, a driver would be given seven days to produce their documents at a police station.

He said: “I am glad we are doing something about illegal vehicles, but it should be for illegal use not legal use. There is a flaw in the system when this can happen to a legitimate driver who has insured their vehicle when it is due and has a new certificate.

“I am concerned this could happen to other motorists and I have asked West Yorkshire Police whether they are advising drivers to have their insurance documents with them in their vehicle.

“It is not something I recommended to motorists as an officer because, if the car is stolen, the thief has all the documents.

“My daughter was given no opportunity to produce her documents. This can’t be fair. She can ill-afford £150 just because the information had not got from the insurance company to the police computer.”

The patrol officer drove Miss Pickford and her daughter home, but she has complained to West Yorkshire Police’s vehicle recovery unit and asked to be reimbursed.

She said: “It is outrageous that this has happened, and my daughter has been put through that, when I was legitimately insured.

“There should have been a way of knowing the car was legally insured without taking it away and leaving us stranded.

“The policeman drove us home in his patrol car and I was able to show him the insurance document. A friend had to take me to the police station the next day with my documents and then recover my car.

“I am a single mother and £150 is a lot to pay, especially when I have not broken the law. I have written a letter to West Yorkshire Police to try to get the money back, but they have replied saying the officer did the correct thing.”

Miss Pickford, who works with people with special needs, had continued her insurance cover through her brokers, Swinton, to run from midnight on January 15, and she had received her new certificate.

Miss Pickford described the officer as “over zealous” but said the fault was with the system. She said the police and insurance company seemed to be blaming each other.

Chief Inspector Neil Hunter, head of roads policing at West Yorkshire Police, said it was the responsibility of each vehicle insurer to ensure that their records are transmitted to the Police National Computer in good time to enable the police to take effective action in relation to uninsured vehicles.

“It would appear that on this occasion Miss Pickford's insurers had not transmitted this information to the Police National Computer enabling it to be updated accurately,” said Chief Insp Hunter.

“In view of this reasonable doubt the officers have arranged for a recovery agent to attend and seize Miss Pickford’s vehicle on the basis of the information that they had at that time that it was uninsured.”

Chief Insp Hunter confirmed the Force would not reimburse the vehicle recovery fee.

He said: “Miss Pickford was advised that in these circumstances that she may be able to claim for the cost of the vehicle recovery from her insurance company under the provisions of the Data Protection Act, 1988.

“Where an officer has acted lawfully in seizing a vehicle, the VRU are not able to reimburse the statutory recovery cost that is payable to the vehicle recovery agent.”

No-one at Swinton insurance brokers was available for comment when contacted by the Telegraph & Argus.

Comments (105)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:11am Wed 6 Feb 13

PaddyBantam says...

incredible.
incredible. PaddyBantam
  • Score: 0

7:22am Wed 6 Feb 13

Blotto says...

The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!! Blotto
  • Score: 0

7:37am Wed 6 Feb 13

radiobantam1 says...

I'm afraid in these circumstances I would end up getting locked up for refusing to hand my car keys over!
I'm afraid in these circumstances I would end up getting locked up for refusing to hand my car keys over! radiobantam1
  • Score: 2

7:56am Wed 6 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

How many other genuinely un insured cars get this treatment in BD3, I just got a feeling not many, am I wrong?
How many other genuinely un insured cars get this treatment in BD3, I just got a feeling not many, am I wrong? Joedavid
  • Score: 0

8:26am Wed 6 Feb 13

PaddyBantam says...

Joedavid wrote:
How many other genuinely un insured cars get this treatment in BD3, I just got a feeling not many, am I wrong?
Do you mean our friends driving very very fast car, which is very very new and the driver very very young and kitted out with 17 inch amir khans, delivering very very small packages priced at two for 15?
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: How many other genuinely un insured cars get this treatment in BD3, I just got a feeling not many, am I wrong?[/p][/quote]Do you mean our friends driving very very fast car, which is very very new and the driver very very young and kitted out with 17 inch amir khans, delivering very very small packages priced at two for 15? PaddyBantam
  • Score: 0

8:32am Wed 6 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company tyker2
  • Score: 0

8:52am Wed 6 Feb 13

PaddyBantam says...

At the end of the day the police can only go on the information they have, she was lucky to small degree they gave her a lift home, i suspect the same would not have happened for a male driver.

What i did pick up from the article was the arrogant response from the Chief Insp Hunter.

The blame sits with the insurance company - that's a fact and not only should they reimburse her the £150, there should also be an additional payment for the error caused and the 'emotional distress felt by this lady, it can't have been a nice experience - knowing she was in the right yet receiving a consequence like this, as i've said the attitude of the Chief Insp stinks.
At the end of the day the police can only go on the information they have, she was lucky to small degree they gave her a lift home, i suspect the same would not have happened for a male driver. What i did pick up from the article was the arrogant response from the Chief Insp Hunter. The blame sits with the insurance company - that's a fact and not only should they reimburse her the £150, there should also be an additional payment for the error caused and the 'emotional distress felt by this lady, it can't have been a nice experience - knowing she was in the right yet receiving a consequence like this, as i've said the attitude of the Chief Insp stinks. PaddyBantam
  • Score: 2

8:56am Wed 6 Feb 13

cassetteman says...

A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.
A few things here. She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous. You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle. Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be. The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter. I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider. cassetteman
  • Score: 1

9:28am Wed 6 Feb 13

Oldwestbowling says...

This lady has in effect been fined for not carrying her documents in the car. Ridiculous.
This lady has in effect been fined for not carrying her documents in the car. Ridiculous. Oldwestbowling
  • Score: 1

9:31am Wed 6 Feb 13

oreilly.john.1990@googlemail.com says...

cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.
Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.
[quote][p][bold]cassetteman[/bold] wrote: A few things here. She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous. You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle. Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be. The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter. I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.[/p][/quote]Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured. Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police. oreilly.john.1990@googlemail.com
  • Score: 1

9:40am Wed 6 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

oreilly.john.1990@go
oglemail.com
wrote:
cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.
Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.
24. What does the term ‘immediate load of vehicle data' mean within the Act?

DfT’s view was that the requirement to supply data ‘immediately’ would be interpreted by the courts as “the time taken by a person using reasonable efforts” “Reasonable efforts” would vary from case to case, but an acceptable range would typically be 10-14 days.
[quote][p][bold]oreilly.john.1990@go oglemail.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cassetteman[/bold] wrote: A few things here. She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous. You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle. Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be. The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter. I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.[/p][/quote]Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured. Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.[/p][/quote]24. What does the term ‘immediate load of vehicle data' mean within the Act? DfT’s view was that the requirement to supply data ‘immediately’ would be interpreted by the courts as “the time taken by a person using reasonable efforts” “Reasonable efforts” would vary from case to case, but an acceptable range would typically be 10-14 days. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

9:44am Wed 6 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

OT.
I find it interesting the ages of the car, lady involved, her daughter and father given why?
Police Inspectors age is missing though.
OT. I find it interesting the ages of the car, lady involved, her daughter and father given why? Police Inspectors age is missing though. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

9:50am Wed 6 Feb 13

SRS74 says...

This is down to the insurance company. They should reimburse and I wouldn't be renewing my policy there. The simple fact is, if you are insured, then you should have nothing to worry about. The £150 is a recovery fee paid to the garage not the police. If there is a mistake then I would be ringing my insurance company whilst in the presence of the officer and getting confirmation over the phone. I don't blame the police for taking a car off the road where the driver is unable to prove they are insured. It should be on the driver to prove they're insured. Carry your documents, such as licence and insurance. They're no good to anyone else if lost/stolen anyway.
This is down to the insurance company. They should reimburse and I wouldn't be renewing my policy there. The simple fact is, if you are insured, then you should have nothing to worry about. The £150 is a recovery fee paid to the garage not the police. If there is a mistake then I would be ringing my insurance company whilst in the presence of the officer and getting confirmation over the phone. I don't blame the police for taking a car off the road where the driver is unable to prove they are insured. It should be on the driver to prove they're insured. Carry your documents, such as licence and insurance. They're no good to anyone else if lost/stolen anyway. SRS74
  • Score: 0

9:58am Wed 6 Feb 13

barry big nose says...

Its all good and well saying carry your insurance certificate but if the ANPR is reading that the car has no valid insurance a police officer is not going to be swayed by the fact you have the certificate with you. this is due to the fact that in the past people have opted to pay insurance on a monyhly basis and after making the first pyment and recieving their certificate they have then cancelled the policy leaving them in ownership of the certificate.
Its all good and well saying carry your insurance certificate but if the ANPR is reading that the car has no valid insurance a police officer is not going to be swayed by the fact you have the certificate with you. this is due to the fact that in the past people have opted to pay insurance on a monyhly basis and after making the first pyment and recieving their certificate they have then cancelled the policy leaving them in ownership of the certificate. barry big nose
  • Score: 1

10:10am Wed 6 Feb 13

collos25 says...

Why is it upto the Insurance company to reimburse the money it is the police's job to find out if the vehicle was insured the insurers already knew it was so end of storey but they the police could not be bothered to check thoroughly.
While people in other parts of Bradford continue every day without insurance tax and genuine driving licence and the police do absolutely nothing.Unfortunatly we live in a city where the police are at best useless and the council may as well not be there.
Why is it upto the Insurance company to reimburse the money it is the police's job to find out if the vehicle was insured the insurers already knew it was so end of storey but they the police could not be bothered to check thoroughly. While people in other parts of Bradford continue every day without insurance tax and genuine driving licence and the police do absolutely nothing.Unfortunatly we live in a city where the police are at best useless and the council may as well not be there. collos25
  • Score: -2

10:14am Wed 6 Feb 13

Shipleyvegas says...

I certainly shan't be using Swinton any time in the future on the basis of this!
I certainly shan't be using Swinton any time in the future on the basis of this! Shipleyvegas
  • Score: 0

10:19am Wed 6 Feb 13

justjustice says...

Papers please.
Papers please. justjustice
  • Score: -2

10:21am Wed 6 Feb 13

webshow says...

We are in a police state but no one knows it till they fall. Get out on the streets.
We are in a police state but no one knows it till they fall. Get out on the streets. webshow
  • Score: -1

10:22am Wed 6 Feb 13

albert2003 says...

politely worded letter to Swinton head office with a "letter before action " in the small claims court,
politely worded letter to Swinton head office with a "letter before action " in the small claims court, albert2003
  • Score: 0

10:33am Wed 6 Feb 13

cassetteman says...

I'm not siding with either the police or the driver here but we live in a world which is dominated by computer records, data-bases, cameras, and all sorts of other methods of surveillance to ensure compliance with the law and they are not foolproof, to a large extent they rely on human intervention and maintenance to keep them 100% accurate, computer records are not infallible I'm afraid and there's the rub.

However, the chances are that Swinton would have issued at least a cover note and maybe even the certificate itself. It would not have been Swinton, who updated the MID, because they are simply brokers, i.e "middlemen", it would be the drivers actual indemnity provider who could, would and should have done this. It is not a Police database by the way, it is a Motor Insurers Database, to which the Police have access to as do the general public.

As I said at the outset, I have no allegiance to either the driver or the Police but had the driver been in possession of her certificate then I'll bet anyone a weeks wages that she would have been allowed on her way without any further hindrance.
I'm not siding with either the police or the driver here but we live in a world which is dominated by computer records, data-bases, cameras, and all sorts of other methods of surveillance to ensure compliance with the law and they are not foolproof, to a large extent they rely on human intervention and maintenance to keep them 100% accurate, computer records are not infallible I'm afraid and there's the rub. However, the chances are that Swinton would have issued at least a cover note and maybe even the certificate itself. It would not have been Swinton, who updated the MID, because they are simply brokers, i.e "middlemen", it would be the drivers actual indemnity provider who could, would and should have done this. It is not a Police database by the way, it is a Motor Insurers Database, to which the Police have access to as do the general public. As I said at the outset, I have no allegiance to either the driver or the Police but had the driver been in possession of her certificate then I'll bet anyone a weeks wages that she would have been allowed on her way without any further hindrance. cassetteman
  • Score: -1

10:37am Wed 6 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

I do not carry my documents as in the past when required have produced them later at local Police Station, is this no longer allowed?
I do not carry my documents as in the past when required have produced them later at local Police Station, is this no longer allowed? Joedavid
  • Score: 0

10:39am Wed 6 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

"As I said at the outset, I have no allegiance to either the driver or the Police but had the driver been in possession of her certificate then I'll bet anyone a weeks wages that she would have been allowed on her way without any further hindrance.”
I wonder if the Police officer would have believed his Computer or the paperwork.
"As I said at the outset, I have no allegiance to either the driver or the Police but had the driver been in possession of her certificate then I'll bet anyone a weeks wages that she would have been allowed on her way without any further hindrance.” I wonder if the Police officer would have believed his Computer or the paperwork. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

11:02am Wed 6 Feb 13

yezboss says...

The police have been told NOT TO RELY ON MID (MOTOR INSURANCE DATABASE ) RECORDS AS THE DEFINITIVE AUTHORITY ON INSURANCE RECORDS.
Clearly they did, clearly they are culpable. I would advise Miss Pickford to ask for the money back once again, if they refuse to comply take them to court if they do not reimburse that fee. Any County Court judge would rule in favour of the claimant. Not only would they receive that money she would very likely would receive damages to for HURT,
The police have been told NOT TO RELY ON MID (MOTOR INSURANCE DATABASE ) RECORDS AS THE DEFINITIVE AUTHORITY ON INSURANCE RECORDS. Clearly they did, clearly they are culpable. I would advise Miss Pickford to ask for the money back once again, if they refuse to comply take them to court if they do not reimburse that fee. Any County Court judge would rule in favour of the claimant. Not only would they receive that money she would very likely would receive damages to for HURT, yezboss
  • Score: 0

11:06am Wed 6 Feb 13

Whoisevans? says...

Blotto wrote:
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!
Exactly complain to your insurance company ask them to reimburse all your out of pocket costs if they refuse complain to the Ombudsman.
[quote][p][bold]Blotto[/bold] wrote: The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!![/p][/quote]Exactly complain to your insurance company ask them to reimburse all your out of pocket costs if they refuse complain to the Ombudsman. Whoisevans?
  • Score: 0

11:09am Wed 6 Feb 13

Brannigan says...

The response by Insp Hunter appears arrogant and is the type of attitude that alienates the police from the law abiding community they should be supporting.

The law is quite simple - each motor vehicle on a road must be insured. If the driver cannot produce the certificate immediately they have 7 days to do so.

The police may seize the car if they suspect there is no insurance. In this case they got it wrong. The car was insured. They would gain a lot more credibility and support if they re-imbursed this young lady the £150 plus another £50 for her inconvenience. Not a lot to pay for a good public relations exercise.
The response by Insp Hunter appears arrogant and is the type of attitude that alienates the police from the law abiding community they should be supporting. The law is quite simple - each motor vehicle on a road must be insured. If the driver cannot produce the certificate immediately they have 7 days to do so. The police may seize the car if they suspect there is no insurance. In this case they got it wrong. The car was insured. They would gain a lot more credibility and support if they re-imbursed this young lady the £150 plus another £50 for her inconvenience. Not a lot to pay for a good public relations exercise. Brannigan
  • Score: -1

11:44am Wed 6 Feb 13

Dodge9 says...

If the Police had time to give her a lift home, then they had time to follow her home and check her insurance certificate.
I carry copies of mine just in case I hear "Ihre papiere bitte" from one of our over zealous masters.
If the Police had time to give her a lift home, then they had time to follow her home and check her insurance certificate. I carry copies of mine just in case I hear "Ihre papiere bitte" from one of our over zealous masters. Dodge9
  • Score: -1

11:57am Wed 6 Feb 13

Outraged English Subject says...

A disgusting and outrageous response from Chief Inspector Neil Hunter, however not at all surprising, unfortunately these are the times we live in and even law-abiding members of the community are treated this way as a norm.
A disgusting and outrageous response from Chief Inspector Neil Hunter, however not at all surprising, unfortunately these are the times we live in and even law-abiding members of the community are treated this way as a norm. Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 0

11:58am Wed 6 Feb 13

Apollo says...

Bradford Police = Not Fit For Purpose.

Before I am asked to pay for another 44 of them I would very much prefer if those already employed did their jobs.
Bradford Police = Not Fit For Purpose. Before I am asked to pay for another 44 of them I would very much prefer if those already employed did their jobs. Apollo
  • Score: 0

1:37pm Wed 6 Feb 13

alfierowe says...

i can assure everyone that i will not be renewing my policy with swinton!!,i shall be looking eleswhere!!
i can assure everyone that i will not be renewing my policy with swinton!!,i shall be looking eleswhere!! alfierowe
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.
This is a very alarming development. A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings. This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional. The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves. Not so simple
  • Score: -1

1:56pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

Not so simple wrote:
This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.
what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: This is a very alarming development. A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings. This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional. The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.[/p][/quote]what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF tyker2
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

Not so simple wrote:
This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.
what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: This is a very alarming development. A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings. This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional. The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.[/p][/quote]what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF tyker2
  • Score: 0

1:58pm Wed 6 Feb 13

seen it all before says...

I was stopped in Liverpool, Police said no insurance! As it was a company car I was staggered, but it turned out our inept admin team had failed to do their job. Fortunatly the Cop took a view that given all the rest of the info he had the car would be insured, and gave me a 7 day provo. "HE USED HIS PEANUT"
I was stopped in Liverpool, Police said no insurance! As it was a company car I was staggered, but it turned out our inept admin team had failed to do their job. Fortunatly the Cop took a view that given all the rest of the info he had the car would be insured, and gave me a 7 day provo. "HE USED HIS PEANUT" seen it all before
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

I urge you all to check out the following.

You tube
John Harris a carpenters view.

Also google a website called tpuc.org

Welcome to the real world and you can thank me later.

Thepolice and the authorities have been dumbed down over years, most just enforce and do not understand the law they enforce....as they are trained not to understand otherwise they would be doing their job properly and protecting us under common law.

Time people awoke from this slumber
I urge you all to check out the following. You tube John Harris a carpenters view. Also google a website called tpuc.org Welcome to the real world and you can thank me later. Thepolice and the authorities have been dumbed down over years, most just enforce and do not understand the law they enforce....as they are trained not to understand otherwise they would be doing their job properly and protecting us under common law. Time people awoke from this slumber Not so simple
  • Score: 0

2:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Is that related to the Freeman movement at all Not so simple?

If not, try check some of the blogs and reports surrounding that.
Is that related to the Freeman movement at all Not so simple? If not, try check some of the blogs and reports surrounding that. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM
mc
http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM mc Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

2:47pm Wed 6 Feb 13

bd7 helper says...

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD EM TO RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY.....
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company[/p][/quote]YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD EM TO RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY..... bd7 helper
  • Score: 0

2:54pm Wed 6 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

bd7 helper wrote:
tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD EM TO RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY.....
they should do that but only if they were told which company insured the car. if she did not know or failed to tell them or was otherwise Bolshi with them they have, stupidly, acted as they have thereby causing all this kerfuffle.Much Ado About Nowt as Shakespeare wrote.

The police need to apologise, the insurance company should apologise and pay the fees involved. Problems solved
[quote][p][bold]bd7 helper[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company[/p][/quote]YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD EM TO RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY.....[/p][/quote]they should do that but only if they were told which company insured the car. if she did not know or failed to tell them or was otherwise Bolshi with them they have, stupidly, acted as they have thereby causing all this kerfuffle.Much Ado About Nowt as Shakespeare wrote. The police need to apologise, the insurance company should apologise and pay the fees involved. Problems solved tyker2
  • Score: 0

2:55pm Wed 6 Feb 13

bd7 helper says...

I RECKON THE POLICE AND RECOVERY TEAM ARE MAKING MONEY, ANOTHER SCAM BY THE POLICE AND THE RECOVERY TEAM. GET IT QUIZZED WHY DIDNT THE POLICE RING YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY! TRAFFIC POLICE BBC1 AND POLICE INTERCEPTORS CHANNEL 5 THEY RING AND PROVE YOU WRONG!! GET THAT MONEY BACK!!!!
I RECKON THE POLICE AND RECOVERY TEAM ARE MAKING MONEY, ANOTHER SCAM BY THE POLICE AND THE RECOVERY TEAM. GET IT QUIZZED WHY DIDNT THE POLICE RING YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY! TRAFFIC POLICE BBC1 AND POLICE INTERCEPTORS CHANNEL 5 THEY RING AND PROVE YOU WRONG!! GET THAT MONEY BACK!!!! bd7 helper
  • Score: -1

3:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM

mc
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM mc - did not match any documents.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM mc[/p][/quote]http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM mc - did not match any documents. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

3:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

hn0o0258 says...

Chief Inspector Hunter is either a fool or a liar.
The vehicle not being on the MID is not in itself enough to trigger the vehicle seizure. There must be some other cause for suspicion if the driver asserts it is insured.
Provided the Officer had no other reasonable grounds for suspicion If Debbie is reading this, a letter before action to our chief constable Mark Gilmore giving him 14 days to refund the money, followed by a claim against him in the fast track of the County Court.
Include your insurance Co. as well.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise.
Chief Inspector Hunter is either a fool or a liar. The vehicle not being on the MID is not in itself enough to trigger the vehicle seizure. There must be some other cause for suspicion if the driver asserts it is insured. Provided the Officer had no other reasonable grounds for suspicion If Debbie is reading this, a letter before action to our chief constable Mark Gilmore giving him 14 days to refund the money, followed by a claim against him in the fast track of the County Court. Include your insurance Co. as well. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advise. hn0o0258
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Apollo says...

Unfortunately it is not only the Law and its applications that has been dumbed down in recent years.

The average Policemen is no towering intellect and is generally of lower intelligence that the average member of the public and most criminals.

We need to raise the standard and not keep on lowering the bar.

Stories like the above simply reinforce my point and I include the Chief Inspector in this case.
Unfortunately it is not only the Law and its applications that has been dumbed down in recent years. The average Policemen is no towering intellect and is generally of lower intelligence that the average member of the public and most criminals. We need to raise the standard and not keep on lowering the bar. Stories like the above simply reinforce my point and I include the Chief Inspector in this case. Apollo
  • Score: -1

4:06pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Stuart_B says...

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company[/p][/quote]"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. Where are you getting that bit from ...? Stuart_B
  • Score: 0

4:41pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ANY WHERE BUT HERE says...

She was white! and on Leeds road, easy pickings?
She was white! and on Leeds road, easy pickings? ANY WHERE BUT HERE
  • Score: 0

5:36pm Wed 6 Feb 13

piper56 says...

sheer incompetence by the police surly the officer who drove her home could have sorted the matter out by looking at the documents but then perhaps the £150 might have been lost go to court and make them pay debbie
sheer incompetence by the police surly the officer who drove her home could have sorted the matter out by looking at the documents but then perhaps the £150 might have been lost go to court and make them pay debbie piper56
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

ANY WHERE BUT HERE wrote:
She was white! and on Leeds road, easy pickings?
Lol
[quote][p][bold]ANY WHERE BUT HERE[/bold] wrote: She was white! and on Leeds road, easy pickings?[/p][/quote]Lol Not so simple
  • Score: 0

5:47pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

tyker2 wrote:
Not so simple wrote:
This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.
what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF
The bigger picture is; the police only use the powers of confiscation justified by laws they believe to be correct. If the law is flawed then the police and courts are acting illegally. One too many laws is questionable.

The smaller picture is that the insurer will recompense as it failed to submit or update.

Common sense says the officer should have used his discretion and not acted like a bully to compound the car.
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: This is a very alarming development. A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings. This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional. The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.[/p][/quote]what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF[/p][/quote]The bigger picture is; the police only use the powers of confiscation justified by laws they believe to be correct. If the law is flawed then the police and courts are acting illegally. One too many laws is questionable. The smaller picture is that the insurer will recompense as it failed to submit or update. Common sense says the officer should have used his discretion and not acted like a bully to compound the car. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Is that related to the Freeman movement at all Not so simple?

If not, try check some of the blogs and reports surrounding that.
Sir, check your facts for yourself or get a trustworthy lawyer/judge to advise you rather then base your understanding on some blog on the world wide web.

I have studied law...it's complicated to ensure the ordinary human being cannot understand it and brings in lawyers to represent them....totally unwarranted as one can represent oneself in court and the judges and advocates hate this, especially if you understand the law and the context it's been written in and the context it is applied.

Laws are written using commercial terms. They are enforced and propagated by corporations, yes the UK Govt is a company, so is the police and so are the law courts. Check it out for yourself.

Companies are legal entities...companies cannot rule a nation or make laws for the citizens as companies are soulless and do not have morals as per the reasonable human being.

There is an awful lot of misinformation on this subject (freeman movement)

Even constitutional lawyers don't understand it as its common sense!

Put it very simply; The law of this land is common law. The Queen, Courts, Police have sworn an oath to protect us under common law.

All other statutes/laws are only enforceable if you consent to being a party to the contract.

Read up and understand the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.

The human being takes priority over companies as we are independent and divine(special). Companies are profit mongering and rather irresponsible.

Don't take my word for it, always best to research these things yourself.

God bless and peace.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: Is that related to the Freeman movement at all Not so simple? If not, try check some of the blogs and reports surrounding that.[/p][/quote]Sir, check your facts for yourself or get a trustworthy lawyer/judge to advise you rather then base your understanding on some blog on the world wide web. I have studied law...it's complicated to ensure the ordinary human being cannot understand it and brings in lawyers to represent them....totally unwarranted as one can represent oneself in court and the judges and advocates hate this, especially if you understand the law and the context it's been written in and the context it is applied. Laws are written using commercial terms. They are enforced and propagated by corporations, yes the UK Govt is a company, so is the police and so are the law courts. Check it out for yourself. Companies are legal entities...companies cannot rule a nation or make laws for the citizens as companies are soulless and do not have morals as per the reasonable human being. There is an awful lot of misinformation on this subject (freeman movement) Even constitutional lawyers don't understand it as its common sense! Put it very simply; The law of this land is common law. The Queen, Courts, Police have sworn an oath to protect us under common law. All other statutes/laws are only enforceable if you consent to being a party to the contract. Read up and understand the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights. The human being takes priority over companies as we are independent and divine(special). Companies are profit mongering and rather irresponsible. Don't take my word for it, always best to research these things yourself. God bless and peace. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:04pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Joedavid wrote:
OT.
I find it interesting the ages of the car, lady involved, her daughter and father given why?
Police Inspectors age is missing though.
Had an ex police traffic officer not been a member of the family of the victim, than I reckon this story would never have seen the light of day.
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: OT. I find it interesting the ages of the car, lady involved, her daughter and father given why? Police Inspectors age is missing though.[/p][/quote]Had an ex police traffic officer not been a member of the family of the victim, than I reckon this story would never have seen the light of day. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:08pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Tollerboy says...

The Police acted correctly.

As the lady had received her certificate through the post the insurance company had ample time to update the computer.

Thus the insurers, Swinton or 'other' should pay up.

Simple as that!
The Police acted correctly. As the lady had received her certificate through the post the insurance company had ample time to update the computer. Thus the insurers, Swinton or 'other' should pay up. Simple as that! Tollerboy
  • Score: 0

6:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Apollo wrote:
Unfortunately it is not only the Law and its applications that has been dumbed down in recent years.

The average Policemen is no towering intellect and is generally of lower intelligence that the average member of the public and most criminals.

We need to raise the standard and not keep on lowering the bar.

Stories like the above simply reinforce my point and I include the Chief Inspector in this case.
Agree.
[quote][p][bold]Apollo[/bold] wrote: Unfortunately it is not only the Law and its applications that has been dumbed down in recent years. The average Policemen is no towering intellect and is generally of lower intelligence that the average member of the public and most criminals. We need to raise the standard and not keep on lowering the bar. Stories like the above simply reinforce my point and I include the Chief Inspector in this case.[/p][/quote]Agree. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

bd7 helper wrote:
I RECKON THE POLICE AND RECOVERY TEAM ARE MAKING MONEY, ANOTHER SCAM BY THE POLICE AND THE RECOVERY TEAM. GET IT QUIZZED WHY DIDNT THE POLICE RING YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY! TRAFFIC POLICE BBC1 AND POLICE INTERCEPTORS CHANNEL 5 THEY RING AND PROVE YOU WRONG!! GET THAT MONEY BACK!!!!
They only ring on telly as they have cameras pointing at them. Without a camera there the gestapolice can be very rude and down right criminal in their actions and understandings of the law...,not fit for purpose.
[quote][p][bold]bd7 helper[/bold] wrote: I RECKON THE POLICE AND RECOVERY TEAM ARE MAKING MONEY, ANOTHER SCAM BY THE POLICE AND THE RECOVERY TEAM. GET IT QUIZZED WHY DIDNT THE POLICE RING YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY! TRAFFIC POLICE BBC1 AND POLICE INTERCEPTORS CHANNEL 5 THEY RING AND PROVE YOU WRONG!! GET THAT MONEY BACK!!!![/p][/quote]They only ring on telly as they have cameras pointing at them. Without a camera there the gestapolice can be very rude and down right criminal in their actions and understandings of the law...,not fit for purpose. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Tollerboy wrote:
The Police acted correctly.

As the lady had received her certificate through the post the insurance company had ample time to update the computer.

Thus the insurers, Swinton or 'other' should pay up.

Simple as that!
Rubbish. Read articles 12-14 of the bill of rights and make this ludicrous comment that the compounding of an innocent persons vehicle or property is legal.

Then read article 61 of the Magna Carta and understand what that's about.

Honestly the ignorance on here is shocking.
[quote][p][bold]Tollerboy[/bold] wrote: The Police acted correctly. As the lady had received her certificate through the post the insurance company had ample time to update the computer. Thus the insurers, Swinton or 'other' should pay up. Simple as that![/p][/quote]Rubbish. Read articles 12-14 of the bill of rights and make this ludicrous comment that the compounding of an innocent persons vehicle or property is legal. Then read article 61 of the Magna Carta and understand what that's about. Honestly the ignorance on here is shocking. Not so simple
  • Score: -1

6:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

webshow wrote:
We are in a police state but no one knows it till they fall. Get out on the streets.
Magna Carta article 61 is your protection. No judge or police officer in their right minds would ever take action.

It's all about lawful rebellion.

See my earlier posts on Freeman on the land

YouTube jack Harris a carpenters view

Google British Constistuiton Group

Also check out TPUC.org

No bull here....all sense.
[quote][p][bold]webshow[/bold] wrote: We are in a police state but no one knows it till they fall. Get out on the streets.[/p][/quote]Magna Carta article 61 is your protection. No judge or police officer in their right minds would ever take action. It's all about lawful rebellion. See my earlier posts on Freeman on the land YouTube jack Harris a carpenters view Google British Constistuiton Group Also check out TPUC.org No bull here....all sense. Not so simple
  • Score: -1

6:20pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Ps police officers are not entirely to blame as they do not know they are breaking the law.

I have many officer mates and meet a few at the pubs, they agree with me as when they learn and study the laws for themselves they contradict their training.
Always respect the police, they are humans just like us and need to be assisted as and when we can.

Respect and peace out
Ps police officers are not entirely to blame as they do not know they are breaking the law. I have many officer mates and meet a few at the pubs, they agree with me as when they learn and study the laws for themselves they contradict their training. Always respect the police, they are humans just like us and need to be assisted as and when we can. Respect and peace out Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Wed 6 Feb 13

jh137 says...

oreilly.john.1990@go
oglemail.com
wrote:
cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.
Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.
Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.
[quote][p][bold]oreilly.john.1990@go oglemail.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cassetteman[/bold] wrote: A few things here. She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous. You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle. Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be. The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter. I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.[/p][/quote]Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured. Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.[/p][/quote]Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day. jh137
  • Score: 0

6:37pm Wed 6 Feb 13

granty04 says...

normally when you take out a new policy it takes a couple of days for it to show up on the MID , any insurance company will tell you that , they pass on the details then its up to the MID to make sure its on the database, if its not on there after a few days then i would be complaining
normally when you take out a new policy it takes a couple of days for it to show up on the MID , any insurance company will tell you that , they pass on the details then its up to the MID to make sure its on the database, if its not on there after a few days then i would be complaining granty04
  • Score: 0

6:39pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

jh137 wrote:
oreilly.john.1990@go

oglemail.com
wrote:
cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.
Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.
Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.
Swinton need to have their trading banned.
I recall a pal who was insured with them.
Prior to his renewal he had sold the vehicle and got another insurance company to insure him.

He was alarmed to see that Swinton were still taking payments from his account eventhough his insurance had finished.

When we queried this with Swinton on manningham lane, we were referred to a term/condition in their policy that states in small print they can renew your insurance of you do not make contact to cancel or even ask for a renewal.

I sat the Swinton manager down and explained what terms they cannot put into contracts and that insuring a vehicle twice was also not good.

The manager apologised and refunded the monies.

These guys should be called swindlers not Swinton.

Also the branch near frizinghall. I went along with a pal to check out some quotes he had received for a commercial vehicle. I was surprised to find a persons working their who had worked for cox insurance aka insure.co.uk in little Germany....I had trained some of these guys and was very dissociated with them as their knowledge was very poor...how Swinton employed them was beyond me...value for money probably!
[quote][p][bold]jh137[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oreilly.john.1990@go oglemail.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cassetteman[/bold] wrote: A few things here. She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous. You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle. Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be. The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter. I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.[/p][/quote]Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured. Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.[/p][/quote]Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.[/p][/quote]Swinton need to have their trading banned. I recall a pal who was insured with them. Prior to his renewal he had sold the vehicle and got another insurance company to insure him. He was alarmed to see that Swinton were still taking payments from his account eventhough his insurance had finished. When we queried this with Swinton on manningham lane, we were referred to a term/condition in their policy that states in small print they can renew your insurance of you do not make contact to cancel or even ask for a renewal. I sat the Swinton manager down and explained what terms they cannot put into contracts and that insuring a vehicle twice was also not good. The manager apologised and refunded the monies. These guys should be called swindlers not Swinton. Also the branch near frizinghall. I went along with a pal to check out some quotes he had received for a commercial vehicle. I was surprised to find a persons working their who had worked for cox insurance aka insure.co.uk in little Germany....I had trained some of these guys and was very dissociated with them as their knowledge was very poor...how Swinton employed them was beyond me...value for money probably! Not so simple
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Wed 6 Feb 13

cassetteman says...

And the moral of this story is.......

Cut out the middle man / men / women when it comes to car insurance and that is always purchase on line, assuming you have access of course. I never thought I would say that but some things are better done electronically, that way you are in control.

Not wishing to target Swintons specifically but they are from a bye-gone era when service mattered but now it is all profit motivated.

Example; when my car insurance was due I asked for a quote from an intermediary, for that read "broker", and they could not come anywhere near my renewal in respect to either service or price so I went with a "direct" provider. Printed my own certificate, albeit temporary, and my car was on the MID within minutes.
And the moral of this story is....... Cut out the middle man / men / women when it comes to car insurance and that is always purchase on line, assuming you have access of course. I never thought I would say that but some things are better done electronically, that way you are in control. Not wishing to target Swintons specifically but they are from a bye-gone era when service mattered but now it is all profit motivated. Example; when my car insurance was due I asked for a quote from an intermediary, for that read "broker", and they could not come anywhere near my renewal in respect to either service or price so I went with a "direct" provider. Printed my own certificate, albeit temporary, and my car was on the MID within minutes. cassetteman
  • Score: 0

6:47pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Telfordboy says...

I work for a Police Recovery Operator (not in Bradford). A Certificate of Insurance is not proof of insurance in this situation because even if you pay monthly, the certificate is issued at the start of the policy. If you then fail to make the payments, your policy is cancelled but you still have the certificate. Hence the reason the police rely on the insurance database. The £150.00 is paid to the recovery operator but you are then issued with a receipt on behalf of the police as the recovery operator collects the fee on their behalf
I work for a Police Recovery Operator (not in Bradford). A Certificate of Insurance is not proof of insurance in this situation because even if you pay monthly, the certificate is issued at the start of the policy. If you then fail to make the payments, your policy is cancelled but you still have the certificate. Hence the reason the police rely on the insurance database. The £150.00 is paid to the recovery operator but you are then issued with a receipt on behalf of the police as the recovery operator collects the fee on their behalf Telfordboy
  • Score: 1

7:05pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Telfordboy wrote:
I work for a Police Recovery Operator (not in Bradford). A Certificate of Insurance is not proof of insurance in this situation because even if you pay monthly, the certificate is issued at the start of the policy. If you then fail to make the payments, your policy is cancelled but you still have the certificate. Hence the reason the police rely on the insurance database. The £150.00 is paid to the recovery operator but you are then issued with a receipt on behalf of the police as the recovery operator collects the fee on their behalf
So basically it appears to be an organised crime syndicate using other parties as a front to ensure liability is kept away from the enforcer....just like bailiffs!
[quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: I work for a Police Recovery Operator (not in Bradford). A Certificate of Insurance is not proof of insurance in this situation because even if you pay monthly, the certificate is issued at the start of the policy. If you then fail to make the payments, your policy is cancelled but you still have the certificate. Hence the reason the police rely on the insurance database. The £150.00 is paid to the recovery operator but you are then issued with a receipt on behalf of the police as the recovery operator collects the fee on their behalf[/p][/quote]So basically it appears to be an organised crime syndicate using other parties as a front to ensure liability is kept away from the enforcer....just like bailiffs! Not so simple
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Telfordboy says...

The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped. Telfordboy
  • Score: 1

7:16pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Telfordboy wrote:
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.
Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print.

Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment.

Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.
[quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.[/p][/quote]Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print. Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment. Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

7:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Not so simple wrote:
Telfordboy wrote:
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.
Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print.

Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment.

Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.
You get paid £30 out of £150. Mate you are doing yourself out of business as the amounts you suggest you take do not make sense and I do not Beleive you...
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.[/p][/quote]Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print. Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment. Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.[/p][/quote]You get paid £30 out of £150. Mate you are doing yourself out of business as the amounts you suggest you take do not make sense and I do not Beleive you... Not so simple
  • Score: 0

7:19pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Outraged English Subject says...

Not so simple wrote:
Telfordboy wrote:
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.
Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print.

Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment.

Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.
Agree.
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.[/p][/quote]Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print. Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment. Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.[/p][/quote]Agree. Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 0

7:31pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Telfordboy says...

I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase
I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase Telfordboy
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Wed 6 Feb 13

granty04 says...

i pay for my insurance through a month by month policy (pay as you go) every month just before my policy is about to expire i recieve a new cover note , so every month its basically classed as a new policy , i check the askmid website on a regular basis and there has been times on the first day that my policy was live that my car was showing as uninsured , i contacted the insurance provider to complain , who assured me i was insured and that it can take anything up to 3 days for the MID to update their systems
i pay for my insurance through a month by month policy (pay as you go) every month just before my policy is about to expire i recieve a new cover note , so every month its basically classed as a new policy , i check the askmid website on a regular basis and there has been times on the first day that my policy was live that my car was showing as uninsured , i contacted the insurance provider to complain , who assured me i was insured and that it can take anything up to 3 days for the MID to update their systems granty04
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Telfordboy says...

We only get £30.00 out of £150.00 for uninsured vehicles. We make our money out of other police work for example RTC's, which are paid for by the insurance companies assuming the driver is insured and obviously we do not only work for the police. If we had our choice, we would not do the uninsured vehicle work but unfortunately if you have a police contract, you have to take all or nothing.
We only get £30.00 out of £150.00 for uninsured vehicles. We make our money out of other police work for example RTC's, which are paid for by the insurance companies assuming the driver is insured and obviously we do not only work for the police. If we had our choice, we would not do the uninsured vehicle work but unfortunately if you have a police contract, you have to take all or nothing. Telfordboy
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Wed 6 Feb 13

jh137 says...

'No-one at Swinton insurance brokers was available for comment when contacted by the Telegraph & Argus'...
why are we not surprised?
Ive just told my other half about this item, wish we'd known when it happened to us (see my earlier post) that they make a habit of this. Ive been driving for over 30 years w/out a blemish ;-(
'No-one at Swinton insurance brokers was available for comment when contacted by the Telegraph & Argus'... why are we not surprised? Ive just told my other half about this item, wish we'd known when it happened to us (see my earlier post) that they make a habit of this. Ive been driving for over 30 years w/out a blemish ;-( jh137
  • Score: 0

8:16pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Telfordboy wrote:
I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase
Uninsured vehicles. they can be a pain for recovery operators who get paid to recover them? How else would you make your money? Lol you just digging a bigger hole for yourself. No idea about insurance and you charge £30 to recover a car...dude you are a bargain as that £30 pays for your fuel,your insurance and your time anc youve gotta pay tax on that income, bargain.

Secondly do you know how many "insured vehicles are on the road" ? Loads.

What percentage of the total vehicles in the UK are not insured excluding those on SORN or awaiting to be scrapped....you will find that the percentage is very little.

Thirdly, the MIB gets a percentage of all our insurance premiums as well as insurance premium tax going to the government...million
s and millions of pounds in income. You telling me this wasteful dept cannot deal to insure the losses accrued by incidents of the non insured vehicles....utter non sense and if you check figures from govt sources you will scratch your head and think none of these millions spent on enforcing insurance on a small minority make sense....as the vast majority pay for it with enough premiums to handle all claims three times over.

Fourthly I have first hand experience of insurance from the profit orientated underwriters to the ill informed police who enforce the issue of insurance. Your explanation is rather lame and somewhat I'll informed.

Also point note noting; have you guys got any idea as to the cost of comprehensive insurance policies in Europe or should I say eastern Europe? Well let me explain quickly.

Europeans pay half if not 75 % less then what we pay here and they are insured to drive in any country in Europe. Soon you will see as they all cotton on and start driving more valuable cars on the roads fully insured from European insurance companies.
[quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase[/p][/quote]Uninsured vehicles. they can be a pain for recovery operators who get paid to recover them? How else would you make your money? Lol you just digging a bigger hole for yourself. No idea about insurance and you charge £30 to recover a car...dude you are a bargain as that £30 pays for your fuel,your insurance and your time anc youve gotta pay tax on that income, bargain. Secondly do you know how many "insured vehicles are on the road" ? Loads. What percentage of the total vehicles in the UK are not insured excluding those on SORN or awaiting to be scrapped....you will find that the percentage is very little. Thirdly, the MIB gets a percentage of all our insurance premiums as well as insurance premium tax going to the government...million s and millions of pounds in income. You telling me this wasteful dept cannot deal to insure the losses accrued by incidents of the non insured vehicles....utter non sense and if you check figures from govt sources you will scratch your head and think none of these millions spent on enforcing insurance on a small minority make sense....as the vast majority pay for it with enough premiums to handle all claims three times over. Fourthly I have first hand experience of insurance from the profit orientated underwriters to the ill informed police who enforce the issue of insurance. Your explanation is rather lame and somewhat I'll informed. Also point note noting; have you guys got any idea as to the cost of comprehensive insurance policies in Europe or should I say eastern Europe? Well let me explain quickly. Europeans pay half if not 75 % less then what we pay here and they are insured to drive in any country in Europe. Soon you will see as they all cotton on and start driving more valuable cars on the roads fully insured from European insurance companies. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

8:17pm Wed 6 Feb 13

WayneRouke says...

This is rather concerning, for two reasons:

a) The prevalence of people paying one months premium then stopping the direct debit,just to get an insurance certificate for potential productions, makes the printed document unbelievable and as such worthless. The police therefore, should believe the electronic data. Therefore, We, as insureds, are as such totally reliant upon the insurers entering the data in a speedy and efficient manner. Therefore the system is flawed as it relies on humans.

2) From what I have read, it means that I could be stopped on my way to work, produce my brand new certificate of insurance but my car may be taken away (without authority) if the details havent been entered electronically. But if I am legally insured, then taking my vehicle without my consent is tantamout the theft, regardless of whether its a hoodlum or the police.

3) BUT, I am not sure due process has been followed here. ALL(as far as I know) insurers have a 24 hour hotline, primarily for claims. From what I have seen on the TV, when a vehicle comes up as uninsured, and no certificate, the police ring the insurance company direct who confirm or deny cover (they maintain their own systems). I do not believe the police actually confirmed cover with the insurer.

Therefore, in my mind, both the insurer and the police are guilty. The insurer for not updating the database and the police for not confirming cover with the company itself.

I do know this, if my perfectly legal car is taken away over such a mistake, I will not particularly care who is at fault, I just know I am perfectly innocent, and would immediately make my way to the nearest solicitors, and will be pressing for the maximum charges are applied to whoever is at fault. I would be pressing for a charge of theft.
This is rather concerning, for two reasons: a) The prevalence of people paying one months premium then stopping the direct debit,just to get an insurance certificate for potential productions, makes the printed document unbelievable and as such worthless. The police therefore, should believe the electronic data. Therefore, We, as insureds, are as such totally reliant upon the insurers entering the data in a speedy and efficient manner. Therefore the system is flawed as it relies on humans. 2) From what I have read, it means that I could be stopped on my way to work, produce my brand new certificate of insurance but my car may be taken away (without authority) if the details havent been entered electronically. But if I am legally insured, then taking my vehicle without my consent is tantamout the theft, regardless of whether its a hoodlum or the police. 3) BUT, I am not sure due process has been followed here. ALL(as far as I know) insurers have a 24 hour hotline, primarily for claims. From what I have seen on the TV, when a vehicle comes up as uninsured, and no certificate, the police ring the insurance company direct who confirm or deny cover (they maintain their own systems). I do not believe the police actually confirmed cover with the insurer. Therefore, in my mind, both the insurer and the police are guilty. The insurer for not updating the database and the police for not confirming cover with the company itself. I do know this, if my perfectly legal car is taken away over such a mistake, I will not particularly care who is at fault, I just know I am perfectly innocent, and would immediately make my way to the nearest solicitors, and will be pressing for the maximum charges are applied to whoever is at fault. I would be pressing for a charge of theft. WayneRouke
  • Score: 0

8:18pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

jh137 wrote:
'No-one at Swinton insurance brokers was available for comment when contacted by the Telegraph & Argus'...
why are we not surprised?
Ive just told my other half about this item, wish we'd known when it happened to us (see my earlier post) that they make a habit of this. Ive been driving for over 30 years w/out a blemish ;-(
Typical
[quote][p][bold]jh137[/bold] wrote: 'No-one at Swinton insurance brokers was available for comment when contacted by the Telegraph & Argus'... why are we not surprised? Ive just told my other half about this item, wish we'd known when it happened to us (see my earlier post) that they make a habit of this. Ive been driving for over 30 years w/out a blemish ;-([/p][/quote]Typical Not so simple
  • Score: 0

8:20pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

WayneRouke wrote:
This is rather concerning, for two reasons:

a) The prevalence of people paying one months premium then stopping the direct debit,just to get an insurance certificate for potential productions, makes the printed document unbelievable and as such worthless. The police therefore, should believe the electronic data. Therefore, We, as insureds, are as such totally reliant upon the insurers entering the data in a speedy and efficient manner. Therefore the system is flawed as it relies on humans.

2) From what I have read, it means that I could be stopped on my way to work, produce my brand new certificate of insurance but my car may be taken away (without authority) if the details havent been entered electronically. But if I am legally insured, then taking my vehicle without my consent is tantamout the theft, regardless of whether its a hoodlum or the police.

3) BUT, I am not sure due process has been followed here. ALL(as far as I know) insurers have a 24 hour hotline, primarily for claims. From what I have seen on the TV, when a vehicle comes up as uninsured, and no certificate, the police ring the insurance company direct who confirm or deny cover (they maintain their own systems). I do not believe the police actually confirmed cover with the insurer.

Therefore, in my mind, both the insurer and the police are guilty. The insurer for not updating the database and the police for not confirming cover with the company itself.

I do know this, if my perfectly legal car is taken away over such a mistake, I will not particularly care who is at fault, I just know I am perfectly innocent, and would immediately make my way to the nearest solicitors, and will be pressing for the maximum charges are applied to whoever is at fault. I would be pressing for a charge of theft.
Theft alright and breach of freedom to travel.
[quote][p][bold]WayneRouke[/bold] wrote: This is rather concerning, for two reasons: a) The prevalence of people paying one months premium then stopping the direct debit,just to get an insurance certificate for potential productions, makes the printed document unbelievable and as such worthless. The police therefore, should believe the electronic data. Therefore, We, as insureds, are as such totally reliant upon the insurers entering the data in a speedy and efficient manner. Therefore the system is flawed as it relies on humans. 2) From what I have read, it means that I could be stopped on my way to work, produce my brand new certificate of insurance but my car may be taken away (without authority) if the details havent been entered electronically. But if I am legally insured, then taking my vehicle without my consent is tantamout the theft, regardless of whether its a hoodlum or the police. 3) BUT, I am not sure due process has been followed here. ALL(as far as I know) insurers have a 24 hour hotline, primarily for claims. From what I have seen on the TV, when a vehicle comes up as uninsured, and no certificate, the police ring the insurance company direct who confirm or deny cover (they maintain their own systems). I do not believe the police actually confirmed cover with the insurer. Therefore, in my mind, both the insurer and the police are guilty. The insurer for not updating the database and the police for not confirming cover with the company itself. I do know this, if my perfectly legal car is taken away over such a mistake, I will not particularly care who is at fault, I just know I am perfectly innocent, and would immediately make my way to the nearest solicitors, and will be pressing for the maximum charges are applied to whoever is at fault. I would be pressing for a charge of theft.[/p][/quote]Theft alright and breach of freedom to travel. Not so simple
  • Score: -1

8:25pm Wed 6 Feb 13

//M\\W says...

Blotto wrote:
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!
Not Really, because it can take upto three days for the system to update when you purchase or renew a policy.
The police officer should have called the insurance company as they have the phone numbers for nearly all of them or at least looked at the certificate at her home.

It is the police officers fault he could have just told her to produce the documents in seven days instead of taking the car but he wanted to seize it to meet his target.
[quote][p][bold]Blotto[/bold] wrote: The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!![/p][/quote]Not Really, because it can take upto three days for the system to update when you purchase or renew a policy. The police officer should have called the insurance company as they have the phone numbers for nearly all of them or at least looked at the certificate at her home. It is the police officers fault he could have just told her to produce the documents in seven days instead of taking the car but he wanted to seize it to meet his target. //M\\W
  • Score: -1

8:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

//M\\W says...

This proves that Most Police officers are PLEBS.
This proves that Most Police officers are PLEBS. //M\\W
  • Score: -1

8:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Telfordboy says...

Not so simple wrote:
Telfordboy wrote:
I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase
Uninsured vehicles. they can be a pain for recovery operators who get paid to recover them? How else would you make your money? Lol you just digging a bigger hole for yourself. No idea about insurance and you charge £30 to recover a car...dude you are a bargain as that £30 pays for your fuel,your insurance and your time anc youve gotta pay tax on that income, bargain.

Secondly do you know how many "insured vehicles are on the road" ? Loads.

What percentage of the total vehicles in the UK are not insured excluding those on SORN or awaiting to be scrapped....you will find that the percentage is very little.

Thirdly, the MIB gets a percentage of all our insurance premiums as well as insurance premium tax going to the government...million

s and millions of pounds in income. You telling me this wasteful dept cannot deal to insure the losses accrued by incidents of the non insured vehicles....utter non sense and if you check figures from govt sources you will scratch your head and think none of these millions spent on enforcing insurance on a small minority make sense....as the vast majority pay for it with enough premiums to handle all claims three times over.

Fourthly I have first hand experience of insurance from the profit orientated underwriters to the ill informed police who enforce the issue of insurance. Your explanation is rather lame and somewhat I'll informed.

Also point note noting; have you guys got any idea as to the cost of comprehensive insurance policies in Europe or should I say eastern Europe? Well let me explain quickly.

Europeans pay half if not 75 % less then what we pay here and they are insured to drive in any country in Europe. Soon you will see as they all cotton on and start driving more valuable cars on the roads fully insured from European insurance companies.
We don't charge £30.00 per car.We get £30.00 out of the £150.00 and we do not fix the charges As I have already said, we make our money by the other aspects of police work along with the various motoring organisations. Working for the police with regards to uninsured vehicles is not profitable at all.If we had the choice, we would not do the uninsured recovery but as I have already said, we have no choice like all recovery operators in this country. We cannot pick and choose. Either you take all of the police contract or nothing at all. We lose money on the uninsured vehicles but we gain on other aspects of the contract.
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase[/p][/quote]Uninsured vehicles. they can be a pain for recovery operators who get paid to recover them? How else would you make your money? Lol you just digging a bigger hole for yourself. No idea about insurance and you charge £30 to recover a car...dude you are a bargain as that £30 pays for your fuel,your insurance and your time anc youve gotta pay tax on that income, bargain. Secondly do you know how many "insured vehicles are on the road" ? Loads. What percentage of the total vehicles in the UK are not insured excluding those on SORN or awaiting to be scrapped....you will find that the percentage is very little. Thirdly, the MIB gets a percentage of all our insurance premiums as well as insurance premium tax going to the government...million s and millions of pounds in income. You telling me this wasteful dept cannot deal to insure the losses accrued by incidents of the non insured vehicles....utter non sense and if you check figures from govt sources you will scratch your head and think none of these millions spent on enforcing insurance on a small minority make sense....as the vast majority pay for it with enough premiums to handle all claims three times over. Fourthly I have first hand experience of insurance from the profit orientated underwriters to the ill informed police who enforce the issue of insurance. Your explanation is rather lame and somewhat I'll informed. Also point note noting; have you guys got any idea as to the cost of comprehensive insurance policies in Europe or should I say eastern Europe? Well let me explain quickly. Europeans pay half if not 75 % less then what we pay here and they are insured to drive in any country in Europe. Soon you will see as they all cotton on and start driving more valuable cars on the roads fully insured from European insurance companies.[/p][/quote]We don't charge £30.00 per car.We get £30.00 out of the £150.00 and we do not fix the charges As I have already said, we make our money by the other aspects of police work along with the various motoring organisations. Working for the police with regards to uninsured vehicles is not profitable at all.If we had the choice, we would not do the uninsured recovery but as I have already said, we have no choice like all recovery operators in this country. We cannot pick and choose. Either you take all of the police contract or nothing at all. We lose money on the uninsured vehicles but we gain on other aspects of the contract. Telfordboy
  • Score: 0

8:31pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

//M\\W wrote:
Blotto wrote:
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!
Not Really, because it can take upto three days for the system to update when you purchase or renew a policy.
The police officer should have called the insurance company as they have the phone numbers for nearly all of them or at least looked at the certificate at her home.

It is the police officers fault he could have just told her to produce the documents in seven days instead of taking the car but he wanted to seize it to meet his target.
A police office at fault....I would never have guessed especially since the recent trial of a senior detective involved in the leveson inquiry (joke of an inquiry ) trying to relay certain information I believe for some financial gain potentially.

Also don't forget our ex cheif bolockmaster Mr Bettison and the Hillsbourough inquiry.

We must remember that we are all humans and such we can all make "mistakes"

Rememebr mr Huhne the Libdem MP....what dept was he shadowing and this guy I think was a cabinet minister.

The entire system stinks and is on the brink of collapse.

Our once great police force has been left in tatters.
[quote][p][bold]//M\\W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Blotto[/bold] wrote: The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!![/p][/quote]Not Really, because it can take upto three days for the system to update when you purchase or renew a policy. The police officer should have called the insurance company as they have the phone numbers for nearly all of them or at least looked at the certificate at her home. It is the police officers fault he could have just told her to produce the documents in seven days instead of taking the car but he wanted to seize it to meet his target.[/p][/quote]A police office at fault....I would never have guessed especially since the recent trial of a senior detective involved in the leveson inquiry (joke of an inquiry ) trying to relay certain information I believe for some financial gain potentially. Also don't forget our ex cheif bolockmaster Mr Bettison and the Hillsbourough inquiry. We must remember that we are all humans and such we can all make "mistakes" Rememebr mr Huhne the Libdem MP....what dept was he shadowing and this guy I think was a cabinet minister. The entire system stinks and is on the brink of collapse. Our once great police force has been left in tatters. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

8:41pm Wed 6 Feb 13

plebgate says...

***** police words fail big wages fat pensions and crap public service
one silvr lining is this govenment knows this and the police dont like it hence there bullying but as they say give em pleanty of rope
***** police words fail big wages fat pensions and crap public service one silvr lining is this govenment knows this and the police dont like it hence there bullying but as they say give em pleanty of rope plebgate
  • Score: -1

8:49pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Telfordboy says...

One final comment just to show you how wrong the system is: If you have your vehicle seized because you are suspected of using it in a crime, you get it back for nothing even if it is proved that you have in court (for example if you are caught with loads of TV's in the back of the vehicle and it is proved in court that you had stolen them) you get your vehicle back for nothing. On the other hand, if your vehicle is stolen and then recovered by us on behalf of the police, it will cost you £150.00 plus £20.00 per day to get it back, despite the fact you are totally innocent. Fees not set by us. They are set by the Government. They are called Statutory Fees. The system is wrong but that is how it is
One final comment just to show you how wrong the system is: If you have your vehicle seized because you are suspected of using it in a crime, you get it back for nothing even if it is proved that you have in court (for example if you are caught with loads of TV's in the back of the vehicle and it is proved in court that you had stolen them) you get your vehicle back for nothing. On the other hand, if your vehicle is stolen and then recovered by us on behalf of the police, it will cost you £150.00 plus £20.00 per day to get it back, despite the fact you are totally innocent. Fees not set by us. They are set by the Government. They are called Statutory Fees. The system is wrong but that is how it is Telfordboy
  • Score: 0

8:58pm Wed 6 Feb 13

RollandSmoke says...

Not so simple wrote:
jh137 wrote:
oreilly.john.1990@go


oglemail.com
wrote:
cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.
Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.
Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.
Swinton need to have their trading banned.
I recall a pal who was insured with them.
Prior to his renewal he had sold the vehicle and got another insurance company to insure him.

He was alarmed to see that Swinton were still taking payments from his account eventhough his insurance had finished.

When we queried this with Swinton on manningham lane, we were referred to a term/condition in their policy that states in small print they can renew your insurance of you do not make contact to cancel or even ask for a renewal.

I sat the Swinton manager down and explained what terms they cannot put into contracts and that insuring a vehicle twice was also not good.

The manager apologised and refunded the monies.

These guys should be called swindlers not Swinton.

Also the branch near frizinghall. I went along with a pal to check out some quotes he had received for a commercial vehicle. I was surprised to find a persons working their who had worked for cox insurance aka insure.co.uk in little Germany....I had trained some of these guys and was very dissociated with them as their knowledge was very poor...how Swinton employed them was beyond me...value for money probably!
Cox insurance was a dodgy setup. I had a brief stint with them myself after few years with Direct Line. Wasn't comfortable with how the sales dept operated at all. I did have an enjoyable evening out with them though at a certain curry house. They had booked the entire upstairs. We filled the place with smoke as we sampled each others wares. The curry was nice too.
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jh137[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]oreilly.john.1990@go oglemail.com[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cassetteman[/bold] wrote: A few things here. She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous. You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle. Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be. The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter. I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.[/p][/quote]Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured. Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.[/p][/quote]Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.[/p][/quote]Swinton need to have their trading banned. I recall a pal who was insured with them. Prior to his renewal he had sold the vehicle and got another insurance company to insure him. He was alarmed to see that Swinton were still taking payments from his account eventhough his insurance had finished. When we queried this with Swinton on manningham lane, we were referred to a term/condition in their policy that states in small print they can renew your insurance of you do not make contact to cancel or even ask for a renewal. I sat the Swinton manager down and explained what terms they cannot put into contracts and that insuring a vehicle twice was also not good. The manager apologised and refunded the monies. These guys should be called swindlers not Swinton. Also the branch near frizinghall. I went along with a pal to check out some quotes he had received for a commercial vehicle. I was surprised to find a persons working their who had worked for cox insurance aka insure.co.uk in little Germany....I had trained some of these guys and was very dissociated with them as their knowledge was very poor...how Swinton employed them was beyond me...value for money probably![/p][/quote]Cox insurance was a dodgy setup. I had a brief stint with them myself after few years with Direct Line. Wasn't comfortable with how the sales dept operated at all. I did have an enjoyable evening out with them though at a certain curry house. They had booked the entire upstairs. We filled the place with smoke as we sampled each others wares. The curry was nice too. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

smitd says...

I bought a new to me car from a main dealer in Manchester, Mercedes, last June, it came with free 7 day insurance so I could drive home straight away, I was advised by the dealer to keep the cover note in the car for the full 7 days as it could take 7 days for it to be uploaded onto MID, I had had the car all but an hour when driving home on canal road I was pulled for no insurance, I showed the police my cover note, they rang the insurer from their car, insurance confirmed, sorry on you're way sir, job sorted. It was an inconvienence but the police were absolutely correct.
I bought a new to me car from a main dealer in Manchester, Mercedes, last June, it came with free 7 day insurance so I could drive home straight away, I was advised by the dealer to keep the cover note in the car for the full 7 days as it could take 7 days for it to be uploaded onto MID, I had had the car all but an hour when driving home on canal road I was pulled for no insurance, I showed the police my cover note, they rang the insurer from their car, insurance confirmed, sorry on you're way sir, job sorted. It was an inconvienence but the police were absolutely correct. smitd
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13

smitd says...

I bought a new to me car from a main dealer in Manchester, Mercedes, last June, it came with free 7 day insurance so I could drive home straight away, I was advised by the dealer to keep the cover note in the car for the full 7 days as it could take 7 days for it to be uploaded onto MID, I had had the car all but an hour when driving home on canal road I was pulled for no insurance, I showed the police my cover note, they rang the insurer from their car, insurance confirmed, sorry on you're way sir, job sorted. It was an inconvienence but the police were absolutely correct.
I bought a new to me car from a main dealer in Manchester, Mercedes, last June, it came with free 7 day insurance so I could drive home straight away, I was advised by the dealer to keep the cover note in the car for the full 7 days as it could take 7 days for it to be uploaded onto MID, I had had the car all but an hour when driving home on canal road I was pulled for no insurance, I showed the police my cover note, they rang the insurer from their car, insurance confirmed, sorry on you're way sir, job sorted. It was an inconvienence but the police were absolutely correct. smitd
  • Score: 0

9:57pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Outraged English Subject says...

Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes. Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 0

10:12pm Wed 6 Feb 13

collos25 says...

A insurance company must by law write to the insured and give 7 days to pay in the case of non payment by DD.So its not so simple as some people make out.

So police rely on a private firm who may or may not do their job properly I would hate to think they relied on outside companies when it comes to a serious crime or perhaps they do.

I see the former chief of WYP is being investigated not ony for the Hillsborourg disaster but for his part in stolen cable.
If the quality of the grass roots police officers is lacking those at the top appear to a little dishonest to say the least.
A insurance company must by law write to the insured and give 7 days to pay in the case of non payment by DD.So its not so simple as some people make out. So police rely on a private firm who may or may not do their job properly I would hate to think they relied on outside companies when it comes to a serious crime or perhaps they do. I see the former chief of WYP is being investigated not ony for the Hillsborourg disaster but for his part in stolen cable. If the quality of the grass roots police officers is lacking those at the top appear to a little dishonest to say the least. collos25
  • Score: 0

10:22pm Wed 6 Feb 13

//M\\W says...

Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.
NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.
[quote][p][bold]Outraged English Subject[/bold] wrote: Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.[/p][/quote]NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car. //M\\W
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Wed 6 Feb 13

yezboss says...

I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police.
I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police. yezboss
  • Score: 0

10:37pm Wed 6 Feb 13

yezboss says...

I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police.
I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police. yezboss
  • Score: 0

10:51pm Wed 6 Feb 13

47years says...

The insurance company are clearly at fault here and should be responsible for reimbursing the £150. More importantly they should be compensating the driver for her inconvenience and be fined by the police for not having updated the PNC. Having said that if they were it would only ever be reflected in everyone elses insurance premiums. The powers that be need to look at this issue and give clear guidance.
The insurance company are clearly at fault here and should be responsible for reimbursing the £150. More importantly they should be compensating the driver for her inconvenience and be fined by the police for not having updated the PNC. Having said that if they were it would only ever be reflected in everyone elses insurance premiums. The powers that be need to look at this issue and give clear guidance. 47years
  • Score: 0

11:32pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Telfordboy wrote:
One final comment just to show you how wrong the system is: If you have your vehicle seized because you are suspected of using it in a crime, you get it back for nothing even if it is proved that you have in court (for example if you are caught with loads of TV's in the back of the vehicle and it is proved in court that you had stolen them) you get your vehicle back for nothing. On the other hand, if your vehicle is stolen and then recovered by us on behalf of the police, it will cost you £150.00 plus £20.00 per day to get it back, despite the fact you are totally innocent. Fees not set by us. They are set by the Government. They are called Statutory Fees. The system is wrong but that is how it is
Sounds like a scam. Dump the police contract
[quote][p][bold]Telfordboy[/bold] wrote: One final comment just to show you how wrong the system is: If you have your vehicle seized because you are suspected of using it in a crime, you get it back for nothing even if it is proved that you have in court (for example if you are caught with loads of TV's in the back of the vehicle and it is proved in court that you had stolen them) you get your vehicle back for nothing. On the other hand, if your vehicle is stolen and then recovered by us on behalf of the police, it will cost you £150.00 plus £20.00 per day to get it back, despite the fact you are totally innocent. Fees not set by us. They are set by the Government. They are called Statutory Fees. The system is wrong but that is how it is[/p][/quote]Sounds like a scam. Dump the police contract Not so simple
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

47years wrote:
The insurance company are clearly at fault here and should be responsible for reimbursing the £150. More importantly they should be compensating the driver for her inconvenience and be fined by the police for not having updated the PNC. Having said that if they were it would only ever be reflected in everyone elses insurance premiums. The powers that be need to look at this issue and give clear guidance.
The powers will never give clear guidance....the statute outside the supreme court has a blindfold on....justice is blind unless you can afford to bs your way through.
[quote][p][bold]47years[/bold] wrote: The insurance company are clearly at fault here and should be responsible for reimbursing the £150. More importantly they should be compensating the driver for her inconvenience and be fined by the police for not having updated the PNC. Having said that if they were it would only ever be reflected in everyone elses insurance premiums. The powers that be need to look at this issue and give clear guidance.[/p][/quote]The powers will never give clear guidance....the statute outside the supreme court has a blindfold on....justice is blind unless you can afford to bs your way through. Not so simple
  • Score: 0

2:22am Thu 7 Feb 13

hn0o0258 says...

Anyone feels strongly enough, email our shiny new police and crime Commissioner on
contact@westyorkshir
e-pcc.gov.uk
Anyone feels strongly enough, email our shiny new police and crime Commissioner on contact@westyorkshir e-pcc.gov.uk hn0o0258
  • Score: 0

4:58am Thu 7 Feb 13

yezboss says...

yezboss wrote:
I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police.
For some reason my post was duplicated, the previous post referred to the fact Police Forces have been told not to rely on the MID as the definitive record.
[quote][p][bold]yezboss[/bold] wrote: I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police.[/p][/quote]For some reason my post was duplicated, the previous post referred to the fact Police Forces have been told not to rely on the MID as the definitive record. yezboss
  • Score: 0

5:23am Thu 7 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

Stuart_B wrote:
tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?
are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago).

The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA.

That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home.

were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place.

All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article.
[quote][p][bold]Stuart_B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company[/p][/quote]"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. Where are you getting that bit from ...?[/p][/quote]are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago). The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA. That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home. were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place. All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article. tyker2
  • Score: 0

5:23am Thu 7 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

Stuart_B wrote:
tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?
are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago).

The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA.

That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home.

were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place.

All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article.
[quote][p][bold]Stuart_B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company[/p][/quote]"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. Where are you getting that bit from ...?[/p][/quote]are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago). The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA. That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home. were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place. All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article. tyker2
  • Score: 0

9:30am Thu 7 Feb 13

Andy2010 says...

tyker2 wrote:
Stuart_B wrote:
tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company
"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?
are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago).

The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA.

That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home.

were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place.

All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article.
This is what I take away from the story

I highly doubt the full picture is being explained here
[quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stuart_B[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tyker2[/bold] wrote: there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred. The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company[/p][/quote]"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc. Where are you getting that bit from ...?[/p][/quote]are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago). The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA. That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home. were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place. All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article.[/p][/quote]This is what I take away from the story I highly doubt the full picture is being explained here Andy2010
  • Score: 0

10:26am Thu 7 Feb 13

Outraged English Subject says...

//M\\W wrote:
Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.
NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.
My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment!
[quote][p][bold]//M\\W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outraged English Subject[/bold] wrote: Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.[/p][/quote]NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.[/p][/quote]My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment! Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 0

1:53pm Thu 7 Feb 13

legallyblonde says...

Its not just Swintons - E-van failed to put my husbands insurance on MID but we had a letter from the DVLA asking us to contact the insurance company to update MID which we did - Tesco also caused one of my colleagues to have her car seized as they had not updated MID for her insurance, it seems to be something that needs looking at urgently, for people who are insured to allow the police to catch the uninsured drivers amongst us. If anyone wants to make sure their insurance is showing on MID just put your details on
http://www.askmid.co
m/
you can check your own vehicle for free.
Its not just Swintons - E-van failed to put my husbands insurance on MID but we had a letter from the DVLA asking us to contact the insurance company to update MID which we did - Tesco also caused one of my colleagues to have her car seized as they had not updated MID for her insurance, it seems to be something that needs looking at urgently, for people who are insured to allow the police to catch the uninsured drivers amongst us. If anyone wants to make sure their insurance is showing on MID just put your details on http://www.askmid.co m/ you can check your own vehicle for free. legallyblonde
  • Score: 0

6:06pm Thu 7 Feb 13

//M\\W says...

hn0o0258 wrote:
Anyone feels strongly enough, email our shiny new police and crime Commissioner on
contact@westyorkshir

e-pcc.gov.uk
thanks hes gona get it
[quote][p][bold]hn0o0258[/bold] wrote: Anyone feels strongly enough, email our shiny new police and crime Commissioner on contact@westyorkshir e-pcc.gov.uk[/p][/quote]thanks hes gona get it //M\\W
  • Score: 0

6:07pm Thu 7 Feb 13

//M\\W says...

Outraged English Subject wrote:
//M\\W wrote:
Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.
NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.
My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment!
ok. but it has nothing to do with the article
[quote][p][bold]Outraged English Subject[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]//M\\W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outraged English Subject[/bold] wrote: Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.[/p][/quote]NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.[/p][/quote]My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment![/p][/quote]ok. but it has nothing to do with the article //M\\W
  • Score: 0

8:10pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Outraged English Subject says...

//M\\W wrote:
Outraged English Subject wrote:
//M\\W wrote:
Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.
NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.
My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment!
ok. but it has nothing to do with the article
I am aware of that, that is how comments can develop and the thread evolve.
[quote][p][bold]//M\\W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outraged English Subject[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]//M\\W[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Outraged English Subject[/bold] wrote: Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.[/p][/quote]NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.[/p][/quote]My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment![/p][/quote]ok. but it has nothing to do with the article[/p][/quote]I am aware of that, that is how comments can develop and the thread evolve. Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 0

11:58pm Thu 7 Feb 13

eccythump says...

Same thing happened to my partner. He had been ill all day unable to get out to the shop. He drove to an all night garage for supplies, Police stopped him saying he was un-insured. he had all the documentation at home, was fully insured, had been for quite some time but apparently the insurance company (A Quote) had not passed his details to the online database. ( makes you wonder if they do this on purpose to save themselves money) The police impounded his car. He had to walk miles home, he had spent the last of his moeny at the garage. It was the middle of the morning, very cold and he was ill at the time. He had to pay over a hundred pounds to get his car back. This was refunded after he proved he was insured, but the refund check took months to come through, after very many phone calls
Same thing happened to my partner. He had been ill all day unable to get out to the shop. He drove to an all night garage for supplies, Police stopped him saying he was un-insured. he had all the documentation at home, was fully insured, had been for quite some time but apparently the insurance company (A Quote) had not passed his details to the online database. ( makes you wonder if they do this on purpose to save themselves money) The police impounded his car. He had to walk miles home, he had spent the last of his moeny at the garage. It was the middle of the morning, very cold and he was ill at the time. He had to pay over a hundred pounds to get his car back. This was refunded after he proved he was insured, but the refund check took months to come through, after very many phone calls eccythump
  • Score: 0

12:39am Fri 8 Feb 13

What now says...

Yes i agree, the insurance company have committed malpractice, also failed in their duty of care, this lady should be contacting them for reimbursement, as should anybody else, also i would contact the new commissioner and ask him to look at this practice and if it falls within the terms of fair play, their actions to me seems like their are profiteering from people.
Yes i agree, the insurance company have committed malpractice, also failed in their duty of care, this lady should be contacting them for reimbursement, as should anybody else, also i would contact the new commissioner and ask him to look at this practice and if it falls within the terms of fair play, their actions to me seems like their are profiteering from people. What now
  • Score: 0

9:19am Fri 8 Feb 13

albert2003 says...

read here Debbie,

http://forums.pepipo
o.com/index.php?show
topic=76496&st=0
read here Debbie, http://forums.pepipo o.com/index.php?show topic=76496&st=0 albert2003
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Al-gore-alias-liar says...

Mr David Ashley Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

http://www.bailii.or
g/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/
2011/749.html
Mr David Ashley Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police http://www.bailii.or g/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/ 2011/749.html Al-gore-alias-liar
  • Score: 0

3:27pm Fri 8 Feb 13

Al-gore-alias-liar says...

Al-gore-alias-liar wrote:
Mr David Ashley Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

http://www.bailii.or

g/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/

2011/749.html
The police officer is at risk if he then seizes the vehicle. If it turns out that the driver was uninsured, the certificate was not "the relevant certificate of insurance", and the seizure was justified. If, however, as here, it turns out that the driver was in fact insured under the policy under which the insurance certificate was issued, then the seizure of the vehicle was unauthorised and gives rise to liability for damages in tort.
[quote][p][bold]Al-gore-alias-liar[/bold] wrote: Mr David Ashley Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police http://www.bailii.or g/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/ 2011/749.html[/p][/quote]The police officer is at risk if he then seizes the vehicle. If it turns out that the driver was uninsured, the certificate was not "the relevant certificate of insurance", and the seizure was justified. If, however, as here, it turns out that the driver was in fact insured under the policy under which the insurance certificate was issued, then the seizure of the vehicle was unauthorised and gives rise to liability for damages in tort. Al-gore-alias-liar
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree