Cullingworth woman gets refund after insurance blunder

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Debbie Pickford, whose car was seized by police Debbie Pickford, whose car was seized by police

A former policeman’s daughter who had to stump up £150 to get her car back after an insurance company blunder is to get a double payout – after her case was highlighted in the Telegraph & Argus.

Debbie Pickford, 45, of Cullingworth, was left out of pocket when her insurers failed to update police computer records after she reinsured her Peugeot 206.

The car was seized by police in Leeds Road, Barkerend, Bradford, when an Automatic Number Plate Recognition check suggested she was uninsured, as she drove her daughter home from a trip to the cinema, and she did not have her insurance certificate with her.

West Yorkshire Police said it appeared Miss Pickford’s insurers “had not transmitted this information to the Police National Computer enabling it to be updated accurately”.

Chief Inspector Neil Hunter, said: “In view of this reasonable doubt the officers 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.”

But yesterday, her insurance brokers, Swinton Insurance, offered to refund Miss Pickford’s £150 – and pay her a further £150 by way of compensation.

Miss Pickard said: “I am delighted, and surprised, that they have offered compensation. But it doesn’t solve the problem that this could happen again to somebody else and something needs to be done about that. I still feel the police should be flexible. I offered to go home, get my insurance certificate and take it at once to the nearest police station, but I was told I could not do that.”

A spokesman for Swinton Insurance said: “Swinton renewed Miss Pickford’s policy on January 15. The insurer, Highway, was also informed of the renewal confirmation on this day via an overnight process. Highway then presented the information to the Motor Insurance Database which in turn updated the central records. The update within the Motor Insurance Database can take up to 24 hours to process. As Miss Pickford had been declined reimbursement by the police even though she had proof of her insurance, Swinton have reimbursed Miss Pickford with the impound fee of £150 and a further £150 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.”

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:18am Thu 7 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

Well done T&A and readers who left comments yesterday.
Can this new chief commissioner sort this out with Chief Inspector Neil Hunter to ensure next time car owners are given time to prove they have insurance before his officers become judge and jury.
Well done T&A and readers who left comments yesterday. Can this new chief commissioner sort this out with Chief Inspector Neil Hunter to ensure next time car owners are given time to prove they have insurance before his officers become judge and jury. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

9:16am Thu 7 Feb 13

Not telling says...

What about if the police officers had let her go in order to produce her documents at a later time and she ended up having an accident half a mile down the road. If it turns out she wasn't insured then who would be criticised? Funnily enough I'm sure some people tell porkie pies to police in order to get away with things. On this occasion it obviously turns out she was insured but how many other people try and use the sane excuse? She's got her money back and the insurance company are the people who are responsible so no need to change the law/policy!
What about if the police officers had let her go in order to produce her documents at a later time and she ended up having an accident half a mile down the road. If it turns out she wasn't insured then who would be criticised? Funnily enough I'm sure some people tell porkie pies to police in order to get away with things. On this occasion it obviously turns out she was insured but how many other people try and use the sane excuse? She's got her money back and the insurance company are the people who are responsible so no need to change the law/policy! Not telling
  • Score: 0

9:52am Thu 7 Feb 13

RomeoTango says...

The problem here is that producing a certificate from an insurance company does not prove that insurance is in place.
All too frequently I have heard of people producing certificates that have actually been cancelled due to non payment.
Until the insurance companies have a 24/7 verification number there will always be those occasions that officers have to seize vehicles "out of hours".
I would rather hear about cases like this were the insurance company admit their mistake, than read a headline in the T&A "Uninsured Motorists Kills Pedestrian After Being Stopped and Allowed to Continue Journey by Bungling Cops"....come on T&A you know it's true.
The problem here is that producing a certificate from an insurance company does not prove that insurance is in place. All too frequently I have heard of people producing certificates that have actually been cancelled due to non payment. Until the insurance companies have a 24/7 verification number there will always be those occasions that officers have to seize vehicles "out of hours". I would rather hear about cases like this were the insurance company admit their mistake, than read a headline in the T&A "Uninsured Motorists Kills Pedestrian After Being Stopped and Allowed to Continue Journey by Bungling Cops"....come on T&A you know it's true. RomeoTango
  • Score: 0

10:36am Thu 7 Feb 13

Not telling says...

Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police?
Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police? Not telling
  • Score: 0

11:11am Thu 7 Feb 13

Silsdenman says...

RomeoTango wrote:
The problem here is that producing a certificate from an insurance company does not prove that insurance is in place.
All too frequently I have heard of people producing certificates that have actually been cancelled due to non payment.
Until the insurance companies have a 24/7 verification number there will always be those occasions that officers have to seize vehicles "out of hours".
I would rather hear about cases like this were the insurance company admit their mistake, than read a headline in the T&A "Uninsured Motorists Kills Pedestrian After Being Stopped and Allowed to Continue Journey by Bungling Cops"....come on T&A you know it's true.
I doubt you would have said that if your car had been seized by mistake, it sounds very inconvenient and caused by over-zealous cops not using their discretion and doing this sort of thing because it's fun to them.
Why would an uninsured motorist be more likely to kill a pedestrian than if they were insured and what difference would it make to the unfortunate pedestrian anyway? I would think most people who were knowingly driving without insurance would drive very carefully indeed.
[quote][p][bold]RomeoTango[/bold] wrote: The problem here is that producing a certificate from an insurance company does not prove that insurance is in place. All too frequently I have heard of people producing certificates that have actually been cancelled due to non payment. Until the insurance companies have a 24/7 verification number there will always be those occasions that officers have to seize vehicles "out of hours". I would rather hear about cases like this were the insurance company admit their mistake, than read a headline in the T&A "Uninsured Motorists Kills Pedestrian After Being Stopped and Allowed to Continue Journey by Bungling Cops"....come on T&A you know it's true.[/p][/quote]I doubt you would have said that if your car had been seized by mistake, it sounds very inconvenient and caused by over-zealous cops not using their discretion and doing this sort of thing because it's fun to them. Why would an uninsured motorist be more likely to kill a pedestrian than if they were insured and what difference would it make to the unfortunate pedestrian anyway? I would think most people who were knowingly driving without insurance would drive very carefully indeed. Silsdenman
  • Score: 0

11:14am Thu 7 Feb 13

Silsdenman says...

Not telling wrote:
Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police?
Yes and they should still get that because they did the job when requested by the police.
[quote][p][bold]Not telling[/bold] wrote: Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police?[/p][/quote]Yes and they should still get that because they did the job when requested by the police. Silsdenman
  • Score: 0

11:24am Thu 7 Feb 13

tyker2 says...

right decision.END OF
right decision.END OF tyker2
  • Score: 0

11:38am Thu 7 Feb 13

Silsdenman says...

Silsdenman wrote:
Not telling wrote:
Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police?
Yes and they should still get that because they did the job when requested by the police.
Although if it's true, as has been suggested in the comments on original article, that police get most of that money (not sure that it is), they should pay it back.
[quote][p][bold]Silsdenman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Not telling[/bold] wrote: Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police?[/p][/quote]Yes and they should still get that because they did the job when requested by the police.[/p][/quote]Although if it's true, as has been suggested in the comments on original article, that police get most of that money (not sure that it is), they should pay it back. Silsdenman
  • Score: 0

11:40am Thu 7 Feb 13

Albion. says...

There seemed to be a lot of debate as to who was at fault (the insurers/agents or the police), this seems to settle that little debate.
There seemed to be a lot of debate as to who was at fault (the insurers/agents or the police), this seems to settle that little debate. Albion.
  • Score: 0

11:44am Thu 7 Feb 13

Joedavid says...

If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.
If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car. Joedavid
  • Score: 0

12:24pm Thu 7 Feb 13

SRS74 says...

Silsdenman wrote:
RomeoTango wrote:
The problem here is that producing a certificate from an insurance company does not prove that insurance is in place.
All too frequently I have heard of people producing certificates that have actually been cancelled due to non payment.
Until the insurance companies have a 24/7 verification number there will always be those occasions that officers have to seize vehicles "out of hours".
I would rather hear about cases like this were the insurance company admit their mistake, than read a headline in the T&A "Uninsured Motorists Kills Pedestrian After Being Stopped and Allowed to Continue Journey by Bungling Cops"....come on T&A you know it's true.
I doubt you would have said that if your car had been seized by mistake, it sounds very inconvenient and caused by over-zealous cops not using their discretion and doing this sort of thing because it's fun to them.
Why would an uninsured motorist be more likely to kill a pedestrian than if they were insured and what difference would it make to the unfortunate pedestrian anyway? I would think most people who were knowingly driving without insurance would drive very carefully indeed.
Nowhere does RomeoTango suggest that an uninsured driver is more likely to be involved in an accident. He suggests that the police would be criticised heavily for allowing an uninsured motorist on their way with the benefit of doubt and then was involved in a collision and found to be uninsured. Plenty of people on here comment regarding the lack of police action when it comes to tackling uninsured motorists. You cannot use discretion when you believe someone is not insured!! Your attitude stinks.
[quote][p][bold]Silsdenman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RomeoTango[/bold] wrote: The problem here is that producing a certificate from an insurance company does not prove that insurance is in place. All too frequently I have heard of people producing certificates that have actually been cancelled due to non payment. Until the insurance companies have a 24/7 verification number there will always be those occasions that officers have to seize vehicles "out of hours". I would rather hear about cases like this were the insurance company admit their mistake, than read a headline in the T&A "Uninsured Motorists Kills Pedestrian After Being Stopped and Allowed to Continue Journey by Bungling Cops"....come on T&A you know it's true.[/p][/quote]I doubt you would have said that if your car had been seized by mistake, it sounds very inconvenient and caused by over-zealous cops not using their discretion and doing this sort of thing because it's fun to them. Why would an uninsured motorist be more likely to kill a pedestrian than if they were insured and what difference would it make to the unfortunate pedestrian anyway? I would think most people who were knowingly driving without insurance would drive very carefully indeed.[/p][/quote]Nowhere does RomeoTango suggest that an uninsured driver is more likely to be involved in an accident. He suggests that the police would be criticised heavily for allowing an uninsured motorist on their way with the benefit of doubt and then was involved in a collision and found to be uninsured. Plenty of people on here comment regarding the lack of police action when it comes to tackling uninsured motorists. You cannot use discretion when you believe someone is not insured!! Your attitude stinks. SRS74
  • Score: 0

12:38pm Thu 7 Feb 13

johnhem says...

the police action in this case should have been to issue a producer. you can't get backdated insurance so would prove it was/was'nt in place at the time she was stopped.
the police action in this case should have been to issue a producer. you can't get backdated insurance so would prove it was/was'nt in place at the time she was stopped. johnhem
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Joedavid wrote:
If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.
Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself.

To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.[/p][/quote]Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself. To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

1:35pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.
Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself.

To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.
I know and my apologies....got me free wires crossed...again. Freeman and babes rule!
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.[/p][/quote]Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself. To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.[/p][/quote]I know and my apologies....got me free wires crossed...again. Freeman and babes rule! Not so simple
  • Score: 0

1:39pm Thu 7 Feb 13

SRS74 says...

A producer is pointless if you have belief that she is uninsured. You are effectively allowing someone you believe to be uninsured to drive a car on the road. We don't know the full facts of what was discussed between the driver and police and how they formed their belief she wasn't insured. We can't assume otherwise.
A producer is pointless if you have belief that she is uninsured. You are effectively allowing someone you believe to be uninsured to drive a car on the road. We don't know the full facts of what was discussed between the driver and police and how they formed their belief she wasn't insured. We can't assume otherwise. SRS74
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Not so simple wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.
Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself.

To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.
I know and my apologies....got me free wires crossed...again. Freeman and babes rule!
No apologies needed, I found many of your posts yesterday very informative, certainly something worth reading up and learning about. A definite 'gap' in my knowledge surrounds my own personal rights, and I suppose wrongs.
[quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.[/p][/quote]Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself. To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.[/p][/quote]I know and my apologies....got me free wires crossed...again. Freeman and babes rule![/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I found many of your posts yesterday very informative, certainly something worth reading up and learning about. A definite 'gap' in my knowledge surrounds my own personal rights, and I suppose wrongs. Prisoner Cell Block A
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Outraged English Subject says...

Joedavid wrote:
Well done T&A and readers who left comments yesterday.
Can this new chief commissioner sort this out with Chief Inspector Neil Hunter to ensure next time car owners are given time to prove they have insurance before his officers become judge and jury.
Well said,

I do hope Chief Inspector Neil Hunter is taking notes!

A great result for Debbie Pickford.
[quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: Well done T&A and readers who left comments yesterday. Can this new chief commissioner sort this out with Chief Inspector Neil Hunter to ensure next time car owners are given time to prove they have insurance before his officers become judge and jury.[/p][/quote]Well said, I do hope Chief Inspector Neil Hunter is taking notes! A great result for Debbie Pickford. Outraged English Subject
  • Score: 0

8:13pm Thu 7 Feb 13

yezboss says...

Excellent result. People power. Now Hunter needs to listen. And learn.
Excellent result. People power. Now Hunter needs to listen. And learn. yezboss
  • Score: 0

9:21pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Not so simple says...

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Not so simple wrote:
Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Joedavid wrote:
If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.
Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself.

To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.
I know and my apologies....got me free wires crossed...again. Freeman and babes rule!
No apologies needed, I found many of your posts yesterday very informative, certainly something worth reading up and learning about. A definite 'gap' in my knowledge surrounds my own personal rights, and I suppose wrongs.
Those that do know about one's rights are considered or labeled nutters or being out of touch with how things are in the modern world.

I Beleive that all kids should be taught about the bill of rights and the Magna carta aswell as the roles of people and government.

One will note that most of not all government departments including our MP's are trading as companies....why? Simply to limit their liability as a human being as companies cannot go to prison, companies are closed down or fined.
[quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Not so simple[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prisoner Cell Block A[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Joedavid[/bold] wrote: If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.[/p][/quote]Joe, re the youtube post yesterday, search freeman v cop in youtube browser....the cop just doesn't know how to handle himself. To the 'informed poster' yesterday, who quoted Magna Carta 61 etc, I fully intend to do the research you suggested, my comment was a question to you, 'is it anyhting like....?' It wasn't a statement of fact and I had only just heard about the freeman on the land movement this weekend just gone. Far from taking blogs and comments as fact I was just showing interest and asking a question.[/p][/quote]I know and my apologies....got me free wires crossed...again. Freeman and babes rule![/p][/quote]No apologies needed, I found many of your posts yesterday very informative, certainly something worth reading up and learning about. A definite 'gap' in my knowledge surrounds my own personal rights, and I suppose wrongs.[/p][/quote]Those that do know about one's rights are considered or labeled nutters or being out of touch with how things are in the modern world. I Beleive that all kids should be taught about the bill of rights and the Magna carta aswell as the roles of people and government. One will note that most of not all government departments including our MP's are trading as companies....why? Simply to limit their liability as a human being as companies cannot go to prison, companies are closed down or fined. Not so simple
  • 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