Cullingworth woman gets refund after insurance blunder (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

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.

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!

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.

Just another quick point, is it not the recovery agent who charges £150....not the police?

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.

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.

right decision.END OF

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.

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.

If this is the normal way Police act then we all need to carry documents in the car.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Excellent result. People power. Now Hunter needs to listen. And learn.

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.