A friend had their daughter insured by means of additional L insurance cover with a policy from Marmalade see www.provisionalmarmalade.co.uk/default.asp?introducer=7
The daughter was driving in order to gain more confidence following a test failure with parent in the passenger seat. Without going into the full details, they were stopped by the police following an (acknowledged) poor piece of driving when merging on to a busy (and fast) dual carriageway. The police then pulled them into a short layby and checked the MID. MID provided the details of the L driver policy, but no other info regarding the parents insurance.
The police said that they would not allow the L driver to coninue the journey, as requiring her to pull out of the short layby, as, based on the previous evidence, it would be too dangerous. They would not allow the parent to drive in the absence of MID confirmation of valid insurance.
Fortunately it was during working hours and following several phone calls the broker/insurers came up with acceptable evidence that the insurance was actually in place. The police then informed them that if this had happened outside working hours, they would have sezed the car. They also made the statement, ( which I regard as untrue), that it is not legal to have 2 policies on the one car!
So the major question is whether MID supports the concept of having more than a single policy applicable to a single car.
And the advice to any body ihaving one of these policies is to check (how?) the scope of the information available to the police.
|
>>that it is not legal to have 2 policies on the one car!
Untrue.
You can have 2,000 if you wish. There's only a problem if you are doing it with the intention of defrauding someone. And even then its not illegal to have the policies.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 22 Aug 12 at 01:54
|
|
Carole Nash were a bit sniffy about doing that with the bike we jointly own and use here.
|
Oh none of them like it, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Aside from anything it gets dead complex in the event of a claim.
|
I thought:
1. The driver is the insured person, and their insurance can entitle them to drive more than one car.
2. The car requiring insurance in its own right is the recent new law (re. either SORN or insure).
In view of above:
3. Your friends should check that their car comes up on MID as insured.
4. Your friends should be advised that when taking the learner out for a lesson, the instructor as well as the learner carry their insurance certificates with them.
|
>> They also made the statement .............. that it is not legal to have 2 policies on the one >> car!
People sometimes use the wrong word. It happens often enough on Car4play ~ and I get called a pedant when pointing it out! It's possible that the police officer meant that it's illegal to claim on two policies for the same incident. Your friend and daughter should have asked the police officer to clarify his statement. Claiming on two policies for the same incident is attempting to commit fraud. I'm not even sure whether fraud is illegal or whether it's categorised as something else.
|
>> it's illegal to claim on two policies for the same incident.
If you want to get pedantic about it:
I've heard of situations where more than one policy covers an incident. The insurance companies 'divvy up' the liabilities.
>> Claiming on two policies for the same incident is attempting to commit fraud.
Consider two vehicles, both insured fully comp, in an accident. Settled 'knock for knock'.
|
The MID discussion could be the least of the L driver's worries if a summons lands for due care and attention.
|
|
Well if we're going to be pedantic, the officer(s) have no lawful power to stop the girl driving off, as stated in the post.
|
>> ............... the officer(s) have no lawful power to stop
>> the girl driving off, as stated in the post.
>>
The post said "The police said that they would not allow the L driver to coninue the journey, as requiring her to pull out of the short layby, as, based on the previous evidence, it would be too dangerous."
The post didn't state that "the officer(s) have no lawful power to stop the girl driving off,"
|
>> Well if we're going to be pedantic, the officer(s) have no lawful power to stop
>> the girl driving off, as stated in the post.
>>
I often read of the police telling someone not to do something, and wonder whether they really have that power?
I remember a shopkeeper who put a slightly saucy advert in his window, and was told by police to remove it. Or someone who put a speed camera warning sign in his front garden, even though there weren't any cameras.
|
>> >> Claiming on two policies for the same incident is attempting to commit fraud.
>>
>> Consider two vehicles, both insured fully comp, in an accident. Settled 'knock for knock'.
>>
You're right to point out that I didn't write exactly what I meant. I should have said " Claiming on two policies for the same incident on the same vehicle is attempting to commit fraud."
|
>> >> it's illegal to claim on two policies for the same incident.
You've taken that out of context by not quoting the full sentance.
|
...sentance...
Not sure what one of those is, but a series of words which make sense is a sentence.
|
>> ...sentance...
>>
>> Not sure what one of those is, but a series of words which make sense
>> is a sentence.
You're absolutely right, and in future I will make every effort to avoid committing further spelling or typographical errors.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 11 Aug 12 at 09:30
|
...You're absolutely right, and in future I will make every effort to avoid committing further spelling errors...
So will I, but it is bound to happen.
|
>> ...You're absolutely right, and in future I will make every effort to avoid committing further
>> spelling errors...
>>
>> So will I, but it is bound to happen.
I said "You're absolutely right, and in future I will make every effort to avoid committing further spelling or typographical errors."
You deleted the words "or typographical", and that altered the meaning of the sentence.
|
>>You're absolutely right, and in future I will make every effort to avoid committing further spelling or typographical errors.
Perhaps you need to slow down a bit?
;>)
|
>> >>You're absolutely right, and in future I will make every effort to avoid committing further
>> spelling or typographical errors.
>>
>> Perhaps you need to slow down a bit?
I'm in snail bottom gear as it is! Just off to see my mate Sea Slug. tinyurl.com/bs7k2ra
|
>>'knock for knock'.
I hate that arrangement for having the most misunderstood and misused 'name' ever.
Where there there is more than one policy covering the incident, there is a hierarchy of allocation. From the policy which was intended to cover the risk, down to those which incidentally covered it, and various sharing arrangements such as pro-rata acording to premium where there remains duplication. It happens quite a lot on significant househould incidents.
Should you ever be told that by anyone again, you might like to enquire about the position of someone who has the "driving other cars" extension on his own policy, but is driving a car which is directly insured for him.
Or indeed someone who buys a car and takes insurance out on it before the person seeling it has cancelled theirs etc. etc.
|
OK , we have had the (inevitable?) thread drift, how about the answers to the 2 questions;
So the major question is whether MID supports the concept of having more than a single policy applicable to a single car.
How to check the scope of the information available to the police on MID.
The public interface of MID just gives a fairly useless minimum of information that will presumably indicate whether you can tax it.
|
>> OK , we have had the (inevitable?) thread drift, how about the answers to the
>> 2 questions;
>>
Google gives the results I have given below.
>> So the major question is whether MID supports the concept of having more than a
>> single policy applicable to a single car.
>>
Ask MID
Insurance law enquiries
For enquiries about the new Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE) rules for motor insurance, email us at stayinsured@mib.org.uk. We aim to respond to all emails within 5 working days. Alternatively, phone our askMID helpdesk on 0845 165 2888 for CIE related enquiries only. The helpdesk is open between 8am and 9pm Monday to Friday (excluding bank holidays) and between 9am to 5pm on Saturday.
or ask MIB
Enquiries can be forwarded by e-mail to information@mib.org.uk (for UK enquirers)
>> How to check the scope of the information available to the police on MID.
>>
"The minimum information held on the MID is the vehicle registration mark (VRM), duration of insurance, the name of the Insurer, the policy number, as well as the name, address and age of the policyholder and details of any named drivers on the policy. Other information relating to the type of insurance cover may be included (Class of Use, Permitted Drivers) , along with an indication of whether the policy allows the policyholder to Drive Other Vehicles.
The make and model of the vehicle is usually included, depending on whether the insurance company has specified this information.
The database does not hold details of claims or accidents or No Claims Bonus."
You can submit an enquiry:
If you are an individual who wants to know what data is held on the MID about you, using the Data Subject Access Request right of the Data Protection Act 1998, please use the form below. Complete this form and return it with a cheque or postal order for £10 to the address on the form.
Data Subject Access Request Personal Details
Subject to the form and payment being correct, the UK Information Centre will send the details by post to you as soon as possible. If you have any enquiries please call them on 0845 165 2800.
>> The public interface of MID just gives a fairly useless minimum of information that will
>> presumably indicate whether you can tax it.
>>
I think it is probably good enough for 99.99999% of the public.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 14 Aug 12 at 11:16
|
MID failings? - No FM2R
