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.
|
MID failings? new
MID failings? new
