smart51
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:03 AM |
|
|
How can you find out who someone is insured with?
Following on from This Thread Direct Line have only just found out 3 months on
that the insurance company they thought a guy who crashed in to me was insured by isn't. Given that it's taken them so long to find this
out and to speed things up, how do I find out? My renewal is in a few weeks and I don't want to pay the extra they are demanding.
|
|
|
|
|
eznfrank
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:13 AM |
|
|
The short answer is "YOU" can't. The system insurers use is called MID (Motor Insurers database) and instantly shows up who an
individual is insured with. It's sometimes not accurate for company owned fleet vehicles, taxis etc which can cause confusion and delays.
it's also occasionally iffy if someone has recently cancelled a policy etc.
What can also mess things up is if you or the third party pass them the insurance details then they wouldn't automatically check it.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by eznfrank]
|
|
|
l0rd
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:15 AM |
|
|
You will not be able to sort it out on time. You will have to pay the premium on it.
You will still pay extra premium because you were involved in an accident.
The only thing i can suggest is to pay monthy insurance. At some point, when the accident will be resolved, you can claim you ncb back and your
premium will get lower.
At least, that is what happened to me.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by l0rd]
|
|
|
l0rd
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:16 AM |
|
|
I can supply more info on my accident to check what happened.
|
|
|
se7en
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 11:33 AM |
|
|
You can check if the TP vehicle has insurance using AskMID.
Firstly, you can lie to AskMID saying you are checking your own vehicle when you are really checking the TP vehicle - this will let you see if there
is or isn't insurance on the TP vehicle. If there is no insurance on the TP vehicle then your problems arise.
Secondly, if there is insurance on the TP vehicle then you can pay the £3.50 to find out who the owner is and the details of their insurance.
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 12:21 PM |
|
|
what if the vehicle is not on the mid but does have insurance
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 12:26 PM |
|
|
What if the vehicle had insurance renewal between the accident and now and is with a different underwriter?
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 12:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
what if the vehicle is not on the mid but does have insurance
That does happen as I know from experience!
|
|
|
se7en
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 01:06 PM |
|
|
quote:
What if the vehicle had insurance renewal between the accident and now and is with a different underwriter?
I imagine that's what you pay the £3.50 for. 
quote:
what if the vehicle is not on the mid but does have insurance
The vehicle will not be on the MID if it does not have insurance and vice-versa.
AFAIA this is the same database that the police and these other organisations (that sell you information about vehicles) use for their information on
whether you do or don't have insurance.
I do not have all the information about AskMID as I have never paid the £3.50 to have a vehicle checked but if it is an insurance database operated by
the Motor Insurers' Bureau, I would imagine that the database holds all the insurance information. I am open to correction about my replies and
of course you can always read the T&C of AskMID here
[Edited on 10/2/10 by se7en]
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 01:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
The vehicle will not be on the MID if it does not have insurance and vice-versa.
You're wrong here. I'll not go into it too much but I have had a vehicle towed away for having no insurance as it didn't show on the
insurance database when in fact it was insured but the company had chosed not to pay to be included on on the databe as other companies do too.
|
|
|
se7en
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 01:49 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mistergrumpy
quote:
The vehicle will not be on the MID if it does not have insurance and vice-versa.
You're wrong here. I'll not go into it too much but I have had a vehicle towed away for having no insurance as it didn't show on the
insurance database when in fact it was insured but the company had chosed not to pay to be included on on the databe as other companies do too.
I don't know about your personal case.
Quoting from the MIB site 'The MIB was established in 1946 to compensate the victims of negligent uninsured and untraced motorists. Every
Insurer underwriting compulsory motor insurance is obliged, by virtue of the Road Traffic Act 1988, to be a member of MIB and to contribute to its
funding.'
... and there site also states
The Motor Insurance Database lies at the heart of being able to detect uninsured drivers and is used by the police to seize about 500 vehicles a
day.
|
|
|
MikeR
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 02:57 PM |
|
|
I've been pulled driving a company car as it wasn't on MID.
We have a policy that covers all company vehicles. As we've got x thousand vehicles they're not all listed and its perfectly legal. We get
pulled, explain its a company vehicle, take a copy of the cert to the police station and sign a form.
Police are used to it on certain vehicles. If i was driving a 10 year old banger i suspect they'd had taken a very different approach to me and
2 other shirt and tied blokes in a 12 month old volvo s60 registered to a company.
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 04:16 PM |
|
|
As it says they're only 'obliged' to join. Some of the smaller, specialised companies don't bother.
I am that officer that will seize your car for having no insurance and like I say I've seized and the owner has subsequently produced a valid
insurance certificate from one of these companies.
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 05:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
I am that officer that will seize your car for having no insurance and like I say I've seized and the owner has subsequently produced a valid
insurance certificate from one of these companies
And this is where it all goes tits up.
So you seize a perfectly legit car and impound it causing untold stress and distress,missed meetings etc etc etc.
And when the certificate is produced who pays for the stress???
WE ALL DO because it turns the straight up law abiding citizen with insurance cinto a police scepticr
( don't mean to offend but I'm sure you get my drift)
who will no longer wish to help the police if they can in the future.
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 06:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
it turns the straight up law abiding citizen with insurance cinto a police scepticr
Perhaps. I think it makes people draw conclusions though without knowing the full story but I think you maybe being swayed by other things as well.
It's well documented on this site that you don't like the police and I can't change this. Like I say I don't want to go into
the full story but at the time the car was checked and came back as having no policy hence the reason for being drawn to it and as it turns out the
driver had no license or insurance of her own so in fact I was pefectly right to seize it. The owner did, though, in fact have insurance which he
produced to recover the car. This is why I know that his company didn't/doesn't subscribe to the database.
(I should also add that I'm not having a pop because it comes across quite strong when I've re read it)
[Edited on 10/2/10 by mistergrumpy]
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 06:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
It's well documented on this site that you don't like the police
Totally totally untrue. I have always been a law abiding citizen and have on many occassions indeed helped the police where possible.
I do not however condone the policy where the government has passed various powers onto the police such as ASBOS and the above mentioned MID scenario
where you can impound a car till a certificate is produced.
It is actually saying
" you are guilty prove me wrong"
I'm sure a producer within 7 days would be better ( as it used to be) at least then the innocent would be protected. The downside there is that
if no document were produced then the police would need to go hunting down the guilty parties ( which is what we all expect you to do).
The written word may not come across great but I take exception to being told that I do not like the police ( I wouild agree that I do not like the
system though). They have a difficult job to do which is bound up in red tape (unfortunately) . I take each person as I find them and I'm sure
youd agree there are a few total power freak jerks in every job ( the police included).
LOL just read your edited note and agreed. so are you saying that if all other details were correct then you have let the car go with a producer?? If
so then this is IMHO totally acceptable.
I am against the blanket impounding of cars which may be legit but not on a computer database.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by omega 24 v6]
[Edited on 10/2/10 by omega 24 v6]
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:21 PM |
|
|
Okay I seem to have offended you which is not the idea, more a topic of discussion. I'll fess up and say I did a quick search before I posted
that you dislike police and I may have read things wrongly but here are a couple of your excerps that I saw:
I'll get my tits out if it get's the police to get their fecking act together and investigate what most tax paying individuals classify as
REAL crime
It's time for the plod to clean up there act
I'm sure you'll agree that they come across as if note a dislike then very negative?
If that's the case then that's fine as we're all entitled to our view and yours just differs from mine and for the record I'm
certainly not 100% protective of the police service. I know first hand that wrong things do happen sometimes it's just like you say we have our
hands bound very tightly and I tend to have a different and unique insight into most stories that get spread across the media with their slant.
To get back to the issue. Well partly. There are very few insurers not registered on the database and when a car returns uninsured then it's
down to the officers discretion to issue a HORT1 or seize the vehicle. In this case I know was right to seize the car as it was under the control of a
prostitute at the time that I have known for a good number of years.
The fact remains that to not be able to produce your documents i.e. license, mot and insurance when requested, be it at the roadside or wherever is an
offence.
I am very acutely aware though what you say when it's guilty until proven innocent. Though it's not something I want to get into on a
public forum.
|
|
|
McLannahan
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:39 PM |
|
|
I do think it should be publised better that you need to carry your license and docs on you - I think there's so many people who don't
seem to do this and aren't aware they should?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:53 PM |
|
|
ive had an insurance company refuse to promptly put a vehicle onto the MID, i couldnt get it taxed online. On nagging, they implied they didnt have to
add it to the database.
Smart51, you have my sympathies, i got ripped off once by a fool who didnt know how to read a roundabout.
[Edited on 10/2/10 by JoelP]
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:54 PM |
|
|
Maybe but it's one of them now old rules thanks to innovations in technology, the internet and computers and that's why HORT1's were
brought in years ago. I don't know of anyone who's ever been summonsed for it though, it is a little unreasonable.
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 07:56 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mistergrumpy
...a prostitute at the time that I have known for a good number of years.
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by McLannahan
I do think it should be publised better that you need to carry your license and docs on you - I think there's so many people who don't
seem to do this and aren't aware they should?
Yes, it is an offence, but, this is a difficult one, as many people are not happy to carry all of their vehicles documents, and those documents
pertaining to permit that vehicle on the road, in case the documents, or the car gets stolen with documents inside.
The police recognise this, hence the issue of a HORT1. When a production of documents along with the HORT1, has been verified to satisfaction, the
offence is then negated.
The requirement for police to remove uninsured vehicles is a moot point.
There are quite a few instances and circumstances where MID is next to useless, but that is not the fault of the individual officers, they in turn
have to take orders and direction from their superiors....
Fozzie
Replies have been made since I started to write this, so apologies if the above is a repetition.
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 08:26 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by McLannahan
I do think it should be publised better that you need to carry your license and docs on you - I think there's so many people who don't
seem to do this and aren't aware they should?
Just something else to lose or get stolen though, and that causes an huge amount of grief.
|
|
|
omega 24 v6
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:22 PM |
|
|
Yes i can see where you are getting my negativity from Mr grumpy
Ok so I'll front up and say the system sucks not the plod or police or the bill ( all of which I find quite friendly terms TBH)
I could not do your job mate I'd be too frustrated with red tape and my hands tied etc. Plus as Fozzie says you've gotta do what you are
told by the powers that be ( rightly or wrongly in anyones opinion)
So group hug anyone 
Oh and I'm not offended mate we are all entitled to our opinions it's just as I said the written word has no expression in it so we all
take it at face value.
If it looks wrong it probably is wrong.
|
|
|
Fozzie
|
| posted on 10/2/10 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
Group Hug? what an excellent idea!
Fozzie
'Racing is Life!...anything before or after is just waiting'....Steve McQueen
|
|
|
