U instead of V on insurance certificate Options

[blackyblue]

I purchased a van around 5 weeks ago and so far I have had nothing but a nightmare with the vehicle.
First I insured it, and then when I went to tax it online I just got a message saying this vehicle cannot be taxed just now because the registration number entered is invalid, so I had to go to the post office to tax it.

Next, five weeks later I have still not received my log book when I was in a different city over 100 miles away when I got pulled over by the Police.
The reason for the pull was allegedly I was not the registered keeper of the vehicle despite claiming I was, and more shockingly that I was uninsured.

The officer asked me to get my phone out and show him my insurance certificate, however my phone was not working properly and I was frustratingly unable to.

Next the officer asked me which insurance company I was insured with, and when I told him he began arguing that this company does not exist and he began making procedures to have my vehicle seized, and I began to panic at this point, perhaps failing to stay calm and make the necessary calls and decisions that would quickly reverse the officers mind.

The officer asked me how long I had had the vehicle for and I told him around 4/5 weeks, and he then produced two charge sheets for driving with no insurance and not being the registered keeper of the vehicle.

For the insurance I was made an offer of 6 points on my license and £300 fine, and for the registered keeper issue I was made an offer of £50 fine.

I was also handed a third slip which was my seizure notice.

I was then left high and dry in a different city with only my bank card for rescue and I got a bus home to my own city.

It was not until on the bus that I was finally able to get my phone working properly and make some calls.
I phones the insurance company who made a quick investigation in to why I had shown up on the database as uninsured and it was not long before it came to light that the insurance company marked the V from my registration number down as a U.

This error was corrected instantly, and my updated certificate sent to my email address, and I immediately got on the phone to the Police, that promised me they would get the officer that charged me to phone me back, but the call never came.

I was also advised over the phone that under the circumstances I could take my particulars to any police station in my city and have the charges against me dropped and my vehicle released, however this turned out to be untrue because when I got back to my own city I went straight to the nearest 24 hour police station with my particulars, and whilst they sympathised with me and acknowledged that it was an administration error and that I was indeed insured, they said only the police from the city dealing with the matter can deal with the case, which meant I had to waste a farther £30 on a train ticket the next day, back to the city where my vehicle was seized.

I also phoned the DVLA regards to why I was not down as the registered keeper, and they told me quite simply that my application was still being processed, and that I should take a copy of my invoice to the police from the company which sold me the van to prove that in all probability I am the registered keeper of the vehicle and that my application is still being processed.

The next day I wasted yet more money on a train ticket back to the city my vehicle had been seized and made my way to the main police station.

The officers on the desk were not quite as understanding and sympathetic as the officers in my own cety and on the phone had been, and they were quick to tell me that it is my responsibility to make sure that the details are correct.

I pleaded that when I got insured I had only just bought the van and the registration number was not yet sketched in my memory, let alone sketched enough to spot a U instead of a V.

The officer did however agree that I was now insured and that in all probability I am indeed the registered keeper and was quick to release my vehicle, thankfully, however she handed me back my charge sheets and told me that I would still have to pay the fixed penalties, to which I pushed them back and asked, why?. She replied that it is because she does not know if charges can be dropped or not, to which I used an example of a person that is charged with bank robbery that later gets found to be innocent and what an outcry it would be if the police continued to prosecute the person simply because once a person has been accused, that is it.
I also told the officer that at the very least the charge of me not being the registered keeper should definitely be dropped, as afterall you are now in agreement that I "am" the rightful keeper and therefore the charge no longer applies.
I continued to argue that I should never have been charged with this at-all, as the officer should have known that the Dvla can take up to ten weeks to process applications.

The officer then decided to call a traffic officer for advice, as frustratingly the officer dealing with the case was on rest day, and the advice got back was to pass everything over to the officer dealing with the case. So she took my phone number, and emailed the officer over my insurance documents highlighting the error, and promised me I would receive correspondence from the officer telling me of his intentions, but so far I have heard nothing.

Next I went to collect my vehicle which came to £150.

So what will happen? Will the officer drop the charges, or go ahead with them?

[Advertisement]

[roythebus]

Whether or not the charges will be dropped is up to the police to decide. In reality they ought to be.

But it's a bit of a warning to everyone to check your insurance details thoroughly, not just assume they are correct. Since I had a minor problem with mine over persons to drive my car for business use earlier this year I usually check everything thoroughly. Luuckily my case was my employer double-checking that I had business cover.

As for the DVSA as Ithink they are now called, everything there is now an 8 to 10 week wait. No doubt someone else will be along soon to advise further.

[cp8759]

There is a simple procedure to deal with this sort of scenario, call your insurance company explain the situation and ask for a letter of indemnity. They will send you a letter confirming you were insured all along.

If you have a fixed penalty for no insurance it should be a conditional offer, so you can simply ignore it or request a court hearing. If you send the letter of indemnity to the officer the charges will almost certainly be dropped, and if not you just waltz into court, plead not guilty and show them the letter of indemnity and the charged will be dropped or dismissed. However I doubt it would go that far.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 - 22:27

[NeverMind]

As for the DVSA as I think they are now called.

DVLA and DVSA are two different things.

[TMC Towcester]

With a change of 'approach' to those involved (all of whom appear to have acted reasonably based on what was known at the time) and using WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE this will go away!

Follow the advice above re your insurance, return the court forms pleading NG and explaining (in writing) why - then, as said, they'll either drop the case or you'll have a couple of minutes in court (the case can be moved to your nearest one) and then they'll drop it!

Thr V5C issue is of your and Covid's making - a simple change of ownership online would have solved that. I think you'll be stuck with the recovery cost as the police acted reasonably.

(p.s. get a new cell phone service provider!!)

(p.p.s carry a copy of your insurance certificate all the time)

[cp8759]

The recovery charges you won't get back because the police were not presented with a valid certificate of insurance at the roadside. In such circumstances the seizure is lawful regardless of whether the vehicle was insured or not.

[blackyblue]

The recovery charges you won't get back because the police were not presented with a valid certificate of insurance at the roadside. In such circumstances the seizure is lawful regardless of whether the vehicle was insured or not.

The officers have already told me that I need to take the issue up with my insurance provider as it was their administration error and therefore it is my insurance company should pay for it. However I have footed the bill myself already.

[baggins1234]

The recovery charges you won't get back because the police were not presented with a valid certificate of insurance at the roadside. In such circumstances the seizure is lawful regardless of whether the vehicle was insured or not.

The officers have already told me that I need to take the issue up with my insurance provider as it was their administration error and therefore it is my insurance company should pay for it. However I have footed the bill myself already.

You will always have to pay yourself first to get your car back.

It then depends how much you want to claim the recovery fee back or not.

Just out of interest, did you buy the policy online or over the phone? If it was online then be prepared for the insurance company to suggest it was your typo, and also as someone else said, that you didn’t check the details when your policy was sent to you.

[Rakesh_Qor]

The recovery charges you won't get back because the police were not presented with a valid certificate of insurance at the roadside. In such circumstances the seizure is lawful regardless of whether the vehicle was insured or not.

The officers have already told me that I need to take the issue up with my insurance provider as it was their administration error and therefore it is my insurance company should pay for it. However I have footed the bill myself already.

You will always have to pay yourself first to get your car back.

It then depends how much you want to claim the recovery fee back or not.

Just out of interest, did you buy the policy online or over the phone? If it was online then be prepared for the insurance company to suggest it was your typo, and also as someone else said, that you didn’t check the details when your policy was sent to you.

I used to work for an online insurance broker; they have software that audits every single thing you do when obtaining a quote......the software my company used was called RedEye but there are others out there.

Anything you type / select (and then correct) is logged.

Tell them you have 5 years NCB but then change it to 7 years......logged. They will know what VRM you entered.

This post has been edited by Rakesh_Qor: Sat, 25 Sep 2021 - 17:35

[blackyblue]

The recovery charges you won't get back because the police were not presented with a valid certificate of insurance at the roadside. In such circumstances the seizure is lawful regardless of whether the vehicle was insured or not.

The officers have already told me that I need to take the issue up with my insurance provider as it was their administration error and therefore it is my insurance company should pay for it. However I have footed the bill myself already.

You will always have to pay yourself first to get your car back.

It then depends how much you want to claim the recovery fee back or not.

Just out of interest, did you buy the policy online or over the phone? If it was online then be prepared for the insurance company to suggest it was your typo, and also as someone else said, that you didn’t check the details when your policy was sent to you.

It was all done over the phone

[cp8759]

Just out of interest, did you buy the policy online or over the phone? If it was online then be prepared for the insurance company to suggest it was your typo, and also as someone else said, that you didn’t check the details when your policy was sent to you.

Even if it was a typo from the policy holder, I would still expect the insurance company to indemnify the policy holder if the policy was otherwise in order. After all, if after the policy expired the error came to light and no claim had been made, the insurance company would hardly be likely to offer a full refund on the basis that the policy was never in force.

If push came to shove the financial ombudsman could get involved and simply compel the insurance company to be reasonable and issue a letter of indemnity, but I very much doubt it would go that far.

[The Rookie]

The point was being made with respect to reclaiming recovery charges from the insurer if it was their mistake.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they weren’t covered.

[cp8759]

The point was being made with respect to reclaiming recovery charges from the insurer if it was their mistake.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they weren’t covered.

If it was the insurer's mistake, I'd expect them to reimburse this with no fuss.

[Slapdash]

It does sound to me it could be the insurers mistake.

1) Is the erroneous reg actually a valid one. ?
2) Is it the same make and model ?

If either of these is no then it does seem to point to a quite likely error by the insurer.

[TMC Towcester]

It does sound to me it could be the insurers mistake.

1) Is the erroneous reg actually a valid one. ?
2) Is it the same make and model ?

If either of these is no then it does seem to point to a quite likely error by the insurer.

Whilst possible, as the OP has stated the reg number wasn't 'etched' in his mind, I'd suggest on the balance of probability it wasn't an error of the insco?

[Slapdash]

It does sound to me it could be the insurers mistake.

1) Is the erroneous reg actually a valid one. ?
2) Is it the same make and model ?

If either of these is no then it does seem to point to a quite likely error by the insurer.

Whilst possible, as the OP has stated the reg number wasn't 'etched' in his mind, I'd suggest on the balance of probability it wasn't an error of the insco?

Whilst it is possible for consecutive registrations to identify exactly the same vehicle it would be reasonably unusual.

If insuring by phone they should have the call log. I would have thought that if the erroneous reg was a different vehicle they might have noticed (and perhaps been more reluctant to rectify and indemnify).

If done on line it may well be the exact quote details can be found in the "my quotes" type section on the comparison site and/or the insurers website.

This post has been edited by Slapdash: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 - 07:59

[Rallyman72]

It does sound to me it could be the insurers mistake.

1) Is the erroneous reg actually a valid one. ?
2) Is it the same make and model ?

If either of these is no then it does seem to point to a quite likely error by the insurer.

Whilst possible, as the OP has stated the reg number wasn't 'etched' in his mind, I'd suggest on the balance of probability it wasn't an error of the insco?

Whilst it is possible for consecutive registrations to identify exactly the same vehicle it would be reasonably unusual.

If insuring by phone they should have the call log. I would have thought that if the erroneous reg was a different vehicle they might have noticed (and perhaps been more reluctant to rectify and indemnify).

If done on line it may well be the exact quote details can be found in the "my quotes" type section on the comparison site and/or the insurers website.

I've discovered that one letter difference in the registration of a vehicle I bought recently identified an almost identical one apart from engine capacity, it was even the same colour and model.

[Slapdash]

But in those circumstances (due to the way vrms are allocated it is quite likely to be the same manufacturer) would the insurer be so happy to agree indemnity ?

Vehicle insured 1.1l boggo fiesta, actual vehicle 2.0l poshed up fiesta. Guess it all depends on the difference and only the OP can check.

[andy_foster]

As the insurance company have issued an insurance certificate for the correct VRM and emailed it to the OP, I am struggling to see the relevance of your conjecture.

[Slapdash]

Sorry, it was in relation to the potential reclamation of the costs incurred by the OP. S/he had expressed an interest in trying to do this.

If it does turn out to be an error on the insurers part then I would imagine this would considerably improve those prospects.