Do police have to stop you to charge you with driving without insurance? Options

[warningspeedcame...]

I recently reinstated my car insurance policy after I had cancelled it due to not needing to my drive my car.

I was told by my insurance provider that my insurance cover would start immediately, which I have in writing (from the live chat transcript). I was given the latest certificate as soon as I reinstated it which clearly shows the start time of my cover.

I drove it straight away on public roads, however I went past many ANPR cameras (static ones). I was not stopped by police as no police were nearby. I was insured, however the MID database wouldn’t have updated until the next day (which I checked using askmid).

I’m worried I might get a FPN through the post due to the ANPR cameras thinking my car wasn’t insured, even though it was. Is it possible for me to get penalty points for this, even though I wasn’t pulled over?

[Advertisement]

[warningspeedcame...]

There are two separate insurance offences.
1/ driving without insurance committed by the driver
2/ failing to maintain a continuous insurance (or declare SORN) committed by the registered Keeper
For what should be blindingly obvious reasons they are handled very differently so you can’t just say ‘insurance offence’ and expect an easy answer, it’s complicated enough for just one.

Driving without needs an S172 to identify the driver (the guilty party), continuous doesn’t as they already know who the registered keeper is.

Isn't the first offence "Using" the vehicle without insurance? If so, what would constitute as "using"? Is an s172 still needed then?

"Using" is essentially having the vehicle on a road (or public place), whether parked or being driven.

I don’t see how they could suspect that if the police do not physically witness the car being driven whilst not being on MID.

Whether you can see how or not isn’t really relevant is it?

I would say it is, since if there is no way of an insurance offence being suspected, then there is little value in discussing it as a possibility.

I would suggest that if a vehicle shows up on MID as uninsured, there is a reasonable chance that the driver will also be uninsured, and hence a strong possibility that the police will pursue the matter.

If we are to believe the fly-on-the-wall police documentaries, almost every vehicle they stop for no insurance leads to other offences, not just motoring but drugs, weapons, illegal immigrants, etc.

I’m curious, if they were to pursue the charge of using an uninsured vehicle if it was parked on the road, who would be prosecuted? The RK? I presume an NIP would have to be issued then.

[southpaw82]

I would say it is, since if there is no way of an insurance offence being suspected, then there is little value in discussing it as a possibility.

Vehicle is involved in incident and is reported to the police. A check on MID shows no insurance. That’s one instance. I was actually a police officer and used to do this sort of stuff. You just don’t know what you’re talking about.

I’m curious, if they were to pursue the charge of using an uninsured vehicle if it was parked on the road, who would be prosecuted? The RK? I presume an NIP would have to be issued then.

No NIP is required for the insurance offence.

[warningspeedcame...]

No NIP is required for the insurance offence.

That doesn’t answer my question. I’m asking if the RK would be charged or if an NIP would be sent (I’m quite aware that one isn’t required, you’ve made that clear). Despite the fact that nobody would have been driving at the time in this hypothetical situation.

[oldstoat]

in reply to your statement That doesn’t answer my question.

if the vehicle went past an ANPR camera, and it was flagged as uninsured, then the RK, would be the the person, who recieved any letters. that is because the only info the police could use is, the info held by DVLA

[warningspeedcame...]

in reply to your statement That doesn’t answer my question.

if the vehicle went past an ANPR camera, and it was flagged as uninsured, then the RK, would be the the person, who recieved any letters. that is because the only info the police could use is, the info held by DVLA

Yeah thought so. But what if the police stumbled on a parked car in a public place with no insurance showing on MID? Would the RK be at fault automatically (for an IN10 offence), or would an NIP potentially be sent to the RK?

[The Rookie]

But what if the police stumbled on a parked car in a public place with no insurance showing on MID? Would the RK be at fault automatically (for an IN10 offence), or would an NIP potentially be sent to the RK?

You’ve had it explained enough times now to surely realise the RK cannot be liable for an ‘IN10’ as you put it, that’s the user/driver. If the RK was a lease or hire company could they be the user/driver, clearly not. No NIP is required, you’ve been to,d that as well, but an S172 request could be sent in order to establish who the user/driver was.

[warningspeedcame...]

But what if the police stumbled on a parked car in a public place with no insurance showing on MID? Would the RK be at fault automatically (for an IN10 offence), or would an NIP potentially be sent to the RK?

You’ve had it explained enough times now to surely realise the RK cannot be liable for an ‘IN10’ as you put it, that’s the user/driver. If the RK was a lease or hire company could they be the user/driver, clearly not. No NIP is required, you’ve been to,d that as well, but an S172 request could be sent in order to establish who the user/driver was.

But who else could be liable for using the vehicle without insurance offence (“ IN10 “) if it wouldn’t be the RK? Someone has to be. What if a driver with their own comprehensive policy (that lets them drive other vehicles) drove the car to a car park, left it there without the car having a policy of it’s own, and then walked off? Is that driver still the “user/driver” even after they have walked off? Even after the car has been sitting in the car park uninsured for a month? What are the police going to do then?

Is your definition of the user/driver the last person that used it?

P.S. Yes I was confusing an NIP with S172, I thought they were the same.

This post has been edited by warningspeedcameralimit30: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 - 19:29

[localdriver]

But who else could be liable for using the vehicle without insurance offence (“ IN10 “) if it wouldn’t be the RK? Someone has to be. What if the RK drove the car to a car park, left it there without the car having a policy of it’s own, and then walked off? Is the RK still the “user/driver” even after they have walked off? Even after the car has been sitting in the car park uninsured for a month? What are the police going to do then? Is your definition of the user/driver the last person that used it? P.S. Yes I was confusing an NIP with S172, I thought they were the same.

The offence is committed by 'a person' - s.143 Road Traffic Act 1988. The first enquiry by the police to trace the person will be to the registered keeper, who may or may not be that person.

This post has been edited by localdriver: Sat, 15 Aug 2020 - 19:32

[warningspeedcame...]

But who else could be liable for using the vehicle without insurance offence (“ IN10 “) if it wouldn’t be the RK? Someone has to be. What if the RK drove the car to a car park, left it there without the car having a policy of it’s own, and then walked off? Is the RK still the “user/driver” even after they have walked off? Even after the car has been sitting in the car park uninsured for a month? What are the police going to do then? Is your definition of the user/driver the last person that used it? P.S. Yes I was confusing an NIP with S172, I thought they were the same.

The offence is committed by 'a person' - s.143 Road Traffic Act 1988. The first enquiry by the police to trace the person will be to the registered keeper, who may or may not be that person.

But would the “person” be the last person to use it? I.e the person that left it uninsured in a public place? Even though they were insured to drive it themselves?

[localdriver]

But would the “person” be the last person to use it? I.e the person that left it uninsured in a public place? Even though they were insured to drive it themselves?

Possibly, it would depend on the circumstances at the time if they were considered to be the 'person' responsible.

[666]

But who else could be liable for using the vehicle without insurance offence (“ IN10 “) if it wouldn’t be the RK? Someone has to be. What if the RK drove the car to a car park, left it there without the car having a policy of it’s own, and then walked off? Is the RK still the “user/driver” even after they have walked off? Even after the car has been sitting in the car park uninsured for a month? What are the police going to do then? Is your definition of the user/driver the last person that used it? P.S. Yes I was confusing an NIP with S172, I thought they were the same.

The offence is committed by 'a person' - s.143 Road Traffic Act 1988. The first enquiry by the police to trace the person will be to the registered keeper, who may or may not be that person.

But would the “person” be the last person to use it? I.e the person that left it uninsured in a public place? Even though they were insured to drive it themselves?

If the "person" who parked the vehicle was indeed insured, then he has a good defence.