Underwriter at Large:

Hello again Denpat, this will be my last post in this thread.

So ~ the answer to "can you name is the insurer?".....is 'no'. Fair enough.

As far as MOT's and licences being asked for only in the event of claim etc the great british public can point the finger at themselves for that becoming perceived as a problem. The demand for how cheaply people can insure their cars means that the industry (and don't misunderstand me, I don't approve either, if I had my way NO-ONE would get cover until they produced all their documents, and I bet you would be at the head of the queue to complain about that) has to cut corners to get people on risk and then rely on their contract wording to deal with claims.

You have an opportunity to examine the policy wording before accepting the insurance and a cooling off period to withdraw without penalty if you are not happy with it once you have gone ahead. Insurers have a duty to protect other insureds against invalid claims and that is why they will scrutinise all claims carefully. If you think the contract is unfair, go insure elsewhere (and don't say they are all the same because I assure you the're not)

In closing, methinks thou doth protest too much. It staggers me that anyone so clearly familiar with complaining about the motor insurance industry as you, started this thread off with "Is driving without Insurance Illegal?" I now believe you knew the answer to that from day one. As for "correct me if I'm wrong" well all on here who have attempted to offer you some (independent I might add) guidance seem to have had their heads chewed off, so I now give up, will shake your hand and ride off into the sunset whilst thanking you for reminding me why I chose to retire from the industry.

Thanks for replies

Sorry to hear you go into the sunset and retire. But tomorrow there will be sunshine. Rise and shine as its known or are you a moonlight worker? I had no intention to chew off your hear or anyone's (thats canibalism and I'am a veggie). Storming and views of all have been constructive and has raised lots of points and how they feel. Sites like this is what its all about and thats why you have joined. These days as you know, to protest you need a licence and IT BETTER BE GOOD or its denied and protesting without one lands one with a conviction and the insurance industry asks, whether one has any convections. Convictions = higher premiums. I do not complain if I was in the wrong. I would go and buy a hard nut and bite it. If one says something stick to it, not go round the roundabout looking for which exit to take.

There is no mention of me not naming the insurer(s). The answers are available in front of the screen. No need to search to far away these days with technology and web (just comparision sites). I also mentioned two insurers which are also part of this search sites. The list is too long for my fingers to type. Why type a long list when comparising sites do the work? I said I will not name the insurance engineer - I have to ask them their name first.

The reason for this post is to get the truth. Its difficult to get the truth as it hurts. All the people in the industry, including the MIB say its illegal and use the Data Protection Act to close the door. Yet the industry will use the clauses in the Act when it comes to 'make searches for the prevention of fraud and 'when making payments'. You know about the industry and as you had mentioned the changes are coming, yes coming, BUT IS AT THE MOMENT or before 2009, is it not illegal not to have insurance or NOT?? Its not too a difficult question after all I am being honest about my views. Take MOT, even before SORN was introduced or driving without a licence, its illegal. simples tutt!! as comparethemeerkat.com says.

There is most certainly a cooling off period. You will also see that once the insurance is in force and one decides to cancel within the cooling off period, one will not get the full amount back, will they? They are told 'you' were insured for a period (even few days) and its also costing them admin charges as well - to return your money!! Its not like when you have bought goods and can return them and get a FULL refund (even when one has had the goods for a period, 1, 2 days or within the cooling off period and can still get FULL refund). I understand you work for industry and will defend their actions.

Nixxy, I do understand that if nothing was done when an offence was brought to light of the police, I should write to the Chief Superintendent and copy sent to the Police Complaints Authority. I had started, as usual with crime stoppers and local station front office and the police had even mobile stations and I spoke to the Sergeant dealing with my area and there was also a community gathering and I spoke to the Inspector. I had even got a call from the Neighborhood Team, that someone will be coming to see me. Nothing. The Inspector told me, coming from him things will be done quickly. It just wasn't driving without licence or insurance. There was a lot more. But nothing. So this is the reason writing letters turns to be a waste of time and crime is not recorded.

The person who hit your friend was honest and the police turned up.'Just for info, police will not normally attend the scene of a basic collision'. I figured this having seen several situations and the people making 999 calls. They leave it to the insurance company to deal with the matter. (I was told by the Sergeant).

In my situation, nothing got done, as the driver - in both situations were dishonest and the family were dishonest. The driver had used the family address and was living elsewhere. The worst thing was this drive was 'living' at the family address 2-3 days in a week and no one was interested. This is the reason why people who have been let down by the police do not like what they see and no faith in the system. (one of the sergeant also told me he had been let down the system). I have not been let down once, several time, was even attacked by this driver for no reason or provocation and was let off on a warning. They paid off the witnesses, called the ambulance and made up allegations. Lucky for me, the third eye was working. It seems honesty does not pay. He drove off high on booze or ganja - I could smell it him - surely they must have noticed this when asking him questions. The following day I noticed my windscreen was smashed. They wanted proof - I cannot watch my car for the night and was parked elsewhere as no parking was available outside the house, but proof previously was not looked at. I was told they would act if anything else happened. Nothing.

The 2nd incident, the insurance company and their solicitors wanted another witness and the description of the driver, a year later, 2-3 weeks later probably. A YEAR LATER!!!!!

Underwriter at Large stated "Contact your insurers IMMEDIATELY so that they can begin investigations before anyone has the opportunity to "invent" evidence, particularly concerning whiplash claims which are very difficult to disprove without advanced anti fraud techniques which your insurers can only do something about if they know what has happened, as soon as possible after the accident occurs." I understand not all insurers are the same, but take my situation and it spoils the name for the lot of them and the whole system, even when you really really really want to help the system.

Hi Denpat

The difficulty is that if its not a personal injury, then the MIB is no good to you. I dealt with people who had huge damage to their vehicles, but because they were not injured, then the MIB would not get involved. By and large Insurance companies are there to make money, and a lot of it. I know fraud does exist, and we pay for the fraudsters in our premiums.

I totally agree with you, thats why many people don't feel bad when they make fraudulent claims, because they feel they've paid enough in premiums over the years and got nothing back. You make a genuine claim, and your premium goes up the next year, I think thats scandalous. Thats why you pay the premium, in case something happens, and when it does, your penalised.

If you have brought an offence to the light of the police, and they do nothing about it, then I would suggest you write a letter detailing the circumstances, and send it to the Chief Superintendent, and a copy to the Police Complaints Authority. I know of some nasty families (mainly young lads), who drive had no insurance or licenses, and used their parents address. They got summoned all the time, and quite often the summonses were returned not served. Officers would go round to verify the details, and all in all it seemed a complete waste of time. I just prayed I was never involved in an accident with people like that It really is so frustrating, and hoinest people like yourself are left with what seems like no form of recourse.

Just for info, police will not normally attend the scene of a basic collision, unless it transpires that an offence has been committed. A colleague recently had an accident, and the person admitted they had no insurance so she called the police, and they came.

Nixxy

dacouch:

If you put the value down as £5000 and its actual value was £8000 the Ombudsman guidance is that they have to pay the higher amount (There are a few times they would not have to).

Hello, Thanks for replies.

The Ombudsman gives guidance but has no weight on their guidance. They exist because they get paid by the companies themselves (like most ombudsman) - so do not force or take legal action against the company.

"There are a few times they would not have to" this is what the insurance company would say - the person did not disclose the full details hence would not be entitled to full or no compensation at all.

All the wording of the contract, any contract, are to the advantage of the company issuing the contract. eg if one decides to leave the company or make amendments, you get charged an administration fee. One has paid huge sums, and get charged administration fees - ridiculous - to their advantage. No wonder there is fraud claims.

Insurance industry is the only industry one pays up front 'for a likelyhood for something to happen', if it doesn't, you lose you money. One does not fill up petrol and tell that company that if I don't use it, I will not pay for it and if I do then I will pay - this is regarded as a crime.

Nixxy is right. They have access to one's history of insurance and driving - National database (they do mention that they will search the national database and this affect the way permium is offered), yet they do not make use of it when quoting the premiums, - they rely on the insured to disclose the lot. One does not carry one's database of the past in the head or on their computers, after all, their 'paper work' is paper. This comes down to one thing - get the most out of the insured and when it comes to claiming, we'll (insurance companies) dig deeper (this time the national database is used (Data Protection down the loo) and catch one out with one, 'yes one', item that was missed out, if not more.

When asking around for insurance, the value of the vehicle plays a part on the amount of premium. Dacouch to verify this call around for quotes - or even make two calls to one company with two values of your vehicle - there is a difference.

"Insurers do not ask for your MOT and Driving Licence when you take out cover is it would create a lot of work for them". So why ask for this when making a claim. They themselves create lots of paperwork, so two pieces of paper would is not huge. Todays technology allows, one to lookup electronically, whether one has MOT or licence and they do not need to keep a copy - no paperwork. One might say that it would infringe ones liberty (Data Protection) and open to fraud but this would stop lots of fraud and motorists would get a fair deal. The insurance industry does NOT want to go this way, as they will, AGAIN make less profits.

Nixxy you mentioned about the standard stops. From the MIB site it mentions that police would stop one if there was no insurance (ANPR), but that is not the main reason they would stop someone. They would check the vehicle for its worthiness as an excuse and as part of lowering crime. Then one does not have any choice if it gets confiscated, and to retrieve it back one has to produce the insurance details as well and MOT and log book - all in the name of crime busting (used for wrong purposes).

Other insurance companies contribute to the MIB fund - most my guess is 99.9% of the insurance companies also provide vehicle insurance one way or other. If one's premium goes to something (MIB) in this case, then I should be informed, when there are no other alternative. If my premium was NOT going to the MIB, I do not want to know and I would not be digging to fund. My premium, my guess, also goes to fund the national database and the ABI, FSA, MID, MICC and other organisations that supports/ relating to the insurance industry. The industry is quite happy to mention this in their booklets, especially in fighting fraud. BUT NOT THE MIB - ridiculous.

initial reaction is to be suspicion. True. I think that if the insurance companies practice what the preach, and charge everyone fairly, there would be lot less fraud and more insured vehicles. But common sense is not an option for capitalising industry - profits are. People also claim fraudulently because they see that the industry make huge profits, charge huge premiums at their expense. I do understand there are huge payouts and they need to make profits. But massive amounts of profits?????

Nixxy it was good for you not to let the person get away with it. In my situation, I did everything - went to the police with the evidence and was told to ring a number on the police report, who were not interested - told me to get help from victim support (by the way this is a civilian agency working on behalf of the police - who have no authority of arrest or bring to justice the offender) and the police, the insurance company, their solicitors, nor the MIB or DVLA, nor the insurance part of the industry dealing with fraud - were not interested. All closed the door on the name of the Data Protection Act. Most of this family drive without licence or insurance, in the name of one insured and licenced person (was married to police woman)- still no one is interested. Something would only be done if there is a fatality - TOO LATE for the victim.

If you put the value down as £5000 and its actual value was £8000 the Ombudsman guidance is that they have to pay the higher amount (There are a few times they would not have to).

Dacouch,

I realise it would take a lot of work for them, but I as I originally said, there are always a lot more questions when claiming than there are when you take put the policy. Its always the way, even with burglaries, lots of questions come time to claim. The same applies to medical insurance nd the like. Although, they are improving with payouts, and the time it takes.

I understand that the value of a vehicle depreciates, but I always gets asked the current value when I renew/ insure any vehicle I've had. I bet if you said your car was valued at £5K, and it was really worth £8K, if it got stolen/written off, you'd not get a penny more than £5K out of them, even if they knew it was worth more.

There are a lot of fraudulent claimants out there, so of course the Insurance companies have to be weary. I dealt with insurance companies quite a lot in my line of work, and quite often their initial reaction is to be suspicion.

Thanks for the reply.

Nixxy,

Insurers do not ask for your MOT and Driving Licence when you take out cover is it would create a lot of work for them, they also do not ask for the value of the car as the premium is normally not based on the value of the car and even if they asked you the value the value would reduce the next day etc.

Insurers tend to ask to see your driving licence if you have a theft or fire claim as a lot of these types of claims are fraudulent which is why they ask for it.

With regard to the MOT, they ask for this as if the vehicle does not have an MOT then it is worth less than a vehilce that does have an MOT. In addition if the MOT had very little time left it is often an indicator of a fraudulent claim (People realise the vehicle needs a lot of work for the mot so the car gets stolen or catches fire).

Not having a valid MOT normally does not invalidate the Insurance Policy.

If there are convictions on your licence that you have not disclosed this does not mean the Insurers will not pay out the claim. They will ask for an explanation as to why they were not disclosed and providing you have not deliberately miss lead them and they would have offered cover if they had known about the convictions they will just ask you to pay any difference in premium.

Denpat,

I didn't read your post in full, and I think its fair to say that Insurance Companies do everything they can to wriggle out of making a payment. Its quite wasy to take out insurance, and make the payments, but when it comes to making a claim, they ask for much more.

When my car got stolen a few years ago, they asked for my driving licence and MOT cert when I wanted to make a claim. Now, I understand that not having these documents invalidate a policy, however, if they are really vital, then one would ask why the insurance companies don't ask for them before you take out insurance with them, like they ask for proof of no claims bonus.

If I didn't have MOT, or if I'd got some points on my licence they didn't know about, I would have not got a payout. They are happy to insure vehicles at the value you tell them, and when it comes to claiming, they say your vehicle is only worth £xxx according to their insurance handbook. It begs the question why they don't look at their book when you insure it in the first place, and let you know what they think its worth, so you pay the right amount in your insurance fee.

Needless to say the amount they give, can never buy a similar car to the one you had stolen. That is the only time I've had to make a claim against my own insurance company. I have to say when someone hit my car, and subsequently refused to give me their insurance details, the legal cover came in very handy. I did have to chase them up a lot, and be persistent, but it paid off in the end. There was no way I was going to let the guy get away with it.

Nixxy

Hi Denpat,

I dealt with prosecutions when there were accidents,other offences committed (i.e driving without due care and attention) and also just standard stops. In fact the vast majority were just on routine stops by policed officers issuing a HORT/1 (home office roiad traffic form 1). More commonly known as a 'producer'.

I was suprised that so many people drove without insurance, MOT and a driving licence, when I first started working in that area.

The MIB is in place for individuals who are involved in an accident (injury only), with an uninsured driver. So if you it was damage only, the MIB would not cover you. If it is discovered that you have an accident, and suffer personal injury (PI), and the other driver is not insured, the police should give you the MIB details.

When the term 'driving' is used, it would apply even if you were just sitting in the car. If however, the car was just parked on your driveway or left in your charge (to look after), then I don't think you personally would need to be insured , but the vehicle itself would require insurance.

Other Insurance companies all contribute into the MIB fund, so in all honesty they won't really want to be telling you about it. As its their cash going into it.

Hope this helps

Underwriter at Large:

Hello again Denpat, quite a nasty history there. I'm sorry to hear of it and thanks for the clarification. I do see why you feel so strongly about a situation which, like life, happens, and can appear to be so unfair. However, I am in the dark about motor insurers that charge higher premiums for foreign drivers? Length of UK residency and UK driving licence are relevant yes, in the same way that age, claims and conviction history are. If you have evidence of an insurer charging additional premiums simply and only because the insured is a foreign national, can you name the insurer?

Form a general perpesctive you will have noticed a considerable increase in your insurance over the years and may even have had difficulty in arranging cover. This will have been caused largely because of the considerable losses suffered by motor Insurers and the impact of uninsured vehicle users.

There are several factors causing premium rises and these include changes in the level reclaimable by NHS hospitals for treatment to road accident casualties and the Government have also introduced new procedures over the years for dealing with Third Party claims increasing Insurers costs. The European Union is pushing through a paper that will abolish the principle of blame where a motor vehicle is in collision with a cyclist or a pedestrian. If this succeeds motor premiums could rise by another £50 to £75 per year.

Losses have been caused because repair costs have increased at a rate far in excess of inflation, increased Court awards to injured parties which in some cases are more than double the amounts which were awarded only two or three years ago. Fraudulent Third Party claims and fraudulent theft claims are also a problem, as is use of fake documentation by dishonest policyholders. Fraudulent claims by Policyholders, however, are probably the most despicable because in effect this is a policyholder defrauding other policyholders, not the Insurers, because you and I end up paying for them.

Many proposal forms and vehicles are checked against national computer registers compiled by all UK Motor Insurers to combat the problems of deliberate non-disclosure of past insurance claims. Everyone can help insurers in keeping premiums down in the long term. For example, when involved in an accident take full details of anyone involved, including your passengers, inspect damage to other vehicles and whenever possible note the details of any injuries being alleged. Contact your insurers IMMEDIATELY so that they can begin investigations before anyone has the opportunity to "invent" evidence, particularly concerning whiplash claims which are very difficult to disprove without advanced anti fraud techniques which your insurers can only do something about if they know what has happened, as soon as possible after the accident occurs. Regrettably many policyholders heap problems on themselves by doing their own thing after an accident or worrying about their NCD and so not reporting a potential claim to the insurers. Failure to report a claim can greatly increase the cost of a claim thereby causing premiums to rise. Unfortunately so many get a rough deal because of the few that spoil it for the many.

It was always my desire when I ran an underwriting office to give the decent, hard working honest policyholder a good service at an economic rates and by perhaps beginning to see the insurer's point of view everyone else can all play a big part in helping other insurers to achieve just that.

Hello,

I am quite shocked that you do not know that insurers charge foreigners more than native insured, people even though you ran a underwriting office. If you want to know which insurance company charges foreigners more, use the search comparision sites and to double check, call up the insurers, one quote as a foreigner and other as a native - huge difference. I don't believe length of residency has any bearing - what if a native went overseas for a few months or a few years, they are still uk resident, and regarded as such. - uk resident from birth. You might say a foreigner is more likely 'not to remember, the uk road system', as Admiral said - lot of bull. Its the same as the native. Length of uk licence yes. The FACT is that it is more easy to make more money through foreigners - discrimination is the word.

"Many proposal forms and vehicles are checked against national computer registers compiled by all UK Motor Insurer" - this not completely true is it? I know the details whether its linked or not. And oh, just to be more clearer about the facts here, I have also double checked with an insurance engineer (no names to be given) who also clarifies all that I have mentioned and a lot more.

"Contact your insurers IMMEDIATELY so that they can begin investigations before anyone has the opportunity to "invent" evidence," My insurance Highway Insurance got their solicitors Lyons Davidson to deal with my hit and run and I received their first letters months after it was reported and top of that they did not want to know my side of the story - I was treated as a culprit. My calls were never returned. The driver's mother and her brother admitted they would pay for damage - cctv with recording (mother not in country at the time of accident and month after the accident) but the solicitors said it was 'heresay evidence' - they got scared - a month after the accident. The accident was on cctv but unfortunately the sun was blinding the plate no, but asking the other neighbours on who owned the vehicle was not an option, they are not classified as independent witnesses or someone who can point out the driver and to his vehicle. This is what the solicitors said. They wanted another witness. Neither had the decency to replied to my complaint - Yepee!! the insured can suffer higher permiums as I have lost NCD.

So I would never go with Highway Insurance or deal with Lyons Davidson Solicitors again and its a caution for others thinking to do so. One might say use the legal expenses insurance to recover. (another case - hit and run with witness) I had RAC legal expenses insurance, they don't allow your own solicitors as they use their panel of solicitors and I would have thought that they would listen to the client (me). I was told there are different ways of dealing with the matter - but oh no - colemans ctts said exactly the same thing in the end as I had told them in the beginning. DID NOT LISTEN TO A WORD I HAD SAID. Verbal complaint to a the case handler's collegue and herself, have not been replied to. Made their money!! Brilliant. On top of that they wanted me to assign them to deal with the MIB. Fat chance!!! A written complaint to the RAC - no decency to reply either.

It comes down to one thing in the end - the system is useless and that is why there are uninsured and fraudlent claims. With todays technology it should be a lot easier to reduce, if not completely stop it, but the whole system does not want to know.

Underwriter at Large:

Hi Denpat, every Motor Insurance Certificate contains an advice note to third parties that "nothing in this certificate affects your right as a Third Party to make a claim". The motor insurance industry is effectively telling you that you are not prevented from claiming against a responsible party. Where there is no insurance and/or an untraced driver coupled with the fact that to be exposed to the perils of such, you, the obviously innocent party, has chosen to not insure for the damage to your own vehicle, then there is recourse to the MIB "pot". You ask "why do insurers not inform their insured that if they were involved in 'uninsured or untraced' vehicle accident, that there is compensation available through the MIB, as part of the premium goes to the MIB pot?" Well ~ that's because that statement would not be true! "Compensation available" makes it sound as though there is a fund to hand out. There isn't. The MIB will act as a claims facilitator and will meet a claim where liability is established and admitted by the MIB. If an insurer in involved, even where their own insured has breached the terms of their cover, the MIB will order that insurer to deal with the claim. Where there is clearly no insurance whatsoever, then the MIB will step in but you would still have to establish that liability rests with the uninsured / untraced motorist.

You seem familiar with motor claims procedures from your "honest claimants suffer" comment. In my underwriting days I would always ensure that honest claims were met in full. There is a contract in force after all. Did you have a broker acting for you?

Full details of the compulsory insurance laws in the UK are set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended.

In closing I make no apology for seemingly "wanting everybody to insure" ....you are not suggesting that's a bad thing....are you?!

Keep smilin'

Hello Underwriter at Large, Thanks for reply.

ATM is absolutely right, drivers without insurance have no morals. Cost of insurance is huge for motorists due to low lifes like this and hence should get a bicycle or bus pass or better use their legs. But the public transport system is useless and expensive and to get to the A to B you would have to change several times and it doesn't take one to the destination door hence use of insured vehicles.

There is an incident on the telly - hit and run appeal - uninsured turning to untraced if they show up. That is why when I was hit and run by my neighbours from hell, I made it a mission to get the person off the road, but the system doesn't want to know. They still drive without licence and insurance, in the name of the brother who has licence and insurance. This brother registered a vehicle to my address - that is also not a crime. DVLA/nor police nor the insurance industry (when a fraud was committed) not interested. Driver with no licence and insurance smashed up vehicle, and get the vehicle repaired.

You mentioned MIB is not a 'compensation pot', because they would instruct the insurance company to pay out, true if an insurer is involved and one has comprehensive insurance. If one has third party and a 'hit and run', then the insured is left to fix it for themselves.

You also mentioned "Where there is clearly no insurance whatsoever, then the MIB will step in but you would still have to establish that liability rests with the uninsured / untraced motorist." ie compensation pot for uninsured and untraced - obviously one need to be able to prove it a vehicle was involved rather than making up a story by looking at the sky. Insurers don't tell their insured that the third party was insured or not. If they are uninsured then they should tell the insured and get compensation from the MIB. After all as I had mentioned earlier, part of the premium goes to fund the MIB and this is how the MIB exists - through the insured premiums and also the insurance companies 'act in the interest of the insured'' - saying it loosely, from my experience.

This is what the MIB site says "MIB was established in 1946 to compensate the victims of negligent uninsured and untraced motorists."

"In my underwriting days I would always ensure that honest claims were met in full." - when it came to renewing, the premium was higher and because one made "a claim". why? Classified as high risk. Costs the company.

"In closing I make no apology for seemingly "wanting everybody to insure" ....you are not suggesting that's a bad thing....are you?!" All vehicles I have owned have been insured because I do not have a choice. If you and me lived in the same house, drove the same car, history, age,, everything same except that I am a foreigner (with 14 years of FULL UK LICENCE), I would get charged at least £250 more than you. Why do insurance company discriminate foreigners? Yet if we both had the same accident and same damage, I would not get paid higher? This is the reason why people chose not to insure and (probably foreigners). I know the reasoning behind underwriters (history (statistics) paints a picture that foreigners are more likely to claim) and is because of this people have no insurance or there are fraud claims - insurers don't think this way, do they? Is more money they can get out by catagorising them as high risk. This also leads to insurers do not have morals either.

They should make it the USA - tax, licence and insurance got hand in hand. Without one of this items missing, no access to vehicle - but still get unmoral people, but leads to less problems.

I have gone through the Act and it does mention the changes coming. If the system does not want to know about insured or unlicenced when reported, what use are the changes or the system. Too late for the victims, when the systems starts looking after the incident - pathetic.

* "A new offence of "keeping a vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks" is coming. This will relate to a vehicle that is taxed, but not insured, and kept, but not driven, on the public highway." I know there is a new offence coming, but that is in 2011 (trials). Insurers don't give out much information or keep their insured updated. Terrible yet they want the insured to be truthful and honest. It works two ways. My experience has shown that honest claimants suffer.

* Nixxy has been involved in road traffic prosecutions. My guess is prosecuting only when there has been accidents - Uninsured and untraced?. What happened before that the accident. No one wants to know, not even the MIB or police or the insurance industry (insurance industry want to know about fraud but uninsured, no way) - speaking from personal experience. So how can it be illegal not to have insurance, for time being till 2011?

* Underwriter at Large - why do insurers not inform their insured that if they were involved in 'uninsured or untraced' vehicle accident, that there is compensation available through the MIB, as part of the permium goes to the MIB pot?

"So how can it be illegal not to have insurance, for the time being till 2011?"

Maybe you should ask that question to the families who have lost loved ones through motor accidents which sometimes involved non-insured motorists. Probably 99% of people don't really give a damn about their car in an accident, it is only a piece of tin. Their concern lies with the passengers of the vehicles involved along with pedestrians, cyclists etc.

I suggest that if the cost of insurance is a big problem for motorists then they should get a bicycle or a bus pass and stay legal.

I had read what you stated about already having insurance in your original post but there are too many drivers out there with no insurance also who have no morals.

Underwriter at Large:

Nixxy is absolutely correct, it is, of course, illegal to drive without insurance, I was just clarifying the point that the offence is often incorrectly refered to as "driving without insurance" but the IN10 offence is "using a vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks", a subtle difference but yes, driving without insurance will get you in deep trouble, to say nothing of risking seizure and possible destruction of the vehicle.

The word 'driving' is of no relevance to having no motor insurnace, it is the 'use' of the vehicle without insurance that will creep up and bite you.

Simples.....

Thanks for the replies.

There was a documentary on the telly sometime ago (approx 2-3years) that it was not illegal not to have insurance hence my question

I would get guess the 'Underwriter at Large' works for the insurance industry and wants people to insure and would say its is illegal.

* Most of the points made are related to the not having tax and this will get one into trouble, whether on the road or not.

* 'If you have a Driving Other Cars {DOC} extension on your own insurance it only covers the actual driving of a vehicle, not belonging to you, not the use of it.' If I am driving a vehicle, then I am using it. If I am not driving it, then I am not using it, the owner is responsible, even if I 'borrowed it'. How can I be 'using it' when I am not 'using it'. It's like say I was driving when the vehicle was stationery. Vehicles don't move on their own unless remote controlled like in Bond movies. Insurers wording of 'getting out clause'

* "A new offence of "keeping a vehicle whilst uninsured against third party risks" is coming. This will relate to a vehicle that is taxed, but not insured, and kept, but not driven, on the public highway." I know there is a new offence coming, but that is in 2011 (trials). Insurers don't give out much information or keep their insured updated. Terrible yet they want the insured to be truthful and honest. It works two ways. My experience has shown that honest claimants suffer.

* Nixxy has been involved in road traffic prosecutions. My guess is prosecuting only when there has been accidents - Uninsured and untraced?. What happened before that the accident. No one wants to know, not even the MIB or police or the insurance industry (insurance industry want to know about fraud but uninsured, no way) - speaking from personal experience. So how can it be illegal not to have insurance, for time being till 2011?

* Underwriter at Large - why do insurers not inform their insured that if they were involved in 'uninsured or untraced' vehicle accident, that there is compensation available through the MIB, as part of the permium goes to the MIB pot?