Good job the DVLA are cracking down on the 20% of cars uninsured.

[Gibbon]

They can be self insured, all you need is a big enough pile of cash (£0.5m from memory) and to sign an agreement. They are still insured.

The Army & Police could use crown immunity.

Armed forces lost that in 1987, everything went SHE mad overnight once officers realised they could be personally held to account

[vetran]

Police cars and London buses are not insured.

They can be self insured, all you need is a big enough pile of cash (£0.5m from memory) and to sign an agreement. They are still insured.

The Army & Police could use crown immunity.

[Paddy]

Your headline says 20% of cars uninsured.

Isn't it normally drivers who are insured?
The figures for drivers seem to be closer to 5% uninsured than 20%. (According to the Motor Insurers' Bureau)

Police cars and London buses are not insured.

[vetran]

Well if the article is right and they ignored the mitigation from the daughter then there is nothing for the plea to be based on so he can't have considered it.
Something is very wrong with the article IMO and I'm going with it's the daily mail and it wouldn't be interesting to read if they published all the facts... or it could be a 1 in a million error. Plenty of articles where people claim dead peoples benefits or send payment letters to people long deceased etc. The system screws up and once in awhile its to someone with an odd situation like this. Either very unlucky screw up or there is more to the story not published IMO.

not just in the wail all the big papers are covering, most are as unsettled as the wail. It just seems wrong.

[northernladuk]

I suspect that is correct in the article. I assumed it was automated but verified by a judge, obviously here there is no judge in place with all the facts which is a worry if he got a conviction, his POA based on mental incapacity should have provoked an incompetence plea surely?

Well if the article is right and they ignored the mitigation from the daughter then there is nothing for the plea to be based on so he can't have considered it.
Something is very wrong with the article IMO and I'm going with it's the daily mail and it wouldn't be interesting to read if they published all the facts... or it could be a 1 in a million error. Plenty of articles where people claim dead peoples benefits or send payment letters to people long deceased etc. The system screws up and once in awhile its to someone with an odd situation like this. Either very unlucky screw up or there is more to the story not published IMO.

[vetran]

Just clicked on your link... 20 June 2014

Have you got anything more recent?

1 million cars without cover, 33 million cars registered in the uk. That's not 20%.

Best I have is the MID link.

apparently 1M that is the figure of cars driven on the roads.


so its 1 in 20 after all. Maybe I misheard it on Police interceptors etc.

Still quite a few considering ANPR

[WTFH]

No the car has to be insured since about 2011 if it is not SORN'd. 20% on the roads are not.

This what he was prosecuted under as in the original link. He is in a care home and his car has been in the garage for 2 years neither is disputed by the court.

Here is an industry source.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/201...ehicles/52771/

Number of cars - number with valid insurance = uninsured cars (20%).

The uninsured drivers are the ones actually caught by the Police normally because of poor driving. As the Police only actually charge 2% of car thefts one assumes the uninsured car figure is nearer the mark.

Imagine listing all uninsured cars, searching for then ANPR for the plates, clamp it(optional) and ask the keeper to identify the driver, sounds terribly complicated.

Just clicked on your link... 20 June 2014

Have you got anything more recent?

1 million cars without cover, 33 million cars registered in the uk. That's not 20%.

[vetran]

It would but this situation is unlikely to have been considered when designing a highly automated system. It's a bit of a 1 in a million situation that has likely never met human eyes and if it did it wasn't someone qualified to make a decision. Just a sad side effect of automation. Easier to beg forgiveness in a few cases than spend millions trying to avoid it I guess.
It's not too dissimilar to the stories you hear of people getting unfair parking or speeding fines when there are some weird circumstances. System just generates what it's told to and you have to contest it, and usually it gets dropped. It appears his did.

Just (poorly designed) systems unable to handle specific situations thrown in with a soupçon of human error and you get a good story.

Got to say this bit is weird.

The way that is worded is that DVLA never looks at the mitigation as part of process, rather than human error. That can't be right surely. Wrongly worded in the article you think?

I suspect that is correct in the article. I assumed it was automated but verified by a judge, obviously here there is no judge in place with all the facts which is a worry if he got a conviction, his POA based on mental incapacity should have provoked an incompetence plea surely?

[northernladuk]

Surely after seeing the diagnosis a stiff word to his POA , transfer of the V5, a SORN completed there and then plus best wishes for the driver who is not competent would be reasonable?

It would but this situation is unlikely to have been considered when designing a highly automated system. It's a bit of a 1 in a million situation that has likely never met human eyes and if it did it wasn't someone qualified to make a decision. Just a sad side effect of automation. Easier to beg forgiveness in a few cases than spend millions trying to avoid it I guess.
It's not too dissimilar to the stories you hear of people getting unfair parking or speeding fines when there are some weird circumstances. System just generates what it's told to and you have to contest it, and usually it gets dropped. It appears his did.

Just (poorly designed) systems unable to handle specific situations thrown in with a soupçon of human error and you get a good story.

Got to say this bit is weird.

Due to the way the controversial court procedure operates, the DVLA did not look at the evidence presented by his daughter and he eventually received a criminal conviction,

The way that is worded is that DVLA never looks at the mitigation as part of process, rather than human error. That can't be right surely. Wrongly worded in the article you think?

[Fraidycat]

You don't have to insure a car if it never leaves a private propety surely?

Quick google says only if you SORN it.

We probably all know that applies to road tax, but I guess at some point they made it apply to insurance as well.

[vetran]

You don't have to insure a car if it never leaves a private propety surely?

since 2011 you do.

DVLA & MIB share data.

https://www.mib.org.uk/reducing-unin...e-enforcement/

[vetran]

Your headline says 20% of cars uninsured.

Isn't it normally drivers who are insured?
The figures for drivers seem to be closer to 5% uninsured than 20%. (According to the Motor Insurers' Bureau)

No the car has to be insured since about 2011 if it is not SORN'd. 20% on the roads are not.

This what he was prosecuted under as in the original link. He is in a care home and his car has been in the garage for 2 years neither is disputed by the court.

Here is an industry source.

https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/201...ehicles/52771/

Number of cars - number with valid insurance = uninsured cars (20%).

The uninsured drivers are the ones actually caught by the Police normally because of poor driving. As the Police only actually charge 2% of car thefts one assumes the uninsured car figure is nearer the mark.

Imagine listing all uninsured cars, searching for then ANPR for the plates, clamp it(optional) and ask the keeper to identify the driver, sounds terribly complicated.

[xoggoth]

You don't have to insure a car if it never leaves a private propety surely?

[WTFH]

Your headline says 20% of cars uninsured.

Isn't it normally drivers who are insured?
The figures for drivers seem to be closer to 5% uninsured than 20%. (According to the Motor Insurers' Bureau)

[vetran]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nce-lapse.html

Dementia sufferer, 83, who stopped driving two years ago is prosecuted by the DVLA in controversial Single Justice Procedure after being accused of 'letting his car insurance lapse'

• DVLA accused him of 'letting insurance lapse' day after he moved into care home
• Been prosecuted under the procedure?
• A pensioner with severe dementia who stopped driving two years ago has been prosecuted by the DVLA under the controversial Single Justice Procedure.
  
  The 83-year-old kept his classic red 1975 MG in his garage despite giving up driving two years ago.
  
  On October 11 last year, the pensioner was moved into a care home and the very next day he was accused by the DVLA of 'letting his car insurance lapse'.
• In response to the Single Justice Procedure, his daughter sent a letter explaining her father's health and also informed the DVLA he was living in a care home.
  
  Due to the way the controversial court procedure operates, the DVLA did not look at the evidence presented by his daughter and he eventually received a criminal conviction, the Evening Standard reported.

Surely after seeing the diagnosis a stiff word to his POA , transfer of the V5, a SORN completed there and then plus best wishes for the driver who is not competent would be reasonable?

Meanwhile so many vehicles are driven around with no insurance.