Car showing up uninsured on ANPR

we'llallhavetea

so basically got pulled over today as my car showed up on the anpr as being uninsured. it is insured, so does anyone know how or why this happened?

Voodoomelon

As far as i'm aware, the only way the ANPR system knows if your car is insured is when you include your policy number when taxing the car.

As such, ANPR constantly flags cars as uninsured, when in fact they are. It can also take up to 3 days (again, I think) to reflect such information, after being submitted in the tax office.

Cd_doe

aya startin wha wrote: »

so basically got pulled over today as my car showed up on the anpr as being uninsured. it is insured, so does anyone know how or why this happened?

I'll take a guess that the insurance was renewed since it was last taxed...

Their records are updated when you tax your car - you ever wonder what that section for your insurance details on the tax form is for?

Cee-Jay-Cee

Voodoomelon wrote: »

As far as i'm aware, the only way the ANPR system knows if your car is insured is when you include your policy number when taxing the car.

As such, ANPR constantly flags cars as uninsured when they are.

Correct. If you taxed your car in January for 12 months but your insurance expired in March then any time your car is caught by the ANPR after March it will be flagged as having no insurance as the system wouldn't have been updated. It will continue to happen until you next tax your car again and the new insurance details are updated.

we'llallhavetea

Cd_doe wrote: »

I'll take a guess that the insurance was renewed since it was last taxed...

Their records are updated when you tax your car - you ever wonder what that section for your insurance details on the tax form is for?

never even gave it a second thought, couldn't tell you what's on which form, I usually give up and ask my dad to do it!

yeah tax is out so that's that explained! thanks for replies

we'llallhavetea

although the Garda was the ultimate Cnut, he was adamant that it was coming up uninsured and that was that, I have an in date insurance disc obviously but he wasn't satisfied. he also wasn't satisfied that axa were on the phone telling him the car was insured because "he's in the motor rescue end" ?!?! anyway! car wasn't taxed so he took it.

Anan1

aya startin wha wrote: »

although the Garda was the ultimate Cnut, he was adamant that it was coming up uninsured and that was that, I have an in date insurance disc obviously but he wasn't satisfied. he also wasn't satisfied that axa were on the phone telling him the car was insured because "he's in the motor rescue end" ?!?! anyway! car wasn't taxed so he took it.

You'll be able to prove you were insured to drive it with the cert.

racso1975

hmmm so i am guessing that just throwing in random numbers and companies when doing it on line is not a good idea

aisr1ofk43dpy5

aya startin wha wrote: »

although the Garda was the ultimate Cnut, he was adamant that it was coming up uninsured and that was that, I have an in date insurance disc obviously but he wasn't satisfied. he also wasn't satisfied that axa were on the phone telling him the car was insured because "he's in the motor rescue end" ?!?! anyway! car wasn't taxed so he took it.

How long was the tax out of date

numorouno

Max Proud Witchcraft wrote: »

How long was the tax out of date

Maybe that's just the reason he took it?

Anan1

numorouno wrote: »

Maybe that's just the reason he took it?

Isn't that what the OP said?

_Kaiser_

numorouno wrote: »

Maybe that's just the reason he took it?

Sounds more to me (taking the story at face value) that the Garda in question was pissed off that he was proven wrong by the OP and his insurer and so took the car out of spite/show what a "big man" he is :rolleyes: Another example of the keystone cops brigade we call a police force.

Otherwise why not just do the OP for no tax and seize the car in the first place? Why the whole drama/calls to AXA to prove he was insured?

Anan1

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Sounds more to me (taking the story at face value) that the Garda in question was pissed off that he was proven wrong by the OP and his insurer and so took the car out of spite/show what a "big man" he is :rolleyes: Another example of the keystone cops brigade we call a police force.

Or maybe he was just doing his job?

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Otherwise why not just do the OP for no tax and seize the car in the first place? Why the whole drama/calls to AXA to prove he was insured?

Because driving uninsured is a separate, and more serious, offence?

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

You'll be able to prove you were insured to drive it with the cert.

Not really; the cert wont show if you have had your policy cancelled.

Using the online tax renewal details to update ANPR is rather ridiculous considering anyone can stick any details they want into that form.

we'llallhavetea

car tax was out five months.

he took the insurance disc and the sheet that it was originally attached to. that's weird because.. I need that!
I didn't even get his name or where he is stationed
I'll just get axa to print it all of again for me.

he was just "doing his job" but he was a woeful Cnut about it, even the guards I have been talking to since have said no way would they have taken the car off me and left me and my daughter crying and alone with bags of crap from the car on the side of the road in blanch. my child was fairly traumatised the poor thing

Anan1

aya startin wha wrote: »

car tax was out five months.

he took the insurance disc and the sheet that it was originally attached to. that's weird because.. I need that!
I didn't even get his name or where he is stationed
I'll just get axa to print it all of again for me.

he was just "doing his job" but he was a woeful Cnut about it, even the guards I have been talking to since have said no way would they have taken the car off me and left me and my daughter crying and alone with bags of crap from the car on the side of the road in blanch. my child was fairly traumatised the poor thing

Your tax was out 5 months and you're calling the Garda names for taking your car? You put your child on the side of the road, not him.

Guy:Incognito

aya startin wha wrote: »

no way would they have taken the car off me and left me and my daughter crying and alone with bags of crap from the car on the side of the road in blanch. my child was fairly traumatised the poor thing

See this is the problem right there. The same crap went on in the long VRT thread with the poor put upon people of inishowen that were expected to comply with the same laws as everyone else. "ah sure its a parent with a child, you cant be stopping them breaking the law, leave them be"

I'm sure it was "the only one time in 5 months I took the car out" / "no choice, someone was dying , first time it happened" etc

Wheres My ForkandKnife

Anan1 wrote: »

Or maybe he was just doing his job?

Because driving uninsured is a separate, and more serious, offence?

Really? Was this some supercop who was going to wrap the whole case up in one day? The OP has ten days to produce the cert. I don't understand why the insurance was phoned in the first place.

The guard did his job and seized the car. I don't doubt that he was a cnut about it though.

aya startin wha wrote: »

car tax was out five months.

he took the insurance disc and the sheet that it was originally attached to. that's weird because.. I need that!
I didn't even get his name or where he is stationed
I'll just get axa to print it all of again for me.

he was just "doing his job" but he was a woeful Cnut about it, even the guards I have been talking to since have said no way would they have taken the car off me and left me and my daughter crying and alone with bags of crap from the car on the side of the road in blanch. my child was fairly traumatised the poor thing

So you had the cert on you as well?? I wouldn't get it from axa again. There may be a charge for reissuing the cert. I would get on to the guards and request that it is returned. It won't be hard to find.

However you really have no one to blame for your car being seized but yourself. This is not a judgement on you in any way. You took the risk and got caught. They can seize the car once the tax is out over two months so you have got away with it for three months. It was bound to happen sooner or later.

Zubeneschamali

What was the plan, head down to the station after 6 months and declare that it had been off the road, then tax it for 3 months?

Or were you just never going to tax it at all?

Anan1

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

Really? Was this some supercop who was going to wrap the whole case up in one day? The OP has ten days to produce the cert. I don't understand why the insurance was phoned in the first place.

Who rang the insurance?

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

The guard did his job and seized the car. I don't doubt that he was a cnut about it though.

Why do you think that?

Guy:Incognito

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

Really? Was this some supercop who was going to wrap the whole case up in one day? The OP has ten days to produce the cert. I don't understand why the insurance was phoned in the first place.
.

He is given 10 days if all is in order. Do you really think if the Gard thinks hes driving uninsured he should send him on his way to continue doing so for another 10 days?

What happens if he hit you and your left chasing the cost of your claim with MIBI for a few years and found out a Gard stopped him a couple of days before, thought he was uninsured and sent him on his way? You'd be grand with that, yeah?

_Kaiser_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

He is given 10 days if all is in order. Do you really think if the Gard thinks hes driving uninsured he should send him on his way to continue doing so for another 10 days?

Why not? Sure you can fail your driving test and still drive yourself home :rolleyes: (I'm not disagreeing with you - just pointing out the ridiculousness of the system we have in general)

Really the problem here is (again) the "it depends who you get" attitude. Because of the hugely varying way Gardai (and indeed most public/cicil servants) approach their job and the informal "ah shure it'll be grand" approach that it breeds, the OP could very well have met another Garda who would have sent them off with a warning to get it taxed within 10 days and produce. The opinions from other Gardai the OP says they've since talked to supports this.

But as the OP describes it, the Garda's attitude was such that having been proven wrong about the insurance being out, they instead decided to "follow the law" and seized the car out of spite.. otherwise that would have been the approach from the start - the possibility of no insurance would just have been added to the case after the fact.

[slightly O/T ramble starts here]

It boils down to this "Garda discretion" - while I'm not saying they shouldn't use a bit of cop-on, when and to what degree this applies seems to be completely random, and THAT is where the issues lie because the motorist has no idea where they stand really.

Yes I know the simple answer to that will be "well make sure you're always within the law then" but that becomes a bit harder to stomach when you see reports of "celebrities", sports stars and what not being "let off" - as evidenced by the penalty points revelations not so long ago - and stories of Garda corruption (such as money that's going missing from evidence lockups in stations these days)

More fundamentally, when you transfer this problem to wider Ireland I think what we end up with is a broken and basically flawed "system" where the rules change on a day to day basis and are made up as we go along (just look at all the post-election U-turns by the present government for example)

Wheres My ForkandKnife

Anan1 wrote: »

Who rang the insurance?

Why do you think that?

Because I believe the OP. There are ways of doing things. Why do you believe that there couldn't be one a**eh0le in an organisation of 12,000 employees that is An Garda Siochana. I will add the vast majority for guards I have met or dealt with over the years have been grand. However I have also met the odd cnut. It would be impossible for them not to exist.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

He is given 10 days if all is in order. Do you really think if the Gard thinks hes driving uninsured he should send him on his way to continue doing so for another 10 days?

What happens if he hit you and your left chasing the cost of your claim with MIBI for a few years and found out a Gard stopped him a couple of days before, thought he was uninsured and sent him on his way? You'd be grand with that, yeah?

The car wasn't going anywhere. It was five months out of tax. Although the OP has since talked to guards who said they wouldn't have seized the car that is a very easy thing to say in hindsight.

The car was going to be seized, end of.

Caliden

No tax, no sympathy.

Might seem like a harsh statement but if you want to drive on the roads you need nct, tax & insurance. You can't pick and choose what you want to pay for.

You are the one who took the chance of driving with no tax (1 month I can understand but 5??) and ultimately you and your child paid the price.

If you're looking for sympathy because someone did their job, you won't get it here.

I would hope that this experience has discouraged you from doing it again but who knows...

Wheres My ForkandKnife

Caliden wrote: »

No tax, no sympathy.

Might seem like a harsh statement but if you want to drive on the roads you need nct, tax & insurance. You can't pick and choose what you want to pay for.

You are the one who took the chance of driving with no tax (1 month I can understand but 5??) and ultimately you and your child paid the price.

If you're looking for sympathy because someone did their job, you won't get it here.

I would hope that this experience has discouraged you from doing it again but who knows...

From my reading of the thread the OP was't looking for sympathy (and nor should they expect any) The post was about the issue of the car being insured. I don't think the OP was crying about the car being seized, more about how they were treated by the guard, or that is my reading of it anyway.

Personally, I don't care who taxes their car, it is none of my business. My car is always taxed so that when I drive around a corner and see the flashing blue lights I don't have a sh1te haemorrhage and be in the same position as the OP ending up on the side of the road with my family. If the OP thought they would talk their way through a checkpoint with no tax for five months they are a little deluded

Insurance is a different matter but there is no suggestion the th OP wasn't insured.

Anan1

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

Because I believe the OP. There are ways of doing things. Why do you believe that there couldn't be one a**eh0le in an organisation of 12,000 employees that is An Garda Siochana. I will add the vast majority for guards I have met or dealt with over the years have been grand. However I have also met the odd cnut. It would be impossible for them not to exist.

You believe what, exactly? The OP didn't say who rang the insurance company, and the OP is clearly more inclined to blame the Garda than themselves. We don't know enough to be calling that Garda a cnut.

Caliden

Wheres My ForkandKnife wrote: »

From my reading of the thread the OP was't looking for sympathy (and nor should they expect any) The post was about the issue of the car being insured. I don't think the OP was crying about the car being seized, more about how they were treated by the guard, or that is my reading of it anyway.

Personally, I don't care who taxes their car, it is none of my business. My car is always taxed so that when I drive around a corner and see the flashing blue lights I don't have a sh1te haemorrhage and be in the same position as the OP ending up on the side of the road with my family. If the OP thought they would talk their way through a checkpoint with no tax for five months they are a little deluded

Insurance is a different matter but there is no suggestion the th OP wasn't insured.

Maybe not in their first post but certainly in this one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86260976#post86260976

Exempt from paying road tax because of a child?

It's hard to know how both the OP and the Garda behaved in this situation as we're hearing just one side of the story (and in this case it's someone who just had their car seized)

cadaliac

Anan1 wrote: »

You believe what, exactly? The OP didn't say who rang the insurance company, and the OP is clearly more inclined to blame the Garda than themselves. We don't know enough to be calling that Garda a cnut.

Why does it matter to you who called the insurance?

Anan1

cadaliac wrote: »

Why does it matter to you who called the insurance?

To me? This is why it matters:

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Sounds more to me (taking the story at face value) that the Garda in question was pissed off that he was proven wrong by the OP and his insurer and so took the car out of spite/show what a "big man" he is :rolleyes: Another example of the keystone cops brigade we call a police force.

Otherwise why not just do the OP for no tax and seize the car in the first place? Why the whole drama/calls to AXA to prove he was insured?

Max Power1

Caliden wrote: »

Maybe not in their first post but certainly in this one:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=86260976#post86260976

Exempt from paying road tax because of a child?

It's hard to know how both the OP and the Garda behaved in this situation as we're hearing just one side of the story (and in this case it's someone who just had their car seized)

Dont know about you, but I pay my motor tax (a not unsubstantial 1500 p/a) and I am glad that others who do not do the same have sanctions placed against them to the full extent of the applicable law.

Also, the children? If you (op) taxed & insured the car this would not have happened. So this is your fault, not the Gardai's.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Not really; the cert wont show if you have had your policy cancelled.

How else could anyone prove they had cover?

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

How else could anyone prove they had cover?

Currently dated letter from the insurer I guess? I know that the cert is what the Gardai ask for as proof of insurance, but in reality it doesnt prove anything other than at some point in the previous 12 months you had a current insurance policy; it in no way proves that said policy is still active.

cadaliac

Anan1 wrote: »

To me? This is why it matters:

Well, on another posters presumptions, maybe they had a point, but, it still doesn't really matter who dialled the ins company to me. Whether it was the OP or the guard.
If the guard was geting info from APNR saying one thing and the OP saying another, of course the ins company had to be called.

As for the OP, if the car was indeed insured and the guard said it wasn't, of course they would also want the ins company to verify that the car was insured, to the guard.

I fail to see what the big deal is speaking to the ins company. It seems perfectly logical to me. Both parties had to prove the car was insured one way or another. And it seems that teh car was insured.
The rest of the ordeal is the result of not having vaild tax.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

Currently dated letter from the insurer I guess? I know that the cert is what the Gardai ask for as proof of insurance, but in reality it doesnt prove anything other than at some point in the previous 12 months you had a current insurance policy; it in no way proves that said policy is still active.

Stating the blindingly obvious djimi.

The cert. however is prima facie proof of cover, unlike the windscreen disc. If you produce it the Gardai will check it's still in force.

Anan1

cadaliac wrote: »

Well, on another posters presumptions, maybe they had a point, but, it still doesn't really matter who dialled the ins company to me. Whether it was the OP or the guard.
If the guard was geting info from APNR saying one thing and the OP saying another, of course the ins company had to be called.

As for the OP, if the car was indeed insured and the guard said it wasn't, of course they would also want the ins company to verify that the car was insured, to the guard.

I fail to see what the big deal is speaking to the ins company. It seems perfectly logical to me. Both parties had to prove the car was insured one way or another. And it seems that teh car was insured.

It matters because it's being used to argue that the Garda was acting maliciously. In any case only a valid insurance cert proves insurance, which is why I suspect that the OP and not the Garda called them.

cadaliac wrote: »

The rest of the ordeal is the result of not having vaild tax.

True.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

djimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Stating the blindingly obvious djimi.

The cert. however is prima facie proof of cover, unlike the windscreen disc. If you produce it the Gardai will check it's still in force.

How is the cert any different than the disc in that regard? Both have the information required for a Garda to check if the policy is current (insurer details and policy number).

mickdw

djimi wrote: »

How is the cert any different than the disc in that regard? Both have the information required for a Garda to check if the policy is current (insurer details and policy number).

Cert has details of who is covered to drive the car etc.

djimi

mickdw wrote: »

Cert has details of who is covered to drive the car etc.

If they are going to be talking to the insurer they can get all those details anyway!

cadaliac

Anan1 wrote: »

It matters because it's being used to argue that the Garda was acting maliciously. In any case only a valid insurance cert proves insurance, which is why I suspect that the OP and not the Garda called them..

Fair enough, yet here we are, not knowing who actually called them...

Anan1

cadaliac wrote: »

Fair enough, yet here we are, not knowing who actually called them...

Are you a betting man?

Max Power1

djimi wrote: »

How is the cert any different than the disc in that regard? Both have the information required for a Garda to check if the policy is current (insurer details and policy number).

Cert is defined in the RTA as the method of proving insurance when challenged.

Disc is to display in window as an initial check only.

Henry Ford III

djimi wrote: »

If they are going to be talking to the insurer they can get all those details anyway!

They wont if it checks out ok on pulse. The cert. is the legal document. The disc is a round pice of paper.

Stepping Stone

cadaliac wrote: »

Fair enough, yet here we are, not knowing who actually called them...

It is most likely to be the OP who called them. A random person claiming to be a garda could not get access to those details. A written request is necessary in order to avoid confidentiality issues.

Similarly, the Garda is unlikely to accept a verbal statement from some random person on the phone. Direct, written communication is necessary.

Paper trail is needed to cover all backs, bearing in mind that the person from the insurance company can only verify that the person calling them knows sufficient info to gain access to the policy, not that the Garda is who they claim to be and the Garda only knows that the person on the phone claims to work for the insurers but may be connected to the 'insured' on a personal level making their info invalid.

Caliden

To the people saying the cert is a legal document to prove cover, how does that work in the case where someone has cancelled their insurance but retained the disc and cert?

How can a Garda blindly accept that because someone has a cert, they have insurance.

Guy:Incognito

Caliden wrote: »

How can a Garda blindly accept that because someone has a cert, they have insurance.

They can ring the insurance company, which is possibly what happened in the op. Or the policy holder can get a letter from the insurer.

Henry Ford III

Caliden wrote: »

To the people saying the cert is a legal document to prove cover, how does that work in the case where someone has cancelled their insurance but retained the disc and cert?

How can a Garda blindly accept that because someone has a cert, they have insurance.

Pulse. They can check the details in seconds.

Max Power1

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Pulse. They can check the details in seconds.

Ask an AGS member if they can do that, and revert back

They only have what you put on the tax renewal

cadaliac

Stepping Stone wrote: »

It is most likely to be the OP who called them. A random person claiming to be a garda could not get access to those details. A written request is necessary in order to avoid confidentiality issues.

Similarly, the Garda is unlikely to accept a verbal statement from some random person on the phone. Direct, written communication is necessary.

...QUOTE]
So in essence, a Garda has no way of telling if the cert is valid or not, at a check point, or at the side of the road.

What was the point of teh call to axa so (I understand the oP would have made the call) but why did the guard bother with it at all?

Zubeneschamali

cadaliac wrote: »

why did the guard bother with it at all?

Eh, he didn't?

cadaliac

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, he didn't?

Yes, this is clear to me now.
This would also explain the guards attitude.

I was under the imperssion that both OP and guard were speaking to the ins company.



ffs ...