Failure to make entry on motor insurance database

[themas]

Insurance (motorbike) was arranged through a broker. Police stopped & impounded bike for not having insurance. Owner had to pay �150 to get it back from pound (after proving to police it was insured). Owner needs to get the �150 back. Insurance company says it is not their responsibility to put details on the motor insurance database (MID) but that of the broker. Two questions:

1. Is that correct, or is it the insurers responsibility?; &

2. If the broker is responsible and won't pay up is there any regulator or ombudsman to complain to?

[barry1010]

"ALL insurers who underwrite motor insurance for vehicles on UK roads are obliged to be members of the MIB and to submit the policy details of ALL vehicles to the MID."
http://www.mib.org.uk/Motor+Insurance+Database /en/Motor+Insurance+Database+Information/What+ is+the+MID.htm

It's the insurance company. After all, the broker will never know if you have cancelled the policy shortly after taking it out.

[kempie]

The obligation to update details on the MID falls to the insurance underwriter or their agents. If you deal with an insurer directly then it is they who will update the MID; if you use a broker then this agent of the insurer updates the MID with the details of your policy. However, all of this may be immaterial depending on how long the bike had not been showing on the MID.

Unless the insurance details were placed on the MID outside of 7 calendar days of the policy starting I see little chance of the penalty fee being refunded. If the data was supplied to MID within 7 days then the insurer (or agent) has complied with DfT guidelines (i.e. not at fault) and the police impounding a vehicle because they reasonably believe it to be uninsured (e.g. not showing on the MID even if a policy exists) is again no fault - so if no party is legally at fault who is the claim for �150 to be directed towards?

[woozer]

I cannot agree with kempie - I have always been told it is the insurer who updates the MID - the insurers rely on the broker involved to send them the information within a very short time scale and in most cases these days it is immediately transmitted to them electronically when the broker uses a computer to issue cover notes endorsements etc. But some companies still use non electronic methods such as the post - nuff said ?

[kempie]

To quote from the MIB link above...

"The process of getting the information to the MID is managed by MIB but the data is loaded directly by the Insurers and their representatives."

[themas]

Thanks for these answers. To clarify, the data was not on MID a long time after the 7 day limit. It appears to have been said (either by the insurer or the broker - my information is not clear which) that a wrong digit had been used when they attempted to put the data on & that this was why it did not show.

I'm still not totally clear who is legally responsible (the mib site rather blurs the edges on it) but it seems to me that if it is anyone other than the insurer, then whoever it is (broker, representative or whatever they are called) is doing it as an agent of the insurer. Therefore I think I would argue the insurer is responsible because he should accept responsibility for the faults of his agent. Any comments on this?

I also find barry1010's last sentence persuasive - it is quite true that the insured could cancel the policy direct with the insurer, and the broker would not know unless the insurer told him.

[gouldc]

I'd have to say that the onus does fall on the policyholder to ensure that his documentation shows the correct registration. The policyholder signs a declaration to state all is correct, and the insurer acts o nthis.

If the documentation you had is correct, but the broker still managed to submit the incorrect data to the insurer, then the fault lies with the broker, and it is they that are responsible - we (insurers) cannot be held responsible for being passed incorrect information - upmost good faith is the principle whereby we treat what the policyholder (or broker) tells us as gospel.

Obviously if the insurer subsequently updated MID incorrectly, then the onus falls on them. It happens - human error (I know it's not a good excuse, but it happens).

The insurer will inevitably pass you to the broker if the error came from them. As I say, if you gave the insurer incorrect info, would you expect them to cover the blame (well, some would). Whilst the broker is a representative of sorts, if they ******** it up, it's down to them to reimburse you.

[flip_flop]

For individual insured's, it is always the insurer that updates the MID.

For fleet policyholders, it is usually the policyholder or the broker.

So, unless your bike is insured on a fleet, your insurer would have (or at least should have) updated the MID.

[woozer]

I would agree that if it can be shown that the broker gave incorrect info to the insurer then they shoulder an element of blame - but the onus is on the policyholder to check their documents - so, were the documents generated by the broker and given to "themas" showing the correct information ?
If they were then presumably the inputting error lies with the insurer.
If the docs were incorrect then the onus lies with the insured to have checked their documents and had any errors corrected as soon as possible.

I still maintain that it is the insurers not the brokers who give the info to the MID for private policies - usually if the vehicle details do not match the registration number the MID would highlight this and a query would be generated from the insurer to the insured/broker.

[Panic Button]

It seems strange to me that the owner had to pay to get the bike back, when it was proven that it was insured.

[kempie]

...that is how the current system works since its introduction in 2006. If police believe a vehicle is uninsured and immediate proof to the contrary is not forthcoming they have the power to seize the vehicle. Once the vehicle is impounded the storage fees start to rack up on top of the removal fee regardless of any policy that exists for that vehicle.

I have previously pointed out on AB this anomaly of legal seizure prompted by reliance on MID data; the latter half of this thread gives detail to the problem...

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Insurance/Quest ion510568.html

[gouldc]

At the moment, the accepted time to get a car loaded onto MID is 7 days - there are attempts to get MID working in real time - ie car on there as soon as the policy is taken out - not going well by all accounts!

I think the best we'd be looking at is next day with the data loading up overnight.

I do feel that the police take a very heavy handed approach in these situations when a small amount of common sense would do.

However, it's got nothing to do with the revenue seizing people's cars generates, and speed, sorry safety, cameras are only there to save lives and not generate revenue for the government : )

[themas]

This has been an interesting discussion! Thanks for all the contributions.

The documents the insured had were all correct & the error was made by the broker. I have spoken to the MIB. They say that the broker would not be able to access the database to make entries unless they had been given authority to do so by the insurer. So it looks like the broker should be repaying the impounding charge.

Incidentally, this is not about a bike of mine - it is for a friend.