Stopped by the Gardai, have to produce insurance cert

Indestructable

Hi,

I was stopped Friday and need to produce my insurance cert at the station within 10 days, problem is I lost the full cert. I have the insurance 9 months so it went missing somewhere in between.

I have the window cert and it is displayed, I also have all the correspondence from insurer with details of who is covered and what for. Do you think they'd be happy with this??

I can request a new cert but doubt I'd have it within the 10 days.

Thanks everyone

January

Nope they need to see the cert.

Del2005

You need to contact your insurance in the morning and request a replacement cert. The disc in the window is a waste of space as it proves nothing. Explain that you need to produce and they should be able to post it that day.

markpb

If you ring your insurer first thing tomorrow morning, I'd be surprised if you didn't get it in the post on Wednesday or Thursday.

Failing that, ring the station in a week, find out when the guard is on duty and explain the situation to them.

myshirt

Only issue with this is there's always a charge for the replacement, €60.00 or more no doubt.

Indestructable

Balls!

Was on the AA website and I can do it from there, only 10 euro which is reasonable I suppose. Will do it now and hope its here soon.

Thanks all.

Del2005

myshirt wrote: »

Only issue with this is there's always a charge for the replacement, €60.00 or more no doubt.

You agree to that charge when you take out the policy, don't like the charge get a policy from a company that doesn't charge.

antodeco

Or request a copy of it under section 4 of the data protection act. Max charge is €6.35

wonski

antodeco wrote: »

Or request a copy of it under section 4 of the data protection act. Max charge is €6.35

I don't think that would work tbh.

antodeco

wonski wrote: »

I don't think that would work tbh.

Why not?

Arcade_Tryer

Del2005 wrote: »

You need to contact your insurance in the morning and request a replacement cert. The disc in the window is a waste of space as it proves nothing. Explain that you need to produce and they should be able to post it that day.

Why is it displayed there along with the nct and tax discs so? Genuine question.

wonski

antodeco wrote: »

Why not?

Will you get a new passport for 6.35, or a driving license?

Jesus.

wonski wrote: »

Will you get a new passport for 6.35, or a driving license?

Both of those are more elaborate than a simple page of writing that's easily printed off.

antodeco

wonski wrote: »

Will you get a new passport for 6.35, or a driving license?

Completely different. The passport office don't keep a record of your passport on file. They keep a copy of your application form and any correspondence relating to it. Your insurance company keep a copy of your certificate. They don't keep a copy of your disc.

You can't request a copy of a disc under DP sec. 4, as you have the original. Same as a passport. You have the original. Your insurance cert that you receive is not a singular original, like a passport.

delta_bravo

antodeco wrote: »

Completely different. The passport office don't keep a record of your passport on file. They keep a copy of your application form and any correspondence relating to it. Your insurance company keep a copy of your certificate. They don't keep a copy of your disc.

You can't request a copy of a disc under DP sec. 4, as you have the original. Same as a passport. You have the original. Your insurance cert that you receive is not a singular original, like a passport.

Another thing is the data controller is only obliged to provide the data within forty days from the request so this may be no good to the op

antodeco

delta_bravo wrote: »

Another thing is the data controller is only obliged to provide the data within forty days from the request so this may be no good to the op

Of course, that's the other thing! If you need it within 10 days it's not an option. Saying that, I used to get requests out within 5 days!

Del2005

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Why is it displayed there along with the nct and tax discs so? Genuine question.

To annoy CiniO.:D

Genuine answer, I've no idea. All the cert shows is a policy number, it doesn't show who or what vehicle is insured on the policy, so it's off no use to anyone which is why when stopped you have to produce the cert in a station.

wonski

Jesus. wrote: »

Both of those are more elaborate than a simple page of writing that's easily printed off.

I am sure they will print it off on white a4 sheet of paper, which could cause a problem at Garda station.

Unless I am missing something, more than happy to be proved wrong.

CiniO

Del2005 wrote: »

To annoy CiniO.:D

Genuine answer, I've no idea. All the cert shows is a policy number, it doesn't show who or what vehicle is insured on the policy, so it's off no use to anyone which is why when stopped you have to produce the cert in a station.

I just happen to renew my policy recently, and I just have my insurance disc in front of me (arrived in the post few days ago).
It states the following:
-policy number
-commencement date
-expiry date
-insurer name
-car registration number
-insurance disc serial number
-and obviously magical "Road Traffic Act 1961" phrase.

It's a brilliant info, but lacks it's main purpose - it doesn't confirm or deny if person driving a car is insured. Therefore it's totally useless.

Ireland should get rid of this "named drivers" nonsense, and make all policies open drive allowing anyone to drive a vehicle like most countries do.
Then insurance disc would make sense, as it would confirm that insurance on a car is in place, and driver is covered.

Jesus.

wonski wrote: »

I am sure they will print it off on white a4 sheet of paper, which could cause a problem at Garda station. Unless I am missing something, more than happy to be proved wrong.

They'll print it off on a sheet of paper yes. Unless I am missing something?

wonski

Jesus. wrote: »

They'll print it off on a sheet of paper yes. Unless I am missing something?

I think you know what I meant.

If not, that's fine. I am confident you won't get a copy of your insurance certificate under freedom of information act. At least not the one you want to show at a Garda station as a proof of insurance. That's what I meant.

ThisRegard

CiniO wrote: »

but lacks it's main purpose - it doesn't confirm or deny if person driving a car is insured..

I'm sure mine always do.

antodeco

wonski wrote: »

I think you know what I meant.

If not, that's fine. I am confident you won't get a copy of your insurance certificate under freedom of information act. At least not the one you want to show at a Garda station as a proof of insurance. That's what I meant.

Freedom of information act and data protection act are too very different things...

wonski

antodeco wrote: »

Freedom of information act and data protection act are too very different things...

Mixed these 2 up in my post... kind of a "typo"

Gumbo

ThisRegard wrote: »

I'm sure mine always do.

Your name is not on the disc so it doesn't confirm who is insured or for what purpose.

Jesus.

wonski wrote: »

I think you know what I meant.

I honestly didn't. I was saying it would cost more to get a licence or passport because they are more elaborate than a simple piece of paper that is printed that's all.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

I just happen to renew my policy recently, and I just have my insurance disc in front of me (arrived in the post few days ago).
It states the following:
-policy number
-commencement date
-expiry date
-insurer name
-car registration number
-insurance disc serial number
-and obviously magical "Road Traffic Act 1961" phrase.

It's a brilliant info, but lacks it's main purpose - it doesn't confirm or deny if person driving a car is insured. Therefore it's totally useless.

Ireland should get rid of this "named drivers" nonsense, and make all policies open drive allowing anyone to drive a vehicle like most countries do.
Then insurance disc would make sense, as it would confirm that insurance on a car is in place, and driver is covered.

Even a 17 year old, with a learner permit, no experience, and an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Genius stuff.

grogi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Even a 17 year old, with a learner permit, no experience, and an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Genius stuff.

Works in a whole continent, if not two...

Jesus.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Alas that's not confined to 17 year olds

Cheensbo

It works in oz / nz too so add another continent/sub continent - insure the car (or don't - compulsory third party insurance comes with your registration/tax)

And anyone who's licence allows them (depending on classification of the car) - can then drive it no hassle at all.

Look up red p's & green p's - it's a pretty good system.

Henry Ford III

Cheensbo wrote: »

It works in oz / nz too so add another continent/sub continent - insure the car (or don't - compulsory third party insurance comes with your registration/tax)

And anyone who's licence allows them (depending on classification of the car) - can then drive it no hassle at all.

Look up red p's & green p's - it's a pretty good system.

Apply that here and premiums would rocket.

Cheensbo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Apply that here and premiums would rocket.

How so?

Afaik premiums are pretty reasonable over there - however I just went along with the compulsory 3rd party myself, didn't bother with a premium so can't say from personal experience.

ThisRegard

kceire wrote: »

Your name is not on the disc so it doesn't confirm who is insured or for what purpose.

Certificate, not disk. I thought he said he had his cert infront.

Henry Ford III

Cheensbo wrote: »

How so?

Afaik premiums are pretty reasonable over there - however I just went along with the compulsory 3rd party myself, didn't bother with a premium so can't say from personal experience.

Consider the aggregate premium levels charged here right now. The figure is huge. I'm guessing an average is c.€650 a car. Higher risk drivers pay way more.

Now consider that the highest risk drivers don't bother getting their own cover and rely on 3rd party extensions and the like.

Who pays the deficit? The risk hasn't changed after all.

Jesus.

Cheensbo wrote: »

It works in oz / nz too so add another continent/sub continent - insure the car (or don't - compulsory third party insurance comes with your registration/tax) And anyone who's licence allows them (depending on classification of the car) - can then drive it no hassle at all. Look up red p's & green p's - it's a pretty good system.

Ain't that what they do in the US?

emo72

I always wondered what was the point of displaying an insurance disc, when they ask you to produce a certificate. I know a few lads who carry the cert anyway. But yeah putting insurance on the car seems sensible. But you can't do that because it's not the way we do things around these here parts.

Cheensbo

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Consider the aggregate premium levels charged here right now. The figure is huge. I'm guessing an average is c.€650 a car. Higher risk drivers pay way more.

Now consider that the highest risk drivers don't bother getting their own cover and rely on 3rd party extensions and the like.

Who pays the deficit? The risk hasn't changed after all.

Agree with the logic but responsibility is applied differently - if you only have basic 3rd party you are only covered for injury to 3rd parties, you become personally liable for any property damage caused. I.e. you get sued. Now I must admit I will have to bow out because I don't know enough to debate it, I'm not even certain it could work here but I just wanted to add it in as a possibility/reference

Story Bud?

My mr2 has open drive. It allows anyone age 25-70 with a full licence and 4 pp or less, drive it.

I don't see why we couldn't have a system lile that across the board.

Pay a premium if you have a particularly powerful car, a premium to allow 18 year olds to drive it. Not that you should have a million premiums, but why not have a few levels from basic up to higher risk.

Anyome with an ounce of cop ok will be careful of who they're allowing to drive their car. No different to now really, as driving of other cars is always third party only so your takings risk allowing someone even with their own insurance, take your car onto the road.

Del2005

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Even a 17 year old, with a learner permit, no experience, and an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Genius stuff.

Unless they had a person who has a full licence for 2 years in the car they wouldn't be insured. We would have to start enforcing the licencing laws and start penalising unlicensed drivers, which unaccompanied permit in cars are.

GM228

Del2005 wrote: »

Unless they had a person who has a full licence for 2 years in the car they wouldn't be insured. We would have to start enforcing the licencing laws and start penalising unlicensed drivers, which unaccompanied permit in cars are.

They would be insured - for a minimum third party.

Having the appropriate licence and following the requirements for a second driver etc is a different issue.

Del2005

GM228 wrote: »

They would be insured - for a minimum third party.

Having the appropriate licence and following the requirements for a second driver etc is a different issue.

They're not licenced so can't be insured, we've ignored the law for too long. In any other country a person driving outside the conditions of their licence/permit would have the vehicle lifted, here you get to drive off.

Jesus.

I don't think that's true Del

GM228

Del2005 wrote: »

They're not licenced so can't be insured, we've ignored the law for too long. In any other country a person driving outside the conditions of their licence/permit would have the vehicle lifted, here you get to drive off.

They are insured, by law as per EU Directives they must be insured to a minimum of third party irrespective, in other words their insurance company would have to pay any third party claims, but may not pay your own losses and may try to recover any payments they made via a Civil case.

Not being licensed is against the law, but dosn't invalidate your insurance, same way being drunk and driving is against the law but even in that case your still insured.

grogi

GM228 wrote: »

They are insured, by law as per EU Directives they must be insured to a minimum of third party irrespective, in other words their insurance company would have to pay any third party claims, but may not pay your own losses and may try to recover any payments they made via a Civil case.

Not being licensed is against the law, but dosn't invalidate your insurance, same way being drunk and driving is against the law but even in that case your still insured.

So they are not insured. The Underwriter have the right to get compensation for driving unlicensed - and they should in such situations.

joeysoap

You don't need to display an insurance disc or a tax disc in Northern Ireland . PSNI can tell if the car tax is paid and if the car is insured by scanning the reg number. Don't know if it works or not but sounds better than a guard at a checkpoint examining a disc to see its genuine or not.

orm0nd

joeysoap wrote: »

You don't need to display an insurance disc or a tax disc in Northern Ireland . PSNI can tell if the car tax is paid and if the car is insured by scanning the reg number. Don't know if it works or not but sounds better than a guard at a checkpoint examining a disc to see its genuine or not.

the guards here know if the vehicle is insured or not, the issue arises with named drivers (underage or otherwise)

we have a copy of the cert. in each vehicle, most guards will accept it on the spot , if not it's easy to show the original @ the station

GM228

grogi wrote: »

So they are not insured. The Underwriter have the right to get compensation for driving unlicensed - and they should in such situations.

They are insured, I specifically used may as redress for the insurance company is not guaranteed, that would be a civil matter and nothing to do with the validity of the insurance.

Depending on amounts paid the insurance company may not even bother trying to recoup any monies paid via civil matters, but they will penalise you one way or another and have a massive loading in the next premium no doubt.

Jesus.

So much worth of a car would you claim on if you wrote it off? Anything over 5 grand? 7 or 8 grand?

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Even a 17 year old, with a learner permit, no experience, and an overly inflated view of their driving abilities.

Genius stuff.

I wouldn't be for allowing learner permit holder to drive under open driving policies.
IMO learners system should be changed in the first place.
They shouldn't be allowed to drive without instructor anyway - but that's a discussion for different thread.

But answering the question - yes - even 17 year old full licence holder with very little experience and overly inflated view of their driving abilities should be allowed to drive under open driving policies.
That's how it works in most countries.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Consider the aggregate premium levels charged here right now. The figure is huge. I'm guessing an average is c.€650 a car. Higher risk drivers pay way more.

Maybe higher risk drivers pay more, but how many of them actually pay?
I read it's estimated that 6% of drivers in Ireland drive uninsured.
Assuming vast majority of low risk drivers actually pay for their insurance as it's reasonably cheap for them, then probably majority of high risk drivers don't pay and just drive uninsured.
Cost of damage caused by them needs to be covered anyway (by MIBI which is funded from out premiums).
Also having only named drivers to be covered creates huge amount of uninsured driver who just borrow a car from a friend, parent, etc... So many people don't bother adding them to policy, as what's the point in being on the phone with insurer for 30 minutes, paying extra fee of €20 or €30 quid just so that friend can take a car to the other side of the town... Most people just don't bother and drive uninsured.

Now consider that the highest risk drivers don't bother getting their own cover and rely on 3rd party extensions and the like.

Who pays the deficit? The risk hasn't changed after all.

Well I can only compare two system which I know - Polish and Irish.

In Poland virtually every car is insured. It is owner's liability to purchase insurance, and he doesn't have a choice (no matter if he uses the car or not).
If he doesn't have insurance (even for few day) this will be detected and hefty fines will apply. For that reason all policies renew automatically, unless you give notice and purchase one from different insurer.
Also all policies cover everyone to drive.

That way there's virtually not uninsured drivers on the road. If all cars are insured, and every policy covers anyone to drive the car, then there can't be uninsured drivers...

In Ireland, for a change, we don't have obligatory insurance (meaning there's no obligation on vehicle owner to purchase policy), and those who purchase policy need to name drivers who are allowed to drive, so if anyone else drives, then he/she is uninsured.
This created this huge amount of uninsured drivers..

I dont' know and never heard of anyone in Poland driving uninsured (for 25 years living there).
I know personally literally hundres of persons who drove uninsured in Ireland, either one or few times (f.e. driving someone's car) or permanently - and that includes myself.

System is just flawed and needs fixing.

joeysoap

orm0nd wrote: »

the guards here know if the vehicle is insured or not, the issue arises with named drivers (underage or otherwise)

we have a copy of the cert. in each vehicle, most guards will accept it on the spot , if not it's easy to show the original @ the station

Ok, thanks understood.

I don't understand why we are cluttering up our windscreens if the guards can tell if a car is taxed/insured/NCT passed.

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

I wouldn't be for allowing learner permit holder to drive under open driving policies.

Nor I. That'd be silly and dangerous.

But answering the question - yes - even 17 year old full licence holder with very little experience and overly inflated view of their driving abilities should be allowed to drive under open driving policies.
That's how it works in most countries.

Doesn't mean it'd work in Ireland. We have a weighted sytem and very high value claims. A universal 3rd party system would see premiums rise hugely for those who have stived to legally minimise premiums. It won't work, so will never happen.


Maybe higher risk drivers pay more, but how many of them actually pay?
I read it's estimated that 6% of drivers in Ireland drive uninsured.
Assuming vast majority of low risk drivers actually pay for their insurance as it's reasonably cheap for them, then probably majority of high risk drivers don't pay and just drive uninsured.

Guesswork.

Cost of damage caused by them needs to be covered anyway (by MIBI which is funded from out premiums).
Also having only named drivers to be covered creates huge amount of uninsured driver who just borrow a car from a friend, parent, etc... So many people don't bother adding them to policy, as what's the point in being on the phone with insurer for 30 minutes, paying extra fee of €20 or €30 quid just so that friend can take a car to the other side of the town... Most people just don't bother and drive uninsured.

None of that tallies.

Well I can only compare two system which I know - Polish and Irish.
In Poland virtually every car is insured. It is owner's liability to purchase insurance, and he doesn't have a choice (no matter if he uses the car or not).
If he doesn't have insurance (even for few day) this will be detected and hefty fines will apply. For that reason all policies renew automatically, unless you give notice and purchase one from different insurer.
Also all policies cover everyone to drive.

That way there's virtually not uninsured drivers on the road. If all cars are insured, and every policy covers anyone to drive the car, then there can't be uninsured drivers...

In Ireland, for a change, we don't have obligatory insurance (meaning there's no obligation on vehicle owner to purchase policy), and those who purchase policy need to name drivers who are allowed to drive, so if anyone else drives, then he/she is uninsured.
This created this huge amount of uninsured drivers..

Motor insurance is obligatory here.

I dont' know and never heard of anyone in Poland driving uninsured (for 25 years living there).
I know personally literally hundres of persons who drove uninsured in Ireland, either one or few times (f.e. driving someone's car) or permanently - and that includes myself.

The Polish system is irrelevant. As already stated it just won't work here. High claims and costs dictate otherwise.

System is just flawed and needs fixing.

It's far from perfect but it's not unfair. Certain groups pay more and model risks pay less.

If there's a real opportunity in the market someone would rush to fill it and make a profit.

In reality though there's no such gap. We have a high cost system.

The only way to reduce motor premiums is to reduce the cost of claims.