Hi, does anyone out there know whether the police contact your insurance company when you present your documents to them?  (Want to point out I am asking this for a friend - of course )

Why would it matter?  Does your "friend" have something on those documents that he/she has not told the insurance company in which case "they" ;) could well find their insurance void if it came to a claim.

No, they do not have anything they have not told the insurance company.  We were wondering though whether the police actually checked whether insurance documents were legitimate or whether they just took your documents at face value.

everytime ive had a producer they just glance at the documents and hand them back.

I expect they check it out if they have any reason to suspect they are not genuine.  If they are what's the worry?

My OH reckons they do take the details down.  Even then though, it wouldn't mean they actually check the documents with the insurance company would it?

If the doc's are kosher, why does it matter?

Dawn R.

I think they do write something down, not much though cos it doesnt take long.

The point I am trying to ask is whether the police actually CHECK with the insurance company or just accept that someones documents are Kosher as you put it.

I think you can safely assume if they have any suspicions they will check it out otherwise what is the point in asking you to present them in the first place.

And the point I'm trying to make is, this is just not an issue, not worth even wasting time thinking about........unless there is something to hide. It's of no importance at all.

Dawn R.

Your friend is beginning to sound a teensy bit dodgy.  Are you sure you want to assist them in this? :)

Right the story is that he was driving home and had an accident (no other vehicle involved but his car was damaged).  The police came to his house and got in through the back door because they said they believed he may have been injured in the accident.  He had not been injured but had been drinking (only one before he drove home and then some more indoors).  The police are now saying they might charge him with drink-driving. He is worried that his insurance will be void if the police notify his insurance when he presents his documents.  He has not been charged with anything yet.

It will only affect his insurance if found guilty. 

Yes, but can he get his car fixed on his insurance beforehand and if he does and is then found guilty (even though he isn't) would the insurance claim the money back?

If I was him I would get the car fixed now through the insurance, by the time it goes to court it will all be paid for and really he wouldnt have to inform his insurance company that he was found guilty as he would lose his license so could just cancel the insurance (although might have to keep it running for a little while if he has made a claim, depends how he pays his premiums.

That's what I was trying to ask - would the police inform the insurance company?

You are obliged to tell the insurance company yourself if you loose your licence, not to do so would be rather stupid.

Isabel why are you determined to see a sinister side to all of this?  It is not a question of whether he loses his licence, but whether he would be likely to be asked to pay any money back to the insurance company if he is subsequently found guilty of drink-driving.  As ClaireS says he could get the car fixed before he even gets charged with anything, but what he wants to know is - if he is later found guilty of drink-driving (even though he wasn't!) would his insurance company want the money back? He could just get the car repaired, sell it and then cancel his insurance.

Edit: the thing is that after getting home he continued drinking and when the police came into his house he was taken to the police station and breathalysed - by which time he was over the limit.  Personally I don't see how they can say he was drink-driving! He can't really prove though that he was not over the limit when he got home.

These are different questions to the ones you have been asking.  I don't know if the insurance company would ask for the money back I only know that you are obliged to tell your insurance company of any changes that affect cover which would definately include loosing your licence so it really doesn't matter if the police tell them or not.  Insurance companies certainly exchange information so if he is thinking he will not say anything until he takes out new insurance on getting his licence back he would find himself in serious trouble.  Honesty is always the best policy :)

I totally agree honesty is the best policy, however knowing how insurance companies are he doesn't want to ring and say the police might charge him for drink driving when he knows he wasn't.  He also doesn't want the police to say that to the insurance company - especially if he gets found innocent.  I don't really think it is fair that the police went into his house and accused him of drink driving!.  The questions I have asked have been to get to the same information - will the police tell the insurance company? before he is even charged? and will the insurance company want money back if he is found guilty but has had the repairs done.

He does not need to worry about the insurance company being told that he has presented his documents as long as he is not found guilty as it would make no difference to his cover.  I don't know if they would want the money back though if he was.
Unfortunately for him the "Hip Flask Defence" is a very common one :)  If you run a search on Google you will see that since 1988 it is down to him to prove he drank afterwards in addition it would appear that blood, urine and even the evidential breath tests carried out in the station can determine how long ago the levels of alcohol were reached.

That's interesting about the machines being able to determine how long ago the levels of alcohol were reached.  I would have thought that due to individual differences and the factors of whether food had been eaten, etc that would be very difficult to determine. That should be good news for him though. I don't really see how he can prove he was drinking afterwards though

Here's a whole load of science about it.
It is hard to prove you were drinking after you would think most people would have the sense not to drink anymore when they have had an accident but then the best thing to do is never have even one drink when you are driving :)

Thanks for the info.  Even if he had not had one drink before driving that would make no difference if he then went on to drink at home.  Unfortunately he does like a drink, as do some others when he is stressed (as after an accident). I agree though it would have been more sensible not to.

As far as I'm aware the Police would only check so far that the insurance was valid.  They would not inform the insurance company of a possible pending prosecution.

Your friend would have to notify their insurance company if they were prosecuted as this would affect the insurance.

As to whether or not the insurance company would ask for the money back - that would depend on the wording in your friends policy.  Different insurance companies have different ways of dealing with these kind of things.

I can tell you that he will more than likely loose his license. My uncle had had 1 can of cider with some work friends before travelling home. on the way he got a puncture pulled over on dual carraigeway to change the wheel. Police stopped to see if everything was alright, also just breathalised him whilst there and found to be just over the limit just from 1 can! This then went to court and he lost his license for 3 years with a massive fine...

who told the police of the accident in the first place? I was in an accident after I first passed my test (only car involved) and the police never once came to my door and the car was a complete write off!! I don't understand unless I am missing something? I was very lucky to escape unhurt.

hope everything turns out alright for your friend

Emz you are not obliged to inform the police of any car accident unless it involves injury to others or domestic animals.

If the police investigated every accident anyone ever had they would never do anything else. ;)

There are two law systems in this country, civil and criminal.  If the driver had been drink driving he has broken the law and will be punished through the courts via penalty points, disqualification, imprisonment, fines and/or community service depending on the individual case.

Insurance exists to protect the driver (and others) from liability to/from claims etc.  Liability and coverage depend a) on the policy and b) on "blame" so for example if your car was stolen because you left your keys in it, the insurance company will not pay out!

Apparently there was a witness to the accident.  Also the number plate came off the car at the accident and that is how the police were involved.  They said they were concerned he was hurt and that is why they went into his house.  I still think its wrong that he might be prosecuted for drink driving when he actually was not over the limit while driving. The worst thing is if they do prosecute him the insurance will want any costs back.

What really gets me is that when our brand new car was stolen and house burgled at New Year, the police arrived 7 hours later and we have never heard anything at all since!!

The DVLA now hold Insurance details of all cars This is how the police are able to take uninsured cars off the road under their new seizure powers They really shouldn't need to see the docs anymore same with the MOT/driving licence all they should need is proof of ID

I hope they are able to determine he was not over the limit although I actually disagree with taking any alcohol when driving as it seems daft to me to deliberately take anything that reduces your capabilities even within what the law permits.  I don't think we can critisise the police, though, for being on the ball and investigating, drink drivers do kill people after all so it's a very serious matter.

BUT Isabel he had not taken anything that reduced his capabilities!!!

I thought you said he had one drink.  We do not suddenly become incapable at the limit permitted in law, it is a descending graph best not entered on to in my opinion. 

By the same token, one drink does not necessarily reduce your capabilities.  Everyones metabolism processes alcohol differently.  The limit permitted in law is the amount of alcohol that would have virtually no effect on capabilities on the majority of people.

I thought recent tests had shown that even a single drink affects reaction times?

Back in the early days of breath tests A very close friend of mine was killed by a driver who had had one half pint of beer It was enough to slow his reactions & observations at a roundabout & after hitting the kerb at slightly over the speed limit he lost control & spun round hitting my friend who was on the pavement killing her & her unborn baby outright. The driver was tested & found to be well under the limit

I'm a get believer in zero alcohol as in several countries

So would I MM, but I understand it is difficult to admininster due to all the possible extranious causes although I don't know if that is improving with forensic advances.  What I would like to see, though, is campaign to push the notion that not drinking when you drive is not just about avoiding falling foul of the law and that drinking anything when driving is antisocial and irresponsible.

I am very sorry to hear about your friend Moonmaiden and I agree that drinking and driving is a very bad thing.  Who is to say however that it was the alcohol that slowed his reaction.  It could simply have been a moment of carelessness or distraction amongst other things.

It has actually been tested & shown that alcohol along with other drugs does affect reaction & perception I cannot remember which of the countries the extensive study was done in, but I think it was Japan This might be of interest

The only safe way is simply to say don't drink & drive period

I agree!  I actually carried out an experiment into alcohol effects on perception when I was at Uni.  What I was trying to say is that it affects everyone to a varyiing degree and in different ways.  Also, many other factors contribute to ones reaction times and perception, etc.  For example I only drink decaff. coffee because I found any other keeps me awake at night.  If I now drink caffeinated coffee it affects me even more.  So if I find the effect so pronounced, does that mean that someone who always drinks caffeinated coffee and then goes without it shouldn't drive because they do not have their usual level of stimulation?

I don't think you are right to presume restlessness means improved reactions except perhaps in those whose is impaired by tiredness.  Ordinary alert people would not be affected either way.  Even if it was two wrong don't make a right, choosing to take alcohol is an option not a requirement.

Isabel I did not say 'restlessness means improved reactions'.  Stimulation however usually does improve reactions. 'Ordinary alert people' ARE affected by stimulants.
'choosing to take alcohol is an option not a requirement' - as is choosing to have a late night and driving the next day.

Where are the 'two wrongs'?  It is still legal to have one drink before driving or do you think because you do not agree that makes it wrong?

I will just have to disagree with you then because I do not believe stimulants improve the reactions of fully alert people only those who are suffering from tiredness. I certainly think it is stretching it a bit to suggest fully alert people ought to take stimulants to try to improve their reactions.

>as is choosing to have a late night and driving the next day

I haven't disagreed with that, I think that too should be avoided that is one of the two wrongs I was talking about.
It may be legal to drink up to the limit but I continue to believe, personally, that it is antisocial and irresponsible and never necessary.

I certainly think it is stretching it a bit to suggest fully alert people ought to take stimulants to try to improve their reactions.

Did I suggest that?  I don't know where.

never necessary

I can't believe anyone would ever consider drinking alcohol (to the limit or otherwise) necessary.

You asked if people not drinking coffe should not drive.
If you agree that drinking is not necessary you will understand why I think you should not do it at all if you are driving.

You are missing the point Isabel. I was using that example to illustrate a point.

I certainly think it is stretching it a bit to suggest fully alert people ought to take stimulants to try to improve their reactions

you still have not shown where I suggested this?

Why does it follow that because I agree that drinking is not necessary that I will understand why you think people should not do it at all if driving?  I cannot see why. If people eat a large meal that slows down their reaction times, but what are you going to do - ban people from driving after eating?  Very soon you will not allow people to drive at all.

>you still have not shown where I suggested this?

I thought I had :)
You are right eating large meals are best avoided too.
Going right back to what I said right at the beginning I don't think people should drink at all when driving because as soon as they do they start on that graph of deminishing responses leading to a level of responsiveness that is regarded as inadequate by law.  As we both agree now that drinking before driving is not necessary it is logical to me that it would be seen that any impairment can be easily avoided by not doing so.  The fact that is is unnecessary leaves no excuse for doing it in my eyes.

I was always told that giving strong coffee to a drunk didn't sober him up - you only got a wide-awake drunk! He was still incapable of driving safely, but could keep doing it for longer before he passed out.

I was always told that giving strong coffee to a drunk didn't sober him up

We seem to be going off on a tangent here - I never mentioned giving coffee to a drunk I was merely using caffeine as an example.

Woah on the one drink theory. It is not safe to assume that you are safe, or under the limit, after one drink. It depends on your body size, what you have eaten, when you had your last drink prior to this one, what medication you may have taken, so never ever think that just one drink is safe. if you are not used to alcohol, or are drinking on an empty stomach, that one drink and drive home could well make you whoosy enough to lose control, or momentary concentration, which could result in a fatal rta.