Just been pulled over by the police

Possibly because insurance company gave exposed OP to all kinds of stress because they took her money and failed to do their job properly?

What for?

I've been a drunk young person in a car being driven by a sober young person in the small hours, who got stopped by police. It's understandable why they might stop especially if it looks like it was uninsured. Actually (not applicable to OP) even with a sober driver, having a car full of drunks increases your chance of an accident.

Def complain to insurance co but glad it all got sorted.

This can’t possibly be correct.

I once sat in the back of a police car after breaking down on thd 42. The system flagged up at least a dozen uninsured cars as I sat there. The officer explained to me that they rarely act on the information without other factors because vast majority of the time it’s a glitch on the database or it’s a recetly insured vehicle that hasn’t made it onto the database yet.

you here to take it higher - it’s bullshit

@Outandabout43

https://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk/

You say this is your stuff up, it is having consequences for me, and if you cant do it in 5 days then I will be claiming for a refund of my last 4 months of policy payments, please don’t make me speak to a lawyer about whether or not you’ve failed to provide the service you contracted to, as that is very clear.

I’ve just re read all the updates from the OP and you’re correct. He’s not a named driver on her policy for the vehicle being driven and he’s relying on the driving other cars section of the policy. They still need to check if he was covered third party for his wife’s car as it is from the same household and quite a lot of insurers don’t cover that under DOC. I stand by my final point which is to check what is happening and not for her DH to assume it’s sorted. It’s for him to make sure that he has provided everything, he got the ticket, he needs to check the DOC terms with his insurance company.

No, you can't tell us that, because it's incorrect. OP presented both her own insurance certificate for the vehicle and her husband's insurance certificate.

I think she's mistaken. The offence is driving whilst uninsured, not driving whilst insured but not being on the database.

I've just checked mine and it's showing as not covered, it auto renewed on 8th (cert is on the portal and can see the payment on my cc), so that's a bit rubbish isn't it!

As a police civilian member of staff for 20 years who previously spent a number of years working in traffic prosecutions I can tell you that the person, officer or staff, have been presented with the insurance certificate for the OPs husband’s vehicle which wouldn’t have the registration number on it of the vehicle that they were stopped in when driving. The certificate for the actual car being driven should have been presented also. It might be that their third party cover for other vehicles included their partner’s car but it would be unusual as generally insurance companies don’t cover in those circumstances, you would have a partner as a named driver. By the time the ticket is processed by the force the police national computer may be updated which shows the husband as being covered. Personally I would be getting a certificate from my insurance company showing my husband as a named driver to email or produce at a station. My advice to OP is don’t leave it. As it’s your DH that was given the ticket he needs to check with the dept that processes the tickets that everything is in order else he could either get a summons for no insurance or failing to provide a certificate of insurance.

Nothing will come of this. The car was insured. If there had been an accident the insurance company would have paid out which is the key point.

A clerical error which meant the MID wasn't updated does not invalidate the insurance otherwise everyone who takes a policy out wouldn't be allowed to drive until the MID is updated. And the insurance company would tell you that you mustn't drive until the MID is updated, which they don't. I suspect the person on the desk (likely a civilian rather than police officer) was talking out of their arse.

This is true. It could possibly apply here.

It is a (relatively) common defence on company vehicle insurance issues where the driver wouldn't necessarily have access to insurance details but should be able to trust the employer to take care of that.

She quoted a letter with it written correctly. Then proceeds to misspell it. Again and again

Exactly, you check your certificate, not the database. I’m the person who looks at t&c and I have worked in traffic prosecutions and I’ve never heard of anyone checking the database for their own policy when they take it out.

Check the details yes, but not to go online and check they have done their job correctly by putting it on the database.

Well yeah you obviously check the details of the policy you've bought, especially when you go through comparison sites. I spotted something wrong on mine (my fault). Usually easier with a paper document...

But I've never thought to check this MID database.

The covering letter or email nowadays literally tells you to check that they’re correct. If it’s not the policy holder’s responsibility to check everything is correct then whose is it?

What? This is news to me and I’ve been driving for 30 years.

Sorry I missed one of your posts- if he's a named driver, if you've paid your insurance premium and they haven't told you otherwise the contract is in force. Therefore your insurers will have to agree to cover you and will send you a letter to satisfy the police. Please do not panic, if those conditions are met you'll be fine x

From memory it is defence that you reasonably believed the car was insured. If you had all the documentation from your insurance company that you had a live policy then it would appear fair to argue you did reasonably believe the car was being driven by an insured person.
If the police pursue this I would get some advice from one of the law firms that specialise in motoring offences.

I am going to suffer with paranoia now. I gave them £206 😫