Toom Tabard  wrote:

> That's my reading anyway of the relevant sections of RTA 1988. There
> does seem to be a requirement to, if necessary, produce a certificate
> over which he may have 'no control',

An example would be if this were a company car insured by his employer.
The OP would then have to produce his employer's CoI, over which he has
no control.

In this instance I suspect that the OP's report of events isn't quite as
verbatim as it could be. It would seem reasonable for the police to ask
for his CoI, then to point out that it doesn't cover his brother and to
ask for the OP to provide a valid CoI or face prosecution. They may then
have suggested that the brother's CoI which OP says brother holds would
be acceptable.

I don't think that the police are forcing the OP to produce a
certificate over which he has no control. Indeed it seems like htye have
helpfully suggested the route that will bring this to an end with least
disruption to the OP's equanimity.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> > An example would be if this were a company car insured by his employer.
> > The OP would then have to produce his employer's CoI, over which he has
> > no control.
> 
> Plenty of control.
> 
> "Hello, Mrs Company Car Lady? I need a copy of the insurance, I've been
> given a producer. Thanks."

Yes but the CoI is not under his control, it's under the company's
control.

"Adrian"  wrote in message 
news:6jpaurF4e5lmU1@mid.individual.net...
> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
>
>>> > An example would be if this were a company car insured by his
>>> > employer. The OP would then have to produce his employer's CoI, over
>>> > which he has no control.
>
>>> Plenty of control.
>>>
>>> "Hello, Mrs Company Car Lady? I need a copy of the insurance, I've been
>>> given a producer. Thanks."
>
>> Yes but the CoI is not under his control, it's under the company's
>> control.
>
> Sure, but he doesn't have "no control" - he has limited control, in that
> he can easily get hold of a copy to produce.
But he can't oblige the company to supply the CoI.

Adrian  wrote:

> %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying:
> 
> >> > An example would be if this were a company car insured by his
> >> > employer. The OP would then have to produce his employer's CoI, over
> >> > which he has no control.
> 
> >> Plenty of control.
> >> 
> >> "Hello, Mrs Company Car Lady? I need a copy of the insurance, I've been
> >> given a producer. Thanks."
> 
> > Yes but the CoI is not under his control, it's under the company's
> > control.
> 
> Sure, but he doesn't have "no control" - he has limited control, in that
> he can easily get hold of a copy to produce.

But he has no control over the company being willing to prodice that
certificate in the time permitted nor even over whether the company
properly insure him. He does however have statutory defences available
because the law recognises his lack of control.