After reading the Pryor v Greater Manchester Police Case I don't believe it is all the fault of Tradex but equally the fault of the police.

Excellent link thank you. I will be forwarding this to the Police Legal team and see what they have to say about that, as it's almost the same principle that our car was impounded. The only difference being the officer couldn't telephone the insurance company at the time because it was Sunday afternoon.

The case was dropped/cancelled the very next morning when they spoke directly to the insurance company. Anyway, a nice phone call to the Brokers today revealed that they sent Tradex an email will ALL of the vehicles required to be put on the MID list, so it was Tradex who failed to put the vehicle on there. Tradex will now be refunding the pound fee. Happy Days! Thank you to everyone who inputted on this subject, you've been extremely helpful.

I hear what you are saying and agree to a certain extent. The issue with the officer was with the driver at the end of it, as he could see I was insured to drive the car as the car was actually in my name so no crime was going to be committed. The offence now, where the officer was concerned was that he thought the original driver he stopped was not covered to drive the car, and yes you're right in saying he could not let the driver continue to drive the vehicle for safety reasons. The offence had still been committed by the driver in the eyes of the officer, so the summons could still be carried out without having to impound the car. It's not as if the car was at fault, do you see where I'm coming from?

So the insurance documents account for nothing? What is the point of having them then if the police can read what they want into them?

It wasn't myself that was stopped, it was one of the other named drivers, and when I drove the documents down to where he pulled him over I even said to the officer that you can clearly see that I am insured to drive the car, so let me drive it home. He agreed that I was insured but still wouldn't let me drive the vehicle home.

Forgot to say. Ideally the vehicle should have been on the MID but at the end of the day, the insurance covered us to drive it whether or not it was on the list.

Okay I understand some of the points made. So here is the full story..... When we took out the Trade insurance, we were told (and it's backed up in the policy documents) that we were covered to drive ANY car whether it's in our name or not. This is because if we purchase a vehicle at an auction and have to drive it back, obviously not enough time to put on the MID. But also, if we only have a vehicle for a short period of time because it has been sold on. The majority of vehicles that we only have on the MID are our own personal vehicles or vehicles that are taking longer to sell. The policy also allows us to drive for Social, Domestic & Pleasure. The vehicle and driver stopped was fully legal (mot, tax, drivers licence etc) and the vehicle was originally on the MID list due to it being in our possession for some time. However, the insurance brokers arranged for us to swap over to another insurance company (Tradex) so we could also be insured for motorbikes. When the broker swapped the list of vehicles onto the new insurance MID list they somehow left out this vehicle and one other, but remember we were still covered to drive any vehicle on or off the MID list. The insurance documents state who is allowed to drive and for what reasons, i.e for business purposes and personal SD&P. The only thing the driver was not insured for was HIS OWN personal vehicles, he was insured to drive OUR Personal vehicles, and this is where the police officer got it wrong. He kept saying that because the vehicle was registered in our name (could be classed as personal) then he was not insured to drive our personal vehicle. The insurance company even confirmed the very next day that the officer read it wrong. I even showed the documents to another police officer at the station and he read it correctly and said it read clearly to him, so didn't know how the other officer got it so wrong.

Thank you for reassuring me to take this matter further. Our policy allows us to drive any vehicle without the actual vehicle being insured itself.

We have motor trade insurance, with three named drivers on the policy to drive any vehicle. The police pulled one of our vehicles over as it didn't show up on the MID. It was explained that it was covered under the policy and I even drove down to meet the officer and gave him the insurance papers. The police officer misunderstood the policy and said the driver was not allowed to drive the vehicle but I was allowed, but he still ordered a tow vehicle and impounded the car. We got our insurance company to speak directly to the police the very next morning to say the driver was covered to drive the car. It cost us £170 to get the car released from the pound and I have contacted the police legal team to claim reimbursement for this amount. Their legal team have come back with, 'The police officer was in belief that the driver was uninsured and therefore right in impounding the vehicle, therefore they deny liability whatsoever in respect of reimbursement of any fees'. They also lied in saying we did not provide evidence of the driver being insured at the time of being stopped, which we did and we have another witness to prove that. I am so angry because we have not committed any crime, yet they are treating us like criminals and charging us for it.