Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Atez

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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 pol
  9. 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.
  10. 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 dr
  • Create New...