Please Help How To Get Car Out Of Compound???

[Dusty2706]

Hi All,

 

I have had a good look around and cannot find a similar thread, so apologies if something similar is posted.

 

My Girlfriend's car has been seized she is on a provisional license and is insured, her son took her car out without her knowledge and got caught by Police his license is revoked and therefore the car has been seized.

 

She now has to get a Fully Comp driver to go with her to bring the car home and pay the charges. This is where we are having problems all of our friends and family have either 3rd Party insurance or have a clause on their insurance stating they cannot collect cars from police compounds, we have exhausted all options. I have tried to call the Police but I was on the phone for an hour trying to speak to Merseyside Police and could not get an answer. Meanwhile the compound charges mount up!

 

Is there any way around this? I was thinking about maybe towing the car but would someone still have to be in control of our vehicle?

 

Please Please help!!!!

[Mossycat]

There is NO compulsion on your partner to get fully comprehensive insurance, as long as you have at least third party insurance (usually sold with fire and theft) then you can legally drive the car.

 

The sticking point is because your partner is on a provisional licence which means that she would need to be accompanied by a full licence holder.

 

Providing she has this basic level of cover and is accompanied by a full licence holder then they are obliged to release the car, there is no legal reason to hold the car for comprehensive cover to be obtained, if they wont release it when this is presented then they are responsible for the storage charges that accrue after that and you would have a case against them for loss of use.

 

Incidentally any of your friends who hold an insurance policy for another car are usually insured to drive any other vehicle that does not belong to them (it's limited cover but sufficient for the Road Traffic Act), so get them to take their insurance along ( even if they had comprehensive insurance on their own car the cover afforded to them whilst driving your partners would be the same as if they only had third party fire and theft on their own car).

 

Post back with what happens

 

Mossy

[Dusty2706]

First of all thank you for replying so quickly, they are not saying that she has to be comprehensively insured. What the Police have told us is that she can drive the car out of the compound but only under the supervision of someone who has been driving for more than three years and has fully comp insurance and without the clause about taking a car out of a compound. Are they incorrect in telling her that?

[Mossycat]

NO, to my knowledge, they are not correct in insisting that the person has fully comp insurance, as long as the other person's insurance allows them to drive another car, which most third party policies allow (Driving Other Vehicles Extension).

 

Regardless of whether the other person is insured comprehensive or third party the only cover that would be extended to the other car (in this case your car) would be on a third party basis, so it matters not what level of cover they hold on their own car.

 

My expertise is on motor claims, so maybe someone more up on undersriting can advise different, but that's my understanding.

 

Mossy

 

MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA IF THE MODS MOVED THIS POST TO THE INSURANCE FORUM

[patdavies]

I don't understand why the supervisor requires any motor insurance?

 

The owner of the vehicle is insured to use the vehicle provided she complies with the terms of her licence. Those terms require an appropriately qualified supervisor.

 

I understand that the supervisor may require insurance if he/she takes over the driving of the vehicle in the driving seat - but only then. That is nothing to do with releasing the vehicle from a pound.

 

On another tack, most insurance is not voided by a revoked licence - only disqualification or not holding in the first place.

 

The relevant wording in most policies is

Provided the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence

[dx100uk]

yep, i'd go with the too pat.

if the son still has insurance, then there is nothing to stop him being in the passenger seat when she collects it , and she drives it out. revocation does not normally revoke the insurance policy of said person.

 

 

dx

[lamma]

a revoked driver can't accompany the learner can they. the person in the passenger seat had to be qualified - son is disqualified. any qualified driver will do.

[dx100uk]

doh! well it is late!

 

dx

[patdavies]

a revoked driver can't accompany the learner can they. the person in the passenger seat had to be qualified - son is disqualified. any qualified driver will do.

 

To be pedantic - because it is different. He is not disqualified, he is revoked. A disqualified driver would not be insured to drive under DOC; a revoked driver usually is insured.

 

However, you are correct that he cannot be a supervisor - and if he was revoked under the New Drivers Act, he could never have been as he hadn't held his licence for the requisite time.

[Mossycat]

My understanding is that the supervisor of the driver is required to have insurance in place incase they have to take over control of the actual car they are supervising, or am I wrong in my thinking????

 

Mossy

[lamma]

is there a legislative reference to that ?

[patdavies]

My understanding is that the supervisor of the driver is required to have insurance in place incase they have to take over control of the actual car they are supervising, or am I wrong in my thinking????

 

Mossy

 

Even if this were true, it doesn't relate to getting the vehicle released from the Police pound.

 

Nothing on this page about the supervisor needing to hold insurance of any sort.

 

The RTA only requires the person using the vehicle to be insured to do so.

 

OP, I would ask the Police for details of which law provides for their demand.

Edited October 2, 2008 by patdavies

[patdavies]

is there a legislative reference to that ?

 

Sorry lamma, was that aimed at Mossycat or me?

[lamma]

apologies returned. mossycat - but anyone who knows !

[Mossycat]

You could well be right lamma, my expertise is in motor claims.

 

It just seemed logical to me that the person supervising the learner driver should be insured to drive the car, either on the policy that relates to the actual car OR under the DOV extension of their own policy in case they had to physically take control of the car.

 

To that end it matters not if they have a comprehensive policy or a third party policy.

 

Mossy

[lamma]

you could say the same about any passenger. and the accompanying driver as you would have to have other driver cover under the policy holders cover or a VERY expensive any vehicle policy of their own. I just can't see this standing up as a legal requirement. but you never know, we have loads of laws don't we - hence my question re statute.

[Mossycat]

lamma - When I originally said it was 'my understanding' that was what I meant. I never said there was a statute hence why I asked if I was wrong.

 

I don't see why you seem to think it would be a VERY expensive option, I am not suggesting that the supervisor requires an 'any vehicle' policy I am saying that nearly all policies have a DOV (Driving Other Vehicles) extension inherent in them.

 

Mossy

[lamma]

agreed. just covering the bases.

[crem]

My understanding is that the supervisor of the driver is required to have insurance in place incase they have to take over control of the actual car they are supervising, or am I wrong in my thinking????

 

Mossy

 

The reference info on this ROSPA page would agree with you Mossycat

 

Helping Learner Drivers : The Law : For the Supervising Driver

 

Detail:-

The supervising driver must

 

• be at least 21 years old
  
• have a full driving licence (for the type of vehicle they are supervising in - manual or automatic), which must have been held for a minimum of three years.
  
• be insured to drive the vehicle and to have placed the learner driver on the insurance policy
  

However, as has been mentioned here I think, if you have a DOV extention to your own policy I see no reason why that does not meet the legal requirement to supervise a learner in their own car if they already have insurance for that car also.

[patdavies]

The reference info on this ROSPA page would agree with you Mossycat

 

Helping Learner Drivers : The Law : For the Supervising Driver

 

Detail:-

The supervising driver must

 

• be at least 21 years old
  
• have a full driving licence (for the type of vehicle they are supervising in - manual or automatic), which must have been held for a minimum of three years.
  
• be insured to drive the vehicle and to have placed the learner driver on the insurance policy
  

However, as has been mentioned here I think, if you have a DOV extention to your own policy I see no reason why that does not meet the legal requirement to supervise a learner in their own car if they already have insurance for that car also.

 

I think you are taking that out of context and that the whole sentence applies to using the supervising drives vehicle - rather then the learner's own. As in that case, the learner does need to be placed on the inusrance policy - they already 'own' the policy.

 

Note that the ROSPA site goes on to say this

Insurance

Make sure that your car insurance policy includes the learner. Take note of any restrictions.

thus further implying that they are referring to the learner using other then his/her own car.

 

There is no legal requirement for the supervisor to be insured, unless he/she is going to drive the vehicle.

[gwc1000]

There is no legal requirement for the supervisor to be insured, unless he/she is going to drive the vehicle.

 

I agree. A few months ago I lost an argument over this. I searched everywhere for a law that states that a supervisor must be insured in a vehicle that a learner is driving, and I couldn't find one anywhere.

Mind you, if someone can point me in the right direction, I could be pressing the refund button.

[amanda barrett]

hi guys

my husbands car got seized by police and believe me it took me 8 days and 8 visits to police station and 11 hours in total vista to get car back 99.9 percent of insurers Won't pretty get car out police know this love this as easy money making , I would not let police beat me so kept fighting went on net found an amazing car insurance company called e car insurance which guarantees your car back from compound almost immediately , do it on line pay first payment take e mail to police and you win ., bonus is you can cancels policy after one month .

this is a great way .

hope this helps

Amanda

[caro]

Thanks for the info amanda. Has your husband actually cancelled the policy yet, as it seems that some people have had problems with this?

 

Also they have a high refusal rate and charge £75 even if they don't insure. They're so bad they're under investigation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15640340

[amanda barrett]

hi no they do not take any money from you till confirmed and its a pay as you go insurance so cancel after first month with no charges I have spoken to them as I only took a pay as you go month insurance got car out within 2 hours , it is internet based company but I can cancel free after 28 days. Hope this helps

Amanda

[amanda barrett]

all I know is we got car back and only took out month insurance with them no money up front till confirmed to get car out compound and win police was joy I have no problems with them at all and never paid upfront or rejected

hope this helps

amanda