car seized - insurance?

[hector-a-go-go]

just for info - Kwik Fit incredibly helpful - admitted their mistake - phoned Police as well - willing to pay for all costs.

As regards the other policy for DOV - was on Commercial policy so not looking so good.

[patdavies]

No it's not. Third party cover only comes into force if the car is also insured. It way say words to the effect - may also drive another car not belonging to him or hired to him as long as that car is insured.

 

My wife's. son's and my cars are all insured with different insurers.

 

None of them requires the non-owned vehicle to have insurance.

 

What matters in this country is that the driver is insured. There is absolutely no requirement in law for a vehicle to be insured

[miniconverter]

The law states that the car must be insured so even if you have cover to drive a car not belonging to you if that car has no insurance you are not insured even if your policy covers it.

 

I know loads of people will disagree and tell me that you can drive so hang on a short while and I will find a link.

[miniconverter]

Link below

 

Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE)

 

This is the important bit but have a look around the internet and you will find more

 

The Road Safety Act became law in November 2006, and introduced a new offence which is aimed at overcoming the problem of vehicles not specifically covered by any insurance policy (even a blanket policy) being used by drivers who claim cover under their “driving other vehicles” extension. The requirement for insurance will apply to vehicles whether they are being driven or not.

[crem]

The detailed enforcement process is under discussion with the Government, and will not be finalised for some time.

 

was it ever finalised?

[mightymouse_69]

 

I know loads of people will disagree and tell me that you can drive so hang on a short while and I will find a link.

 

I disagree

 

The Continuous Insurance Scheme is not due to come into force until 2011.

[miniconverter]

When I log into MID to update vehicles on my policy there used to be a notice about this which confirmed the part relating to driving cars which weren't insured using a dov extension actually was finalised in 2006. As far as I am aware other parts have been finalised at different times and the continuous insurance comes in later this year.

 

My insurance broker mentioned this about 18 months ago but prior to that I had no idea and I think not many people are aware of it.

[Conniff]

Where a motor vehicle isn't used on a road or other public place, there’s no requirement to purchase insurance cover for 'on road risk' as long as a SORN declaration has been made. The continuous insurance enforcement scheme is expected to come into force during 2011.

[mightymouse_69]

While the provisions were laid out in 2006, S.22 of the 2006 Act is not in force yet.

 

S.62 of the act states that:

 

"The preceding provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint (but subject to subsections (7) to (10))."

 

It seems the planned date for S.22 to come into force is sometime in 2011.

[miniconverter]

Where a motor vehicle isn't used on a road or other public place, there’s no requirement to purchase insurance cover for 'on road risk' as long as a SORN declaration has been made. The continuous insurance enforcement scheme is expected to come into force during 2011.

 

Yes I am aware that currently you don't need insurance if the car isn't used but did think the CIE came into effect this year.

 

The point I am making is that part of this is the road safety act 2006 which stops you using the dov extension on an uninsured car.

[mightymouse_69]

 

The point I am making is that part of this is the road safety act 2006 which stops you using the dov extension on an uninsured car.

 

Which is correct, but since the act is not in force, it does not apply to the OP's friends predicament.

[miniconverter]

Road safety act commencement no2 came into force 24th September 2007 I suppose commencement no1 came in before that and 3 after that and 4 is next.

 

The Road Safety Act 2006 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2007 No. 2472 (C. 91)

 

Not going to read it all now but if somebody wants to read it all and clarify the situation it would be helpful to everyone. You will have to do a search for 1 and 3 as I don't have a link.

[Conniff]

Personally I would say that if your certificate says 'may also drive another car not belonging etc;' but nothing about the car having to be insured, then that is a contract with your insurance company and is legit.

 

If it then goes on to say 'as long as the car has insurance etc;' in the policy documents, then the policy has been mis-sold.

[miniconverter]

1 came into force 27th Febuary 2007

2 came into force 24th September 2007

3 came into force 30th July 2008

4 came into force 18th august 2008

5 came in 18th December 2008

[Conniff]

And which is the one that says you must have continuous insurance?

[Raykay]

The different Road Safety Act commencement orders are used to enact the various sections 0f the 2006 act at different times.

 

Section 22, the one dealing with insurance, will be part of a commencement order when it is enacted - expected sometime next year.

[mightymouse_69]

1 came into force 27th Febuary 2007

2 came into force 24th September 2007

3 came into force 30th July 2008

4 came into force 18th august 2008

5 came in 18th December 2008

 

And which is the one that says you must have continuous insurance?

 

None.

 

No.1 concerns S.44 and 52

No.2 concerns S.12, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 41, 43, and limited parts of 30 and 59

No.3 concerns S. 46

No.4 concerns S. 20, 21 and the rest of S.30

No.5 concerns S. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and parts of 59

 

None concern S.22, which covers the continuous insurance scheme.

 

As has been pointed out, this section is expected to come into force next year.

[dragonkeeper]

miniconverter

 

The law states that the car must be insured so even if you have cover to drive a car not belonging to you if that car has no insurance you are not insured even if your policy covers it..

 

I am in agreement with your statement.

 

As this thread is about police seizing the uninsured car,

it matters not what insurance company's state which a lot of poster's have commented on.

 

How may honest car owner's do not hold insurance?,

which means they can only legally park on private property.

 

A car needs insurance just to park on the highway

 

At the time it was siezed the keeper nor owner had a valid policy

(hector's friend has now been able to sort kwik-fit's mess)

therefore police legally siezed car.

 

 

 

 

dk

 

ps; if it was not a legal seizure Kwik-fit would not have covered the costs for hector's friend

Edited July 20, 2010 by dragonkeeper
adding ps;

[Raykay]

It matters a lot what insurance companies say.

 

Miniconverter is under the mistaken impression that s.22 of the Road Safety Act 2006 is now in force - but it is not expected to be until next year.

 

At the moment, if you have DOV insurance cover, and your insurance company do not require that the other vehicle has other insurance, then you are covered to drive it.

 

In the original post, due to an apparent mix up with the owners insurance and possibly no DOV cover for the person driving, the action by the police may well be correct.

[mightymouse_69]

miniconverter

 

The law states that the car must be insured so even if you have cover to drive a car not belonging to you if that car has no insurance you are not insured even if your policy covers it..

 

 

I am in agreement with your statement.

 

 

Maybe you could point out what law says this?

[dragonkeeper]

If what a lot of poster's are stating then OP's friend would surely be able to sue police for wrongful siezure.

 

As I have not read and digested s.22 of the Road Safety Act 2006, I will not offer any opinion of said act.

I was merely agreeing with highlighted portion of miniconverter's statement.

 

 

 

 

dk

[mightymouse_69]

If what a lot of poster's are stating then OP's friend would surely be able to sue police for wrongful siezure.

 

Possibly, that is another matter.

 

It would depend initially on what the drivers insurance policy states.

 

As I have not read and digested s.22 of the Road Safety Act 2006, I will not offer any opinion of said act.

I was merely agreeing with highlighted portion of miniconverter's statement.

 

 

 

 

dk

 

Unfortunately, the statement you are agreeing with is wrong in law.

[dragonkeeper]

mightymouse 69

 

If the statement is wrong then I stand corrected.

 

I shall try and get further advice, ( as you gather I thought that I was correct)

 

 

 

 

dk

[patdavies]

If what a lot of poster's are stating then OP's friend would surely be able to sue police for wrongful siezure.

 

 

No.

 

For the simple reason that the enabling Act only requires the seizing officer "to have reasonable belief" that the vehicle is uninsured.

[dragonkeeper]

What matters in this country is that the driver is insured. There is absolutely no requirement in law for a vehicle to be insured

This is one of the posts that I was refering to (among others) by my quote below

 

If what a lot of poster's are stating then OP's friend would surely be able to sue police for wrongful siezure.

 

:-? :-? poster's answer in response quoted below

No.

 

For the simple reason that the enabling Act only requires the seizing officer "to have reasonable belief" that the vehicle is uninsured.

 

Surely both patdavies quotes cannot exist side by side? :idea:

 

 

I shall try and get further advice,

 

Since my last post (partly quoted above) I have not obtained further advice

 

 

 

dk