Car seized due to no insurance?

[juice_josh]

hi all, just wondering if you could shed some light onto the following situation.

About 6weeks ago my car wouldnt start, i asked a friend to use his car for about 30mins that night. im fully comp on my own policy and i stupidly presumed i would be third party on his car. Turns out im not! anyway, im just pulling into the side of the road to give my friend his car back when i get stopped by the police, (numberplate light out) they asked all the usual, is it my car? am i insured? which i said yes to because i thought i was, they run it through their computers and ive got no insurance on that car. they take me into the back of the police car followed by more questions. my friend (the owner of the car) is stood right there when its happening and they interview him aswell... now ive been told that they shouldnt have got the recovery to take the car away as my friend was present at the time and he has full insurance on the car....

He had the pay £190 to get the car back which i payed half for.

We both recieved letters the other day with court dates on,, most likely to get a hefty fine and 6 points.

Now if its true that they shouldnt have took the car away, would it stand up in court?

[queensclose]

I did not matter that your friend was their

You was the one caught driving without insurance

 

You could call your insurance company to ask if you were involved in an accident would they have covered you for third party liability

 

I've seen them say yes

Get it in writing then hand a copy to the police

[crem]

I did not matter that your friend was their

You was the one caught driving without insurance

 

I have heard this quoted before queenclose, so know it occurs. However, I do hold the opinion that the police are overstepping the bounds of the offence. The moment the OP stopped driving it, the car once again became correctly insured by the owner's policy who is entitled to park it anywhere (legally) on the highway. Therefore, the car WAS NOT uninsured at the time the police arranged the recovery.

[superg]

Hi

 

I think crem has a good point Were you in the driving seat at the time?. I have seen on tv in the past someone being not insured to drive a car being prosecuted but as the owner of the car was present. the police let him drive the car away but the uninsured driver was fined etc I would always check insurance before driving anyone else's car if you were to watch them programs on tv I am sure you will se what I mean

 

Hope you get it sorted

[raydetinu]

surely with most fully comprehensive policies, and it says it on mine that you are covered to drive another car, that is not in your name, and you WILL be covered for TP risks!

However the car also has to have its own cover taking out by the owner/keeper.

No they shoild not have taken the car as it was insured,with the owner present and I still dont know why you werent? That would not have shown up on the computer if they were just checking your name and the car reg. of course not. that would be on your policy docs.

You need to make a claim against the police, go down to the station and see the duty inspector and seek compensation for their error.

[afcwben]

I was under the impression that even if you are fully comp you are not always allowed to drive another car for example if you are insured fully comp to drive a Fiat Punto would it cover you to drive a Bugatti Veron?

[sailor sam]

My policy (fully comp with max NCB) allows me to drive any other car (other than my own Punto HGT) on a third party basis which is not owned by me. So it wouldn't matter whether it was a Ferrari/Aston Martin etc because my insures wouldn't be paying for any repairs to it if I had an accident.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[hessey50]

there are quite a few changes creeping in to insurance policies many don,t give the 3rd party other vehicle cover now also it used to be possible to get a person with third party policy cover to get a seized vehicle back most policies specifically exclude recovery from pound now

The thinking on the first change may be that while you insure your punto or whatever comp and the other vehicle would be third party only the amount of damage possible say driving an m series could be far greater than you could do in a punto

[twofoot]

Reading with interest. I am an expat in Spain and over here you insure the car, not the person. That way the car is insured for any driver though it does usually mention a minimum age of 25 or 30.

[grahamengineering]

Not convinced you are correct there crem. As the police were investigating the vehicle having a defective number plate light, it would imply the OP was in control of the vehicle at the time. We also dont know how long they had been behind the OP before speaking to her.

 

For instance, if I went out to my car drunk as a lord and put the keys in the ignition, The law considers me to be in control of that vehicle. I could theoritically be done for drink driving.

 

Now yes I think the police were being petty seizing it when the owner who I presume has insurance was there. But they do have the powers to do so.

 

Sorry OP, but ignorance is no defense.

[crem]

Not convinced you are correct there crem. As the police were investigating the vehicle having a defective number plate light, it would imply the OP was in control of the vehicle at the time. We also dont know how long they had been behind the OP before speaking to her.

 

Yes, but to speak to the OP, the police had to get the car to stop. If the OP then steps out of the car, it is instantly and correctly insured by the owner as being a car legally parked on the highway, as the owner is entitled to do. Any incident the car was involved in would involve the owner's insurance company just as it would if he had driven it there. Therefore I would maintain that there was no requiremnt for the police to seize it when the owner was fully insured to either leave it there or drive it home.

[sailor sam]

The situation as i see it is that the OP has comitted the offence of driving without insurance and consiquently will no doubt get 6 points on his licence plus a hefty fine. The car would be seized to ensure that a further offence isn't comitted by the OP. But in this case it appears that the owner of the car was present at the time of the 'stop'. In which case there is no requirement for the car to be seized providing that the owner can satisfy the officers that he has insurance to drive it. It does follow that te owner could be prosecuted for allowing the OP to drive the car while not insured which i believe also carries 6 points.

 

In a nut shell, if the account by the OP is fully correct and the owner WAS present while the police were dealing with the OP, then I believe the owner would have a legitimate claim against the police for the recovery charges. As for the rest of the matter, then it's a fair cop i'm afraid.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

[hessey50]

so if i am driving a car in portsmouth and get stopped for ino insurance but the owner in glascow has cover the minute I get out the car its insured and no offence? Sorry no even if the passenger is the owner and insured but the driver in not its still been driven a moving traffic offence has been committed and the car owner can be reported for prosecution for permitting and the driver has driven while uninsured.

It may be that some officers might chose not to go this route but if they want to they can.

[queensclose]

My policy (fully comp with max NCB) allows me to drive any other car (other than my own Punto HGT) on a third party basis which is not owned by me. So it wouldn't matter whether it was a Ferrari/Aston Martin etc because my insures wouldn't be paying for any repairs to it if I had an accident.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

 

as long as it says so in your policy.

more and more insurers are changing this to as long as the vehicle your driving is insured elsewhere.

 

if the wording in not on your policy then your not insured third party to drive any car any more and more people are being caught out

 

the police should have used common sense and not towed the car. but at the time of the offence you were in charge of the vehicle and not the owner. you got an officer who give the police that bad name

 

but the officer was right you can not just say its his car so you can't take it

 

otherwise most cars would be classed as legally parked under the owners insurance

[crem]

so if i am driving a car in portsmouth and get stopped for ino insurance but the owner in glascow has cover the minute I get out the car its insured and no offence?

 

Of course there is an offence. The offence against the driver would quite correctly be driving without insurance.

 

The point I am making is about the need to seize the vehicle. As far as I am aware this law was brought in to remove uninsured vehicles from the road. But as long as the police have dealt with teh driver and prevented them from continuing to drive, then the vehicle is not an "uninsured vehicle" and therefore there is no requirement for it to be removed from the highway.

[queensclose]

The car is still uninsured after being parked. The uninsured driver is in charge of the vehicle

 

You have no control were it is parked.. It only becomes insured when it's back in your control.

 

If you live in London and your uninsured mate went Manchester parked up and it was stolen. The insurer would not pay out because it was not in your use

[hessey50]

A quick troll round the police police websites will show that most work to the driver has committed offence the car is being seized for this persons uninsured use of car. I suspect that there is an element of making the owner be more careful with the use of the car. These decisions are made by the officer at the time and they are going to be within the forces guidelines, they may not always be seemingly fair but unless you are on site it is difficult to comment. I have seen cases where the car has been Borrowed by partner/son/daughter without knowledge where owner has been allowed to come and collect but then the driver is also up for TWOC and I have seen owner with ins and uninsured driver both given "Ticket" and owner drives away same "facts" and vehicle seized. As with all holders of authority some stick to the letter some apply the law to fit the circumstances but that can happen in both directions and some seemingly similar cases are different in reality.

The purpose of the regs was to cut down on the driving of vehicles while uninsured and the consequences of this the new cont insurance is more targeting getting uninsured vehicles off the road. While a vehicle parked up might have a third party incident its really the moving traffic offences that are targeted

Edited November 18, 2011 by hessey50
addition

[patdavies]

For instance, if I went out to my car drunk as a lord and put the keys in the ignition, The law considers me to be in control of that vehicle. I could theoritically be done for drink driving.

 

Actually, you can be charged and convicted for simply having the keys in your possession.

[hessey50]

The difference is in charge whilst unfit while you can get up to 10 points and or driving ban or a prison sentence these are not mandatory defence is more possible particularly if you can satisfy court no intention to drive

Driving whilst unfit has the mandatory ban