Car seized by police for being incorrectly insured?

[renegadeimp]

This thread makes me chuckle. No matter what policy you have on your car, it MUST have a clause that covers you for the journey you were undertaking at the time of the stop. No if's, no ands, no buts. If you are not covered for that journey, then the police will stop you, take your car, and you will have to pay to get it back.

 

In the OP's case, the police stopped a vehicle that was flagged on ANPR, or a random check. The police contacted the insurer, explained the situation, and the insurer stated that the policy did not cover the driver for the journey in question. Therefore the police had no choice but to take the vehicle as is law.

 

Stop looking for silly arguments to wriggle out of it. if you are so sure of a random law that you think every other uninsured person has missed since the law was introduced, then go to court and argue your case.

 

End of story.

[unclebulgaria67]

This thread makes me chuckle. No matter what policy you have on your car, it MUST have a clause that covers you for the journey you were undertaking at the time of the stop. No if's, no ands, no buts. If you are not covered for that journey, then the police will stop you, take your car, and you will have to pay to get it back.

 

End of story.

 

I don't know why there is such an argument. It is quite simple. It is up to the Insurance company concerned to confirm whether the policy provided cover for this journey or not. If they confirm that the vehicle was insured for this journey the OP can go to Magistrates confirming that he had Insurance.

 

It is for the Insurance company to confirm Insurance in place and not for the Police.

[CrappoMan]

You obviously haven't read S151, or you would know that it doesn't apply to UNINSURED drivers, it applies to people who hold a motor vehicle insurance certificate that HASNT BEEN CANCELLED.

[green_and_mean]

You obviously haven't read S151, or you would know that it doesn't apply to UNINSURED drivers, it applies to people who hold a motor vehicle insurance certificate that HASNT BEEN CANCELLED.

 

I never mentioned uninsured drivers? Sect 143 states that you must have a valid policy for 3rd party cover, just because insurers have a statutary duty to pay out for 3rd party claims doesn't mean you have a valid policy. If that were the case we could all just take out a policy cancel after one month and have 11 months free 3rd party cover.

[CrappoMan]

Now you're being ridiculous, if you cancel a policy after 1 month, ITS A CANCELLED POLICY! and S151 doesn't apply.

 

If the policy has been cancelled, then you don't have a policy in force.

[unclebulgaria67]

This is becoming an argument, where it is purely about who makes the last comment. Just agree that you have a difference of opinion and move on.

 

It is up to the OP to choose what they want to do now. They have the information they need.

[green_and_mean]

Now you're being ridiculous, if you cancel a policy after 1 month, ITS A CANCELLED POLICY! and S151 doesn't apply.

 

If the policy has been cancelled, then you don't have a policy in force.

 

I think you need to read sect 151 again! Section 151 deals with the certificate NOT the policy, the act states that if you have a certificate of insurance that has not expired the company that issued the certificate is liable for 3rd party claims. That is why most sensible companies that cancel will ask for the certificate back. That is why the section does not satify the need for insurance as you must have a valid policy not an unexpired certificate.

[CrappoMan]

This will be my last comment as per unclebulgaria67's request.

 

The word 'certificate' is only mentioned twice, in S151(1) and S151(2)(a). Only those 2 para's deal with the certificate.

 

The word 'policy' is mentioned 20 (TWENTY) times, it is in every para. except (4) and (10). (4) deals with being carried in a stolen or TWOC'd car. (10) deals with Scotland.

 

The whole of S151 never mentions 'expired' certificates. It does however mention 'cancelled' or 'voided'. It deals with policies that the insurer is entitled (not obliged) to cancel or void (e.g: when used for commuting!), saying that they can't use the breach of terms (commuting) to avoid paying out on the policy. They can however cancel the policy from the point of the breach forward (not retrospectively).

 

If the policy is not cancelled (in the OP's case the insurer confirmed it wasn't cancelled), it is still in force and satisfies S143.

[JoeyJoeC]

In the future: you're not on your way to work, you're on your way to meet a friend.

[JoeyJoeC]

Also just a thought, why don't they seize your car for speeding? Your insurance is technically void if you break any road laws..

[green_and_mean]

In the future: you're not on your way to work, you're on your way to meet a friend.

 

Lets just hope of he does run anyone over while under insured its one of your family not mine!!

[JoeyJoeC]

If someone in my family got run over, their insurance status would be the last of my worries. There really isn't any difference to whether your commuting or driving during rush hour. It's not going to stop anyone getting run other either way is it?

 

Edit: Would rather they still said they were on their way to meet a friend so the insurance still covered them. Really, your comment makes little sense.

 

Further Edit: If someone hit my family member, it would either be the fault of my family member for walking in front of a car, or the driver was at fault speeding, drunk etc, which also will void insurance. So what difference does it make?

 

I hope one of your family members doesn't walk out in front of my car on my commute home.

[green_and_mean]

If someone in my family got run over, their insurance status would be the last of my worries. There really isn't any difference to whether your commuting or driving during rush hour. It's not going to stop anyone getting run other either way is it?

 

Edit: Would rather they still said they were on their way to meet a friend so the insurance still covered them. Really, your comment makes little sense.

 

Further Edit: If someone hit my family member, it would either be the fault of my family member for walking in front of a car, or the driver was at fault speeding, drunk etc, which also will void insurance. So what difference does it make?

 

I hope one of your family members doesn't walk out in front of my car on my commute home.

 

What you say and what you are doing are two completely different things, you are insured for what you are actually doing not what you later claim you were doing. If you ran a child over at 9am on a monday morning and they needed a few hundred thousand £'s of care do you really think the insurer isn't going to make enquiries? I do not think the purpose of this board is to advise people to lie to avoid getting the correct insurance.

[renegadeimp]

Are people really advocating potentially criminal acts, simply to avoid a ticket? Wow. Just get insured properly or buy a bike.

[CrappoMan]

Also just a thought, why don't they seize your car for speeding? Your insurance is technically void if you break any road laws..

 

This is a common misconception. Your insurance isn't voided or cancelled by committing criminal acts, or doing something against the terms of the insurance. Drink drivers aren't charged with an IN10 'No Insurance' offence.

 

Your insurer may be entitled to cancel or void your policy, but thanks to S151, any third party claims would still be allowed, so you are still covered against third party claims and hence S143 is satisfied.

 

You may not be covered for theft or accidental damage, but third party claims are covered.

[green_and_mean]

This is a common misconception. Your insurance isn't voided or cancelled by committing criminal acts, or doing something against the terms of the insurance. Drink drivers aren't charged with an IN10 'No Insurance' offence.

 

Your insurer may be entitled to cancel or void your policy, but thanks to S151, any third party claims would still be allowed, so you are still covered against third party claims and hence S143 is satisfied.

 

You may not be covered for theft or accidental damage, but third party claims are covered.

 

You are not insured if your policy has been cancelled, you still do not understand the law! S151 requires the company that issued the insurance to pay out on any claim HOWEVER subsection 8 clearly states if they have to pay out they can reclaim the money from you. All section 151 does is remove the liability to pay a claim from the insured to the insurer.

[green_and_mean]

Also just a thought, why don't they seize your car for speeding? Your insurance is technically void if you break any road laws..

 

Since when can you be found guilty of speeding or drink driving at the roadside?

[CrappoMan]

You are not insured if your policy has been cancelled, you still do not understand the law!

Who said the policy was cancelled ?

 

...All section 151 does is remove the liability to pay a claim from the insured to the insurer.

 

No, it does the opposite, it makes the insurer able to recover any payout from the insured, if the insurer is entitled to cancel the policy.

[renegadeimp]

Who said the policy was cancelled ?

 

The Op did

 

 

 

 

I think its time you guys stopped the arguing back and forth and we went back to helping the OP.

[CrappoMan]

NO, the op said his insurer confirmed his policy WASN'T cancelled. How can the policy be cancelled, if he can continue using it as it is, or pay the extra £40. Now it's you not helping the OP.

 

I've suggested what the OP do, but some people want to act as judge, jury & executioner and condemn the OP.

 

I've just re-read S151, para 8. It is simply explained as: If you let your mate drive your car, and he causes a third party to claim, any payout will be recovered from you.

 

I've highlighted the relevant bits for you:

(8)Where an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay an amount in respect of a liability of a person who is not insured by a policy or whose liability is not covered by a security, he is entitled to recover the amount from that person or from any person who—

(a)

is insured by the policy

, or whose liability is covered by the security, by the terms of which the liability would be covered if the policy insured all persons or, as the case may be, the security covered the liability of all persons,

and

(b)

caused or permitted the use of the vehicle

which gave rise to the liability.

[unclebulgaria67]

Meanwhile on Earth the OP is moving on with this.

 

No point in arguing. Whether the OP was insured on the journey they were taking, is totally up to the Insurance company. If they are willing to confirm in writing that Insurance was in place, then the OP can take this to Magistrates.

 

Usually what happens with Police enquiries is that they are dealt with by the actual underwriters and not the staff who are sat on the customer service telephone lines. From my experience the Police don't always speak to the correct staff and it is quite possible they were given wrong information. If the Poilice believed from who they spoke to that the policy was going to be cancelled, they would have issued the FPN and did what they did. So may not be the Police officers fault. Then the Insurers spoke to the OP and it appears they said something different. So a bit of confusion occured.

 

The OP needs to speak to his Insurers to find out what the correct position is.

[green_and_mean]

NO, the op said his insurer confirmed his policy WASN'T cancelled. How can the policy be cancelled, if he can continue using it as it is, or pay the extra £40. Now it's you not helping the OP.

 

I've suggested what the OP do, but some people want to act as judge, jury & executioner and condemn the OP.

 

I've just re-read S151, para 8. It is simply explained as: If you let your mate drive your car, and he causes a third party to claim, any payout will be recovered from you.

 

I've highlighted the relevant bits for you:

 

So in this case the OP did not cause the use of the vehicle?? It doesn't mention anything about 'mates' you haven't explained a thing you have just given your interpretation of the law.