Car seized by police for being incorrectly insured?

[tsvakayi66]

On 21 July 2014 at 0830 hrs I was stopped by the police driving my car which was legally insured.

 

However, because on this day I was going to work;

I normally use a van which had broken down on the evening of the 18 July 2014.

The police told me that because my insurance cover did not include commuting, I was driving illegally.

 

We could not get hold of the insurance company before 0900 hrs so we had to wait.

 

The police told me that I was not allowed to speak to the insurance company before they did.

They also said I would need to have my insurance document in front of me before I spoke to the insurance company.

 

However they said when they speak to the insurance company they agreed that I could just pay the excess to allow me to drive to work

then that will be the end of the story.

 

However, after they spoke to the insurance company they told me that my insurance company had told them

that I was in breach of the contract and they had therefore cancelled my insurance.

 

As a result the police then towed my car away;

I got a taxi back home and contacted the insurance company explaining everything.

 

My insurance company said they were not told that I was available at the side road

because I would just been asked to pay £40 and an amended document emailed to me.

 

The insurance company also said my insurance was not cancelled

I could continue using it as it is or add £40 to include commuting.

 

I chose to add the £40 and they emailed me an amended document

not a new insurance as I had been misinformed by the police that I was now uninsured.

 

I paid £170 to collect my car the next day and I am due to produce my licence for 6 points and £300 fine for driving uninsured.

I lost two days wages, train fare and fuel to the pound twice because my wife is the keeper but I am the owner.

Taxi fare on the seizure day.

 

I feel aggrieved that this is over the top unreasonable and punitive;

I could be wrong but as you can guess that is why I am here.

 

I would appreciate informative help, if I just need to pay and have 6 points please tell me straight.

 

Thank you

[renegadeimp]

Look at it from a technical point of view.

 

You were driving. You got stopped. You had no insurance. The Insurer said that your insurance was cancelled due to breach of contract.

 

What were the police supposed to do? They were specifically told by the insurer that the insurance had been cancelled.

[f16]

Is your van insurance "Fully Comp" ?

 

If so it should cover you to drive another vehicle.

[mch1991]

In my opinion the police acted in a punitive manner. Firstly, unless you were actually under arrest (which clearly you weren't), the police have absolutely no right to state that you can not use your phone to call the insurance company. In actual fact, if they had waited for you to deal with the insurance company, then everything would have been sorted out at the roadside.

 

I've always had the view that s.165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which gives the police authority to seize a vehicle at the road side to be completely unfair. An officer in uniform effectively acts as judge, jury and executioner, and issues summary judgment before any due legal process in the courts. How such practice hasn't been challenged in regards to the Human Rights Act 1998 (Schedule 1, article 6).

 

Why did the police stop you in the first place? Was it via an automatic number plate recognition activation? Was your vehicle showing on the insurance database? Did the police stop you under s.163 of the Road Traffic act 1988? What directed their attention to you that morning?

 

Unfortunately, like most motoring offences, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence, to say that either you had insurance or you didn't. Unfortunately there isn't any difference in the punishment between someone who drives to work with insurance but without commuting on their policy and someone who deliberately drives without any insurance cover.

 

The facts are, you drove a vehicle to work without the correct insurance cover, rendering your insurance policy invalid, meaning you were technically uninsured at that precise moment. That fact remains unchallengeable, and unfortunately instead of exercising good judgment and due diligence, the officers took punitive action.

 

As with the above, I couldn't see how you could challenge the offence in court. Someone else will be able to help you better here, but my opinion is to simply put it down to a bad mistake and an error of judgment on your behalf and move onwards.

 

Sorry I couldn't be of any real help, best of luck.

[renegadeimp]

Should not will. it all depends on the insurer. Ive had 2-3 insurers that said coverage on other vehicles would cost extra. My current insurer, ASDA, have it as all inclusive.

[CrappoMan]

Is your van insurance "Fully Comp" ?

 

If so it should cover you to drive another vehicle.

 

Not if you own the other vehicle.

[f16]

Not if you own the other vehicle.

 

But does he ??? (that was the point I was trying to find out)

[CrappoMan]

The police acted in a heavy handed manner.

 

S165 was designed to prevent further offences being committed, by seizing the vehicle. It is NOT supposed to be used to punish the vehicle driver. That is what the court is for. If the insurance company were happy to extend the insurance then the vehicle would have been insured from that point forward and was legal so should not have been seized.

 

The OP needs to make a complaint, specifically mentioning that the insurers were (deliberately ?) misinformed by the police at the roadside, presumably so the vehicle could be seized. Performance related (quota) bonus payments come to mind!

[CrappoMan]

But does he ??? (that was the point I was trying to find out)

The OP stated "...I was stopped by the police driving MY car..."

[renegadeimp]

The insurer specifically stated that the insurance was cancelled. End of. Thats why the police had to follow the law and take the vehicle.

 

The police would call the insurer, identify themselves, and simply ask if the vehicle was insured. If the vehicle wasn't, then bye bye vehicle.

And where on earth did you get the thought that was in your last paragraph?

[CrappoMan]

Seriously ??? You need to ask ???

 

The OP stated "...they told me that my insurance company had told them that I was in breach of the contract and they had therefore cancelled my insurance...". So the police told the OP that the insurance was cancelled.

 

Fast forward to the OP getting home and contacting his insurance company "...The insurance company also said my insurance was not cancelled I could continue using it as it...". So the policy was not cancelled. He got that information 'from the horses mouth', not second hand through a policeman at the roadside.

 

So either the insurance company lied to the police or the police lied to the OP. Both statements cant be true.

[CrappoMan]

Oh, and I do have some experience in this area. A few years ago, I was stopped for a technical breach of my insurance. The police phoned my insurance company, then put me on the phone, I paid some extra money over the phone, and my policy was made good. I was then insured and the police had no reason to seize my car.

[green_and_mean]

 

So either the insurance company lied to the police or the police lied to the OP. Both statements cant be true.

 

Maybe if you got that huge anti Police chip off your shoulder you might actually read what was said rather than what you want to beleive! For a start when contacted later the insurance company said 'they were not told that I was available at the side road because I would just been asked to pay £40 and an amended document emailed to me.' That would seem to indicate that they had made the mistake and NOT the Police. Where did the insurance company think they were checking his insurance in his kitchen? If the Police ring an insurance company on a mobile at 9.00am and ask if the insured is insured for commuting it does not take a genius to work out that the car is on the way to work!

[f16]

The OP stated "...I was stopped by the police driving MY car..."

 

Just suggesting the OP checks his / her policies .... that's all.

 

Just trying to help. ... Not looking for an argument.

[CrappoMan]

No, neither am i.

 

To green_and_mean, the insurer stated to the OP that the insurance was never cancelled. You can't reconcile that with the police seizing his car.

 

To the OP, get it in writing from your insurance company that you were insured for the period you were stopped by the police. Make sure you take that letter to court. Then follow up with the complaint, and you should get your towing and storage charges back.

[renegadeimp]

To green_and_mean, the insurer stated to the OP that the insurance was never cancelled.

 

However, after they spoke to the insurance company they told me that my insurance company had told them

that I was in breach of the contract and they had therefore cancelled my insurance.

 

Police were told it was cancelled. They can only go by what is on their system and what the insurer said.

[unclebulgaria67]

Strange case. Wish the OP would provide more information and respond to the replies.

 

Was this one of the roadside operations where the Police were stopping many vehicles on the day ? This might explain what happened. The OP did not have commuting cover at the time of the stop and therefore the Insurance was not valid. Then there appears to be communication problems and the OP seems to have a valid complaint against the Police officer who dealt with him.

[renegadeimp]

I have to admit, ive never heard of a police officer allowing a person to pay to get insurance after they got caught, while at the roadside and avoid prosecution. If you get caught, thats it. They fine you etc there and then, and you have to collect the car once you have the documents in your possession. If the officer allowed this, think how many illegal drivers there would be that would go around with no insurance and then grab a months temporary insurance after they get caught then cancel it when theyre down the road or back home.

 

Theres more to this story than the OP is letting on.

[green_and_mean]

No, neither am i.

 

To green_and_mean, the insurer stated to the OP that the insurance was never cancelled. You can't reconcile that with the police seizing his car.

 

To the OP, get it in writing from your insurance company that you were insured for the period you were stopped by the police. Make sure you take that letter to court. Then follow up with the complaint, and you should get your towing and storage charges back.

 

If he was insured when he was stopped why is he being asked for £40 from the insurance company? lol He was either insured or not for the commute if they want extra money to allow him to commute it would tend to indicate that probably he wasn't insured!!

[CrappoMan]

I have to admit, ive never heard of a police officer allowing a person to pay to get insurance after they got caught, while at the roadside and avoid prosecution. If you get caught, thats it. They fine you etc there and then, and you have to collect the car once you have the documents in your possession. If the officer allowed this, think how many illegal drivers there would be that would go around with no insurance and then grab a months temporary insurance after they get caught then cancel it when theyre down the road or back home.

 

If you are talking about me, I was 'technically' uninsured, and the police knew I had had a policy in force, and they realised I wasn't 'trying it on' with them, so they were very accommodating. It wasn't to avoid prosecution, I was still summonsed to court over it. To make it stranger, they made me promise to make my policy good and left me at the roadside speaking to my insurer, before I had actually completed the call.

[renegadeimp]

I was talking about the OP> This isnt your thread, so examples and hypothetical or past scenarios arent worth arguing.

[tsvakayi66]

Thank you all for trying to get the grips of this case. I thought I had put it very clearly. My car was insured fully comp but there was no commuting included.

 

The fact are that the police told me I could not speak to my insurance company at the road side.

They said my insurance was cancelled yet it was not, my insurance simply included commuting when I called them and they said my insurance was still in force.

 

The police also told me that the reason they were seizing my car was because I could not drive it at all it had no insurance but that was not true.

 

If this was true I would have had to pay a full amount to drive my car the next day, yet the insurance company told me that I had two choices: (1) To use my original insurance document to collect my car from the pound without paying anything extra, no amendment was required. (2) Or to pay the extra £40 to include commuting if I wanted to use it for commuting as well. Either way the offence was that I was going to work at the time I was stopped but had I not said I was going to work the police would not have seized my car, and my insurance for the car I was driving was still in force had I chosen to leave it as originally purchased.

 

Incidentally the police were driving alongside me and then ahead of me, then behind me on the A3 and during that intermingling they were punching my car details into their system and the reason they eventually stopped me was because the car is registered in my wife's name but I am the legal owner and only driver. Don't ask why it's in my wife's name it's in preparation of our future arrangements. All my cars are in her name.

 

Now back to business. I just want helpful answers not to be asked questions as if I am trying to pretend I had insurance when I didn't.

 

I had the wrong insurance accepted but the information I got from the police and the insurance is not tallying whose information is truthful and does any of this anomaly give me leeway to protest. if not just tell me so I have been given points before. My current licence is clean ever since 2009 just didn't want the points.

 

Also 7 years ago I was stopped for not having insurance the very day I had bought a new car and the police allowed me to phone the insurance and sort it out or have the car seized. I got it insured at the road side and never got a ticket, fine or points. It just depends on the people you meet.

 

Any help will be welcome, but please say it like it is and we can move on, mistakes happen and I am not the first, wont be the last.

 

Thank you

[CrappoMan]

As I said earlier, get it in writing from your insurance company that you were insured at the time you were stopped by the police. Make sure you take that letter to court. It will prove that you are not guilty of an IN10 offence.

 

Then follow up with a complaint. Maybe the insurance company record their calls, if you or the IPCC can get a copy of that recording, that should answer a lot of questions.

[BazzaS]

As I said earlier, get it in writing from your insurance company that you were insured at the time you were stopped by the police. Make sure you take that letter to court. It will prove that you are not guilty of an IN10 offence.

 

Then follow up with a complaint. Maybe the insurance company record their calls, if you or the IPCC can get a copy of that recording, that should answer a lot of questions.

 

Surely the OP was insured at the time the police allege an offence, but only providing he wasn't commuting?

 

If he was commuting at the time of being stopped, and had no cover for commuting ; he wasn't insured.

 

Type of car you are driving is a material risk (it affects the premium). Drive another car that your policy doesn't allow you to means you are uninsured.

Type of journey (including business or commuting) is a material risk (it can affect the premium). Drive a different class of journey that your policy doesn't cover : again you are uninsured - else (following your logic) people would never add that cover until after being stopped / having an accident!.

 

Some insurers cover commuting under "Social, domestic & pleasure", provided it is "single journey into fixed workplace, single journey home", rather than moving from site to site - worth checking if the OP's insurer does this? (If the extra premium was to add business use, rather than commuting, they may just have been covered for commuting already)

 

If a court had to decide if the OP was uninsured at the time if the alleged offence : what if the CPS could show that the OP had to pay a higher premium to be covered for commuting, and that premium was only arranged/paid after the OP had been stopped.

If the premium was an addition to provide extra cover after it was paid, this implies the extra cover didn't exist before it was paid. The OP will be able to demonstrate they were covered for SD&P when stopped, but the police will evidence that the OP wasn't driving for those reasons and thus lacked insurance (in the same way the OP wouldn't have been covered for driving another car than the one on their policy [different material risk]) (putting aside those policies where the insured is allowed to drive other cars, for which they no doubt pay an extra premium, as you do for business use, and may well do for commuting)

 

Are you suggesting that the court will look at if ANY policy was held (even if the insurers could decline a claim on grounds of the type of journey / which car was being used)?

Or does the court look at "is there insurance held, where the insurers can't decline a claim" (no false details given, correct car for the policy, policy covers the type of use the vehicle was being used for at that time)?

[CrappoMan]

...If he was commuting at the time of being stopped, and had no cover for commuting ; he wasn't insured...

 

Exactly, and in that case, he won't be able to get a letter from his insurers saying he was covered at the time of the incident.

 

His insurers already know he was commuting, the police told them at the time. If he can get the letter, then he can demonstrate that his policy wasn't cancelled and he was covered. The CPS can try to demonstrate anything they want, if he has written confirmation from his insurers, he is golden.