Car seized by police for being incorrectly insured?

[BazzaS]

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.

 

He might get a letter saying he had a policy in force, for SD&P, but won't show he was covered for commuting.

 

"Policy cancelled" could be a 'red herring'.

It would be very hard to show the OP was insured for commuting had the policy been cancelled, but the fact that the policy wasn't cancelled doesn't imply the OP was covered or not (for commuting)

 

This is where the CPS might not be too fazed by a " letter from the insurers ", unless said letter notes he was covered for commuting.

 

"ahh yes, that letter shows the driver was covered for SD&P, not commuting. It is clear from the evidence of the officers that the driver was commuting, and thus did not have a policy in force covering them for the type of driving they were doing " .... A bit more "tarnished" than "golden ".

[Jamberson]

If you were caught making an uninsured journey, then what grounds of complaint can you have? Just that one of the officers made a statement that your insurance had been cancelled - which is not relevant to the offence anyway. They might have been generous and let you add some more insurance after the act, but they didn't. I can't see much of a complaint going forward. It was a fair cop.

[unclebulgaria67]

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

 

If you generally did not use that car for commuting and it was a one off journey (difficult to prove), you could have been going anywhere when the Police stopped you. You told them that you were going to work and got into this situation. If you did not park in the works car park and could say that you had other household tasks to complete before work started, you could argue that your use of the car was originally not to commute to work. Then you were running late and had to go into work.

 

I am sure a good Solicitors who deals with such things could prevent you from receiving a fine and points. If you defend yourself, Magistrates will side with the Police.

 

I don't think the car should have been seized and the matter should have been resolved with a call to the Insurers.

 

I understand that you don't want questions, but would there be any reason for the Police to have targeted you. It is just a bit strange, as how many other cars get stopped in this way, with the driver dealt with the way that you were.

[CrappoMan]

He might get a letter saying he had a policy in force, for SD&P, but won't show he was covered for commuting.

I didn't say a letter showing he had SD&P, he could use his certificate to show that, I mean a letter stating he was insured against third party claims at the time he was with the police, bearing in mind that the insurer now has more information (he was commuting). If they provide a letter stating that, whilst having knowledge that he was commuting, then how can that be impeached ?

This is where the CPS might not be too fazed by a " letter from the insurers ", unless said letter notes he was covered for commuting.

Why does the letter need to say specifically that he was covered for commuting ? His Insurer knew he was commuting, he can prove that by the officers actions of telling his insurer, it may be noted in the officers contemporaneous notebook.

 

 

It would probably go more like this:

ahh yes, that letter shows the driver was covered for SD&P, not commuting. It is clear from the evidence of the officers that the driver was commuting, but the insurer has since confirmed that they would have paid any third party claim anyway, and thus he did have a policy in force covering him for the type of driving he was doing.

[Jamberson]

He was uninsured while he was driving. The police stopped him for that - he'd committed the act already. Whatever he did later in terms of covering himself for commuting is not relevant. While he was driving, while the police were following him, and when they pulled him over he was using the car illegally. That's what he was done for, not something which happened later on.

[unclebulgaria67]

He was uninsured while he was driving. The police stopped him for that - he'd committed the act already. Whatever he did later in terms of covering himself for commuting is not relevant. While he was driving, while the police were following him, and when they pulled him over he was using the car illegally. That's what he was done for, not something which happened later on.

 

The Insurers can issue a letter stating that the policy was fully valid for third party risks. Yes I realise that technically he was commuting, but under RTA the Insurers were still covering the risk. It is just a case that they were not collecting the relevant premium for the commuting use, which can be easily resolved.

 

There is an arguable case that he was not uninsured, but not an easy one to make if the Police/CPS were determined to proceed. Magistrates likely to side with the Police, unless the OP is represented in court.

[CrappoMan]

The Insurers can issue a letter stating that the policy was fully valid for third party risks.

And that letter should satisfy the court that his Road Traffic Act insurance obligations were met. In other words, he was insured.It may be difficult to sell to a court, thats why he should act quickly to get his ducks in a row now.

[Jamberson]

Why do you think he was insured for third party claims?

[unclebulgaria67]

Why do you think he was insured for third party claims?

 

Because the RTA has a section which makes the on risk Insurers liable. ( section 151 ?) I can never remember which section, but it exists.

 

Also the FOS would mostly likely see this as inadvertent non disclosure and not an issue that would cause a policy to be cancelled.

 

Obviously it would be totally different situation if the OP was using the vehicle for business and not just a commute to a workplace.

[CrappoMan]

That's what I meant.

 

The police shouldn't use an exclusion clause in the policy to say he isn't insured, as the insurer is still liable for third party claims (if the policy is paid up to date and hasn't been cancelled). The insurer can then go after the driver to recover any losses

[green_and_mean]

That's what I meant.

 

The police shouldn't use an exclusion clause in the policy to say he isn't insured, as the insurer is still liable for third party claims (if the policy is paid up to date and hasn't been cancelled). The insurer can then go after the driver to recover any losses

 

The person driving the vehicle needs to be insured, the fact that a 3rd party could claim against his insurers is no different from saying that as the MIB pay for accidents with unisured drivers technically we all have 3rd party cover!

[unclebulgaria67]

The person driving the vehicle needs to be insured, the fact that a 3rd party could claim against his insurers is no different from saying that as the MIB pay for accidents with unisured drivers technically we all have 3rd party cover!

 

But there is a policy still running that is valid. It was just on the day in question the OP was using the vehicle to commute, when they had not paid for the cover including commuting.

 

Technically they were insured and the insurance company have not said they were not, as far as I can tell.

 

I would have thought that the Police could only prosecute for being uninsured, if the Insurers voided the policy, which is unlikely.

 

The MIB is a different issue for when there is no Insurance in place.

[green_and_mean]

We could discuss this til the cows come home but the OP has admitted the offence he was not insured to commute and has no option other than to pay the FPN and accept the 6 points or lie in Court and hope they accept he wasn't commuting. As far as the costs of the tow he would have to prove that either the Police or the insurers made the mistake and claim in the small claims court, calls are usually recorded so he should contact the insurance company initially.

[unclebulgaria67]

We could discuss this til the cows come home but the OP has admitted the offence he was not insured to commute and has no option other than to pay the FPN and accept the 6 points or lie in Court and hope they accept he wasn't commuting. As far as the costs of the tow he would have to prove that either the Police or the insurers made the mistake and claim in the small claims court, calls are usually recorded so he should contact the insurance company initially.

 

He does not have to lie in court. He could have misunderstood the situation and wish to correct it.

 

Perhaps to decide whether or not to take this forward, he should speak to his Insurance company about this. Have they provided any statement to the Police about the vehicle not being insured for the journey because it was being used for commuting ? If they have not issued such a statement, perhaps he should get a letter from the Insurance which confirms that the vehicle was Insured and the policy is still valid. It was just an oversight that commuting had not been included, which has been accepted.

 

All I am saying is that if he wants to avoid 6 point, there may be a way forward.

[tsvakayi66]

I have a van for work which had broken down

[f16]

tsvakayi66,

 

At risk of being "Shot down" again. (Not for the first time. .... Won't be the last. .. No doubt)

 

What "policy" do you hold on both vehicles ????

 

Multi car ?

Fully Comp. ???

TPFT. ???

 

Both with the same insurer ?

Or different insurance Co's.

 

Details for both vehicles please.

 

EDIT: Not anything that will ID. you. Number plate etc.

[tsvakayi66]

Both vehicles are fully comp

Audi A4

Ford Escort Van,

different insurers

Edited August 8, 2014 by tsvakayi66

[f16]

Are you the "Reg. Keeper" of both vehicles ?

 

Are there "Named Drivers" on either policy ?

[CrappoMan]

The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 151 covers this situation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151

 

Put simply it states that the insurer is liable to pay third party judgements if the policy hasn't been cancelled, even if the insurer is entitled to cancel or void the policy due to the actions of the driver.

 

If the insurer is entitled to cancel or void the policy, they can recover their losses from the driver, but they MUST still pay out to the third party in the first place.

 

This only covers third party claims, so the driver couldn't claim for his own car if he had a fully-comp policy.

 

Para 9© has the key wording:

“liability covered by the terms of the policy or security” means a liability which is covered by the policy or security or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel, or has avoided or cancelled, the policy or security.

So, the OP was covered because the policy hadn't been cancelled. He stated that when he contacted the insurer, they confirmed the policy hadn't been cancelled. They even said that he could carry on using the policy as it was, or pay £40 to add commuting cover.

 

As the policy hadn't been cancelled, Section 143 of the RTA1988 was satisfied and the police had no business seizing his car.

[gordieglqasg]

You say you have a van that you usually use? can i ask what you do as a job? do you normally use your van to travel to different places of work - i.e. is it a tool of the trade? what sort of usage cover do you have on your van sdp, sdp+commuting + business use? it may make a big difference.

[unclebulgaria67]

The Road Traffic Act 1988, section 151 covers this situation: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/151

 

Put simply it states that the insurer is liable to pay third party judgements if the policy hasn't been cancelled, even if the insurer is entitled to cancel or void the policy due to the actions of the driver.

 

If the insurer is entitled to cancel or void the policy, they can recover their losses from the driver, but they MUST still pay out to the third party in the first place.

 

This only covers third party claims, so the driver couldn't claim for his own car if he had a fully-comp policy.

 

Para 9© has the key wording:

So, the OP was covered because the policy hadn't been cancelled. He stated that when he contacted the insurer, they confirmed the policy hadn't been cancelled. They even said that he could carry on using the policy as it was, or pay £40 to add commuting cover.

 

As the policy hadn't been cancelled, Section 143 of the RTA1988 was satisfied and the police had no business seizing his car.

 

Correct. The OP needs to speak to his Insurers about this. If they are willing to issue a letter confirming the the vehicle was Insured by them for the period in question, he can appeal the FPN and 6 points.

[green_and_mean]

Correct. The OP needs to speak to his Insurers about this. If they are willing to issue a letter confirming the the vehicle was Insured by them for the period in question, he can appeal the FPN and 6 points.

 

You cannot appeal an FPN you either pay it or go to Court and have the offence dealt with by magistrates. Regardless of any cover he has for driving he was not insured for that journey which he admitted at the roadside. If he was insured to commute why was he asked to pay an extra £40 for that cover AFTER the offence was commited?

All he can do is prove that the officer did not have reason to believe he was uninsured, that is not the same as being insured you can still be insued and legally have your vehicle seized if you are unable to prove it at the roadside. If he can prove the officer was not told he was uninsured and can prove he was insured to commute then he should take out a claim .

[unclebulgaria67]

You cannot appeal an FPN you either pay it or go to Court and have the offence dealt with by magistrates. Regardless of any cover he has for driving he was not insured for that journey which he admitted at the roadside. If he was insured to commute why was he asked to pay an extra £40 for that cover AFTER the offence was commited?

All he can do is prove that the officer did not have reason to believe he was uninsured, that is not the same as being insured you can still be insued and legally have your vehicle seized if you are unable to prove it at the roadside. If he can prove the officer was not told he was uninsured and can prove he was insured to commute then he should take out a claim .

 

OK he can go to Magistrates with any proof from the Insurers that he was insured at the time the Police stopped him.

 

It is up to the Insurers whether he was Insured or not. They may be willing to help.

[CrappoMan]

...Regardless of any cover he has for driving he was not insured for that journey which he admitted at the roadside.

 

You still don't get it. He doesn't need to be insured for any particular journey. He had a policy to cover third party claims for that vehicle, which by virtue of the RTA1988.S151 (even though he was commuting), would have paid out had he had any accident or claim against him. If he had a policy which would pay out in the event of an accident or claim, he had satisfied the RTA1988.S143. In other words, HE WAS INSURED.

 

If he was insured to commute why was he asked to pay an extra £40 for that cover AFTER the offence was commited?.

The policy was still valid and in force, the extra £40 was to stop the insurer recovering any claim payout from him. This is confirmed by the insurer saying he can continue using the policy as it is, or pay the extra £40. They didn't say he HAD TO pay the extra £40, but the risk would have been his otherwise.

 

All he can do is prove that the officer did not have reason to believe he was uninsured, that is not the same as being insured you can still be insued and legally have your vehicle seized if you are unable to prove it at the roadside.

 

The police should not be trying to interpret policy exclusions, they should only be concerned that the driver has a policy that hasn't been cancelled or voided. If he has a policy, there is no issue.

 

The OP needs to find out exactly what the insurer told the police on the phone. It doesn't matter if the insurer told the police that he didn't have commuting cover, as we have already established that S151 makes the policy valid in ANY event.

 

If a driver is stopped for drink driving, is his insurance cancelled ? Is he charged with an IN10 offence ? NO, because of S151. The insurer may recover their costs from the driver, but he was still insured.

 

...can prove he was insured to commute then he should take out a claim .

 

Again, you keep getting hung up on the 'commuting' aspect. It makes no difference. The policy was valid and because of S151, the insurer would have paid out.

 

I don't know why you have trouble understanding this.

 

OK he can go to Magistrates with any proof from the Insurers that he was insured at the time the Police stopped him.

Yes, like I said in post #15, get a letter and take it to court.

[green_and_mean]

You still don't get it. He doesn't need to be insured for any particular journey. He had a policy to cover third party claims for that vehicle, which by virtue of the RTA1988.S151 (even though he was commuting), would have paid out had he had any accident or claim against him. If he had a policy which would pay out in the event of an accident or claim, he had satisfied the RTA1988.S143. In other words, HE WAS INSURED.

 

 

The policy was still valid and in force, the extra £40 was to stop the insurer recovering any claim payout from him. This is confirmed by the insurer saying he can continue using the policy as it is, or pay the extra £40. They didn't say he HAD TO pay the extra £40, but the risk would have been his otherwise.

 

 

 

 

The police should not be trying to interpret policy exclusions, they should only be concerned that the driver has a policy that hasn't been cancelled or voided. If he has a policy, there is no issue.

 

The OP needs to find out exactly what the insurer told the police on the phone. It doesn't matter if the insurer told the police that he didn't have commuting cover, as we have already established that S151 makes the policy valid in ANY event.

 

If a driver is stopped for drink driving, is his insurance cancelled ? Is he charged with an IN10 offence ? NO, because of S151. The insurer may recover their costs from the driver, but he was still insured.

 

 

 

Again, you keep getting hung up on the 'commuting' aspect. It makes no difference. The policy was valid and because of S151, the insurer would have paid out.

 

I don't know why you have trouble understanding this.

 

 

Yes, like I said in post #15, get a letter and take it to court.

 

What a ridiculous argument! You are saying anyone can just go out and buy any old policy even if it doesn't cover them and by law sect 151 means they are insured,lol. I might tell all my friends who drive cabs and pay thousands for hire and reward insurance just to get social use and you will defend then in court!

Section 151 is a statutory obligation to insurers to meet unisured claims against a policy holder, it is not the same as being insured.