did police "steal" my car?

[currant64]

hiya to everyone,

not sure if anyone out there can help but here goes , ill keep it as brief as pos. took a family holiday last year (1 march-1 feb)and rather than leave the house empty for a month a friend of the family said she would live in while we were away so , as a small thankyou i added her to my car insurance as a named driver so as she wouldnt be inconvenienced in getting to work. had agreat holiday ,came home ,all is fine until two weeks ago when she told me that my car was towed away ,under police instructions, by a private recovery company!!!!!. she was too "scared to tell me " sooner, dont ask!!. anyway the "offence" was having no insurance , the police said that because the car was registered to a male and the only person , according to their insurance database,insured to drive the vehicle was "a male" she "couldnt possibly be insured".she explained that the insurance cover note was at home with her name and details on it,it didnt make the slightest difference ,the car was towed away and it cost her £125 to get it back on production of an isurance certificate,she refused to pay at first as she was insured ,but was told "if you dont pay well keep the car until the owner returns and charge £15.00 per day storage" nice!! anyway she paid, but i would like the money back. HELP!!!!

[demon_x_slash]

Evidently, this was a mistake and you need to appeal the fine. Send them a copy of her insurance note with a cover letter explaining that she was insured to drive it, and that the registered keeper had loaned her the car, and see what they say. They can't possibly defend this if your insurance was kocher.

[Isiris]

What the Hell does the fact the Insurance data base shows a man insured to drive got to do with it.

 

Depending on whos car is at the top of our drive depends on which one we drive. I dont pull my wifes off,get mine off then put hers back on, I drive whichever one is easiest as she does but we are insured to drive any other vehicle

[nevos]

Hi Currant: And they wonder why the public are anti the STUPID police.

 

You should get your money back no problem.

 

I had to smile on Xmas eve. Driving to York to a party on the A63 guess what, they had a radar trap set up on the middle of a dual carriageway, 4pm on Xmas eve...

 

And this was in Hull the dirty b..........s

 

Good luck get your money back make them have it...

[Rob S]

The insurance database that the police rely on is provided by the Motor Insurance Bureau. It is not 100% accurate enough for the police to rely on to say that a person has a policy of insurance or not as not every insurance company provides their data (yet). Insurers have up to 14 days to update information on the database (though this will change to 7 days in 2008). However, the fact that your friend was not the registered keeper of the vehicle or the policyholder would have had some bearing on the decision to seize the vehicle. Take a look here for more information on the relevent legislation:-

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20051606_en.pdf

 

PS Nevos, you obviously have not had the misfortune to have been involved in an accident with a driver who was uninsured, otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't have made such stupid remarks. Uninsured drivers cost the rest of us in the region of an extra £40 per year on our policies, not to mention the costs incurred when drivers are involved in accidents with uninsured drivers (excess, loss of no claims bonus, increased premiums for the next few years)

 

As for your comments about speed traps being set up on Christmas Eve, what difference does it make that its the day before Christmas? If people are still stupid enough to drink and drive, break speed limits, drive without insurance or commit other driving offences on such a day, why should the police turn a blind eye to it just because its the 24th December?

[nevos]

PS Nevos, you obviously have not had the misfortune to have been involved in an accident with a driver who was uninsured, otherwise I'm sure you wouldn't have made such stupid remarks. Uninsured drivers cost the rest of us in the region of an extra £40 per year on our policies, not to mention the costs incurred when drivers are involved in accidents with uninsured drivers (excess, loss of no claims bonus, increased premiums for the next few years)

 

As for your comments about speed traps being set up on Christmas Eve, what difference does it make that its the day before Christmas? If people are still stupid enough to drink and drive, break speed limits, drive without insurance or commit other driving offences on such a day, why should the police turn a blind eye to it just because its the 24th December?

 

Thank you for those comments Rob:-

 

I wasnt aware I mentioned anything about uninsured drivers did I?

 

Xmas: Ok, I accept that point, you are right there.

 

Well let me tell you this my friend:

 

When old people are being attacked for a few quid and beaten up badly in the bargain, I am f.......g sick of the police skullking around trying to catch motorists speeding, drinking and having problems as curant has had.

 

I dont condone, speeding, drink driving, unisured cars either but, I am certain more resources are going into catching motorist because it's a good earner than are being used to combat vsicious crime and theft.

 

Sorry hope I made myself clear now:rolleyes:

[Rob S]

Thank you for those comments Rob:-

 

I wasnt aware I mentioned anything about uninsured drivers did I?

 

Well,this was a thread started by the OP about having a car seized for not having insurance:rolleyes:

 

Xmas: Ok, I accept that point, you are right there.

 

Indeed, people are still killed and injured in road accidents regardless of it being a normal working day, weekend or a bank holiday.

 

Well let me tell you this my friend:

 

When old people are being attacked for a few quid and beaten up badly in the bargain, I am f.......g sick of the police skullking around trying to catch motorists speeding, drinking and having problems as curant has had.

 

I dont condone, speeding, drink driving, unisured cars either but, I am certain more resources are going into catching motorist because it's a good earner than are being used to combat vsicious crime and theft.

 

Sorry hope I made myself clear now:rolleyes:

 

Obviously you can back up this certaintly with statistics which show that police across the country are devoting more resources to catching motorists than combating crime? The fact is that police forces have been cutting back on officers deployed on traffic patrol for years. In London for example, the Met Police have about 650 officers who are dedicated traffic patrol officers out of a total of 30000. Now, that doesn't look like they are concentrating their resources solely on catching motorists to me.

 

There are roughly 2 murders per day in the UK, but the figure for those killed in road accidents is 5 times that at roughly 10 per day. Thousands are also injured every day. Are you suggesting that they should do away with the limited resources they are already putting into road traffic enforcement and use them elsewhere?

 

I have no problems at all with them seizing cars which are uninsured, the more the better. I would also like to see them catching more criminals, but the fact is that like many of the public services, the rank and file officers have to spend much of their time pushing paper around to satisfy performance indicators set by the Government rather than being out on patrol. Now THAT is really criminal, yet the Government still increase the burden of bureaucracy on the police service (and NHS and other services) rather than decreasing it to let them do their jobs.

[Janet-M]

Can you please not hijack this thread .

 

I have strong views on what you are both discussing but this thread is not the place to air them or for anyone else to .If you both have any more to say on the matter of police resources could you please start a thread in the bear garden , thanks

 

currant64 can you please keep us posted on how you get on after you write to them

[Janet-M]

I have looked into this for you and you should have no problem getting the money refunded once you write in showing proof of the insurance .

You also have the option of filing a complaint against the police .

[break_the_bank]

the police said that because the car was registered to a male and the only person , according to their insurance database,insured to drive the vehicle was "a male" she "couldnt possibly be insured"

 

Hi there,

 

Please correct me if I am wrong...

 

This doesn't make any sense to me. As far as I am aware, if you have fully comprehensive insurance for your own car, then you are able to drive anyone else's car (under 3rd party fire and theft) providing you have their permission (without the requirement to add you to their own car's insurance). In this case the police wouldn't have any right to check the database and make a decision based solely upon the car's insurance, as it would not determine whether the person driving had comprehensive insurance of their own.

 

Again please correct me if you know what I say to be wrong.

 

Regards,

 

BTB

[Rob S]

The police would have the right to check the database if they stopped someone who said "It's not my car, but I am covered under the policy for my own car to drive other vehicles for third party risks". They could then do a check on the Police National Computer on the registration number of the persons own car to verify what they have been told.

[Rooster-UK]

As far as I am aware, if you have fully comprehensive insurance for your own car, then you are able to drive anyone else's car (under 3rd party fire and theft) providing you have their permission (without the requirement to add you to their own car's insurance).

 

Unless Currant's friend has no insurance in her own name that is usually the case.

 

From my own ins. certificate.....

The policyholder may also drive, with the owner's permission, a motor car not belonging to, or hired or leased to them or their partner.

Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive such a vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.

Does the friend have any car insurance of her own?

 

Regards, Rooster.

[currant64]

hello to everyone and thanks for all your comments and replys.

after 7 phone calls and two visits to the police station involved i finally got the officers name who authorised my car to be towed away,which by the way was and is fully comp insured,i have written aletter of complaint to the chif const of merseyside along with a request for a refund of £125.00 which i will post recorded on monday. so ill keep you all posted .

i would just like to make a couple of pointsbefore i sign off.

1) after my friend who was driving the car was threatened with arrest and my car was unceromoniously dragged onto a transporter she was told to"walk home or get a bus" at 11.00 pm in the rain, why?

2) when she went to the police station/compound to collect the car she had to show the insurance cover note before they would release it , so why still make her pay?

absoluteley fuming !!!

 

thanks to all

[Janet-M]

I gather you put them points into your letter so I am very interested in what response you get .I am suprised the police let a lone female walk home by herself or did she have a passenger ?

The whole story is shocking

 

please keep us informed on this

 

PS was this in Liverpool or another part of Merseyside ? just as you can see I'm from Liverpool so curious

[break_the_bank]

I am suprised the police let a lone female walk home by herself or did she have a passenger ?

 

 

I don't want to get off topic but just wanted to state that I have had this happen to someone I know. A few years ago I had a serious car accident, it happened in the sticks in Somerset and involved no other cars, I pulled over a passing car for help. An ambulance and police car attended the scene, after the ambulance had left to take me to hospital the policeman made a female friend of mine (who had just been in a horrific crash and seen me take a battering) get a lift home alone with the gentleman I had pulled over. Apparently the policeman had to stay at the scene! On top of this when she asked the medics whether I would survive they told her they didn't know! We told the officer who was in charge of the investigation but nothing ever happened.

[Isiris]

after the ambulance had left to take me to hospital the policeman made a female friend of mine (who had just been in a horrific crash and seen me take a battering) get a lift home alone with the gentleman I had pulled over.

 

Why didnt she go to the Hospital as well if not as you friend or even as a casualty after the accident (Sorry to Hijack the thread, just curious)

[patdavies]

 

Does the friend have any car insurance of her own?

 

Regards, Rooster.

 

Immaterial.

 

The OP states quite clearly in the first post that the friend was added to the OP's insurance on a temporary basis and a cover note issued.

[freebird]

I'm curious how they came to stop her in the begining ?

Were they following her?

Yes I know that they can stop anyone and check the car but I'm just curious on what grounds they actually stopped her.....

Even if the car is registered in a Man's name, his partner could be on the insurance so that would not be a reason for stopping her !

And again, they didn't know that she didn't have her own insurance just by looking at her in the car?

It's all a bit confusing .......

 

BTW J:o

 

Freebird

[Rob S]

I'm curious how they came to stop her in the begining ?

Were they following her?

Yes I know that they can stop anyone and check the car but I'm just curious on what grounds they actually stopped her.....

 

No grounds are required. The Road Traffic Act allows police to stop any vehicle to check the status of the driver (do they have a licence), whether the driver of the vehicle is insured to drive it and if it has an MOT certificate (if required).

[demon_x_slash]

Come on, OP, I'm dying to know what possible excuse they could have come up with for this!

[tg167]

i have just had the same problem, i own my own company and am insured by the company to drive, however i was pulled over along with 5 others i was told that because the vehicle is not registered in the company name its in mine then i am not insured as the insurance states any vehicle owed by the company....i had to pay £105 £200 fixed pen notice and got 6 points????????

 

the policeman was questioning me for about 15 minutes and informed him that i should of been cautioned before he started questioning me, he then cautioned me and claims that he only has to caution me once he believes an offence has been committed, my question is why did he stop and inform me that he was seizing my car due to no insurance if he wasn't sure that a offence had been committed, he asked me to sign he's note book that i agreed to what he'd written, i refused and he informed me that he could arrest me i told him my wife was waiting at the hospital for me, he said sign it and you can go if not i'll take you to the station, i signed !!! what can i do

[green_and_mean]

i have just had the same problem, i own my own company and am insured by the company to drive, however i was pulled over along with 5 others i was told that because the vehicle is not registered in the company name its in mine then i am not insured as the insurance states any vehicle owed by the company....i had to pay £105 £200 fixed pen notice and got 6 points????????

 

 

If that is the case you are lucky the police officer pointed this out before you had an accident, if the car was written off and turned out to be uninsured a few hundred quid could look like a bargain. Your insurance could be invalid as the wording of the policy is important I would check with the insurance company. The officer was correct you do not need to be cautioned untill an offence has been established. To use drunk driving as an example, you get pulled over, spoken to, breath tested then only if the test is positive do you get cautioned. Using your logic the Police would have to caution everyone they spoke to just in case it turned out later they had commited an offence.

You did not have to pay the fixed penalty there is an option to go to court, but if the insurance in invalid there would be little point. Blaming the Police for what seems to have been a mistake on behalf of your insurance broker (or yourself) seems a bit pointless.

[patdavies]

If that is the case you are lucky the police officer pointed this out before you had an accident, if the car was written off and turned out to be uninsured a few hundred quid could look like a bargain. Your insurance could be invalid as the wording of the policy is important I would check with the insurance company. The officer was correct you do not need to be cautioned untill an offence has been established. To use drunk driving as an example, you get pulled over, spoken to, breath tested then only if the test is positive do you get cautioned. Using your logic the Police would have to caution everyone they spoke to just in case it turned out later they had commited an offence.

You did not have to pay the fixed penalty there is an option to go to court, but if the insurance in invalid there would be little point. Blaming the Police for what seems to have been a mistake on behalf of your insurance broker (or yourself) seems a bit pointless.

 

It is perfectly possible for a company to hold a policy for a privately owned and registered vehicle. Contrarily, it is also perfectly possible to have private insurance for a company owned and registered vehicle.

 

The RK is not necessarily the owner.

 

If tg167's policy definitely states any vehicle owned by the company, then the RK is irrelevant for the purpose of insurance and the Police Officer was mistaken. tg167, with hindsight (and if the wording is 'owned') should have opted for a court appearance and a not guilty plea.

 

Also, tg167 had a statutory defence if he believed that the vehicle was insured by the company. RTA 1988 S.143 (3) b and c.

 

The major problem here is that the Police are relying on a database that is known to be inaccurate; can take up to 14 days to update anyway; does not necessarily have all vehicles on it yet. However, they are using this database to make decisions about removing (and occasionally crushing) vehicles. On occasion they have been known to prefer the database not showing insurance even if the driver produces the certificate at the time.

[sytra]

Hi Re post 10, not all Fully Comp insurance policies cover you 3rd party on other vehicles, it is always worth checking if that is the cover you want.

 

Sytra