Help, no insurance!

NiallB

Guys, for those of us that are actually interested in the OP, can you go and compare your little winkies elsewhere?

Ta.

alm721

Hello folks, not sure if I dare pop back in here lol. Anyway, I've writen to the insurance company asking for a letter of imdemnity for the time hubby was stopped.

I never said I didn't contact the insurers, I said I thought I had, as I'm sure I rang both together, however this is not really the issue now. The issue is whether the police still prosecute us for no insurance.

I did try and give the police officer the insurance certificate (which obviously still had the orginal number on), and did ask if he could check that number as I assumed there must be a link to the new number, but he wouldn't take it from me and said there was no point as he couldn't check it was the same vehicle.

To be honest, he was vile, really really rude and obnoxious. I don't say this lightly as I come from a family of policemen and know that they get a really hard time, but he really made me realise why some people hate the police so much.

Anyway I'm just about to send them a letter asking them to contact my insurance company (they have said they will comfirm we were covered if the police contact them). Do you think it's worth asking for the money back on the grounds that he could have checked?

cyclonebri1

alm721 wrote: »

Hello folks, not sure if I dare pop back in here lol. Anyway, I've writen to the insurance company asking for a letter of imdemnity for the time hubby was stopped.

I never said I didn't contact the insurers, I said I thought I had, as I'm sure I rang both together, however this is not really the issue now. The issue is whether the police still prosecute us for no insurance.

I did try and give the police officer the insurance certificate (which obviously still had the orginal number on), and did ask if he could check that number as I assumed there must be a link to the new number, but he wouldn't take it from me and said there was no point as he couldn't check it was the same vehicle.

To be honest, he was vile, really really rude and obnoxious. I don't say this lightly as I come from a family of policemen and know that they get a really hard time, but he really made me realise why some people hate the police so much.

Anyway I'm just about to send them a letter asking them to contact my insurance company (they have said they will comfirm we were covered if the police contact them). Do you think it's worth asking for the money back on the grounds that he could have checked?

But that's your present dilema, it seems the police are reluctant to contact them,????
You must step in and get the letter.

Did you get the car released or did I miss a bit in the squable.

alm721

Hi we got the car back first thing the following morning. I've now written to the police asking them to contact the insurance, to confirm we were insured and also requesting the money back. I've also written to the the senior underwriters asking them to write a letter of indemnity (or similar) so I can send it to the police, so I guess I'll have to wait now until they get back to me.

Thanks

thenudeone

alm721 wrote: »

I did try and give the police officer the insurance certificate (which obviously still had the orginal number on), and did ask if he could check that number as I assumed there must be a link to the new number, but he wouldn't take it from me and said there was no point as he couldn't check it was the same vehicle.

That makes a huge difference to whether the seizure was legal or not.

Basically, a legal seizure requires three conditions, all of which must be met in order for the seizure to be legal. One of the conditions is that the driver fails to produce a certificate of insurance at the time. You DID produce a certificate for the vehicle and, IMO, the fact that the registration mark of the vehicle has changed does not invalidate the insurance.

As long as a certificate is produced at the time AND the court is satisfied that the policy is valid, then a seizure by the police would be deemed unlawful (regardless of what the database says or what the officer believed), according to this case:

Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, [2011] EWCA Civ 749

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

Once you've got the information from your insurance company it looks like the next task is get a refund of the seizure and storage fees (as well as any related expenses). Quoting the above case should help.

alm721

Thank you thenudeone, that looks helpful. He wouldn't take it from my hand, despite me holding it out to him. Maybe I do stand a chance of getting the money back then.

The_Turner

alm721 wrote: »

Thank you thenudeone, that looks helpful. He wouldn't take it from my hand, despite me holding it out to him. Maybe I do stand a chance of getting the money back then.

Which police force are we talking about?

Some have vehicle managers who deal with such issues as their day to day job.

alm721

Humberside

kizkiz

thenudeone wrote: »

That makes a huge difference to whether the seizure was legal or not.

Basically, a legal seizure requires three conditions, all of which must be met in order for the seizure to be legal. One of the conditions is that the driver fails to produce a certificate of insurance at the time. You DID produce a certificate for the vehicle and, IMO, the fact that the registration mark of the vehicle has changed does not invalidate the insurance.

As long as a certificate is produced at the time AND the court is satisfied that the policy is valid, then a seizure by the police would be deemed unlawful (regardless of what the database says or what the officer believed), according to this case:

Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police, [2011] EWCA Civ 749

http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

Once you've got the information from your insurance company it looks like the next task is get a refund of the seizure and storage fees (as well as any related expenses). Quoting the above case should help.

That's a very interesting read, but i can't help but feel the judge is rather flawed. I guess the parts quoted are not the entire story

Producing an insurance certificate means nothing on its own
A common scam is to apply for insurance, get the certificate sent out, then cancel the policy and never return the certificate
You are now uninsured, but have an apparently valid certificate to show the police.

The police also apparently called saga to confirm the policy and were told incorrectly it was not valid on a technicality.

I wonder what's missing from that story?

thenudeone

kizkiz wrote: »

That's a very interesting read, but i can't help but feel the judge is rather flawed. I guess the parts quoted are not the entire story

The key part of the case which hardly got a mention in the report (because it was never in dispute) was that the certificate that was produced at the roadside was a valid certificate showing evidence of an insurance policy covering the driver.
I'm surprised that the police tried to fight this particular case. The ruling has just clarified what was already pretty clear from the RTA itself, i.e. that a seizure cannot be legal if a valid certificate was produced at the time.
In most seizure cases, I would expect that even if insurance is later proved to have been in place, no certificate was produced at the roadside, which would put the police seizure in a very strong legal position. The law on seizure doesn't even consider whether insurance is actually in place or not.

kizkiz wrote: »

Producing an insurance certificate means nothing on its own
A common scam is to apply for insurance, get the certificate sent out, then cancel the policy and never return the certificate
You are now uninsured, but have an apparently valid certificate to show the police.

It's difficult to deal with that problem at the roadside but I have no doubt that the courts would view a seizure in those circumstances as legal, because the certificate isn't a valid certificate any more once the policy is cancelled, it just appears to be a certificate.