Car impounded incorrectly.

daustin

My sons car was impounded due to the police database showing the car as not being insured in his name even though he produced licence and insurance documents at the roadside because they could not confirm the information with his insurer (funny that at 11.30pm).

When we got to the impound the following day we had to pay £150.00 to release the car and they stated there were 2 insurance policies showing with the only one they can access being in the previous owners name, and that until this one was cancelled our sons policy would not show in the police database. We called our insurance company they stated there is nothing they can do, we have contacted the DVLA who also state there is nothing they can do, we have contacted the previous owner who says they have recently renewed their motor trade policy and this vehicle is not on there. We contacted the MIB nearly 3 weeks ago without reponse.

I have been back to the police station that impounded his car and they state it is still showing in the previous owners name. For DPA reasons they cannot release the other insurance company names etc. Where is our protection as the legal owners and people that pay the insurance that are still getting the aggrevation and costs of someone elses mess up?

Our son is a young driver and has since been stopped again and is petrified his car will be impounded even though he is paying a fortune for the insurance and working hard to do things the right way.

Can anone advise how we can swiftly get this other policy removed from the police database so my son can drive with piece of mind and we can start proceedings to claim our £150.00 back?

InsideInsurance

I am surprised that the police can only access one of the records on their system. Certainly 8 years ago when I last was doing claims handling we could query the MID database through out claims systems and it would allow us to see the details if there were multiple insurers (as a TPI we only get policy number, insurer and insurer contact details and nothing about the insured)

With private clients it is up to the insurer to put the details into the MID but for commercial clients it is the insured themselves that must do it though some brokers or intermediaries do offer it as a value add service. You will need to discuss it with the previous owner given they have a commercial policy to ensure they or their broker have definitely removed it.

I must admit I would contest the fee with the police. They had a policy document and they could evidently see at least part of a policy that matched what the document said. Feels harsh to impound it out of hours due to their system limitation. Ultimately vehicles can legally have multiple policies on their vehicles and the police should have a better way of dealing with such cases.

chanz4

Follow the police complaints procedure, getting the money back will be a challenge

mikey72

This has been covered many times. It is not an offence if the vehicle is not on the database, if documents are produced at the time, even if they cannnot be confirmed. Make a complaint through the official police complaints procedure, and the fees should be returned, along with your out of pocket expenses, and a bit of retraining undertaken by someone.

dacouch

Have a good read of this recent court case, notice that this is from the Court of Appeals.

The relevant parts of the ruling for you are that assuming your son showed the police a correct certificate of Insurance for him. Then he has shown them the "Relevant Certificate of Insurance" (Quote this in any conversation or correspondence).

Ring or preferably pop into the police station and speak to the Inspector, refer him to this court case (Take a copy with you). Advise them that you require them to refund your son the cost of releasing the car from the pound along with any other reasonable costs eg if he got a taxi to the pound. Advise the Inspector that should you not receive this then you will make an official complaint and also sue for "Wrongful Interference of Property".

It may be an idea for your son to keep a copy of this link with him until the problem with the MID is sorted.

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

thenudeone

The conditions listed here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A were not satisfied

Road Traffic Act 1988
165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1)Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.
...
(3)The second condition is that—
(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 [having compulsory motor insurance]
(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

Please note the underlined word. Your son did not fail to produce evidence, so the seizure was not lawful.

You need to complain and follow up until you receive a full refund.

daustin

Thank you everyone for your replies.

Typically shortly after posting this I have received an email from the MIB confirming only my sons policy is showing on the database now. However I will be following everyones advice and following the polcie complaints procedure.

Many thanks

Rover_Driver

The evidence, as required by condition (b), is the certificate of insurance - s.165,2,(a), RTA 1988..

As above, all three conditions of s.165A (3) have to be met for the power to seize a vehicle, condition (b) was not - evidence was produced.

The officer was only acting on condition (c), which is why the seizure was unlawful.

thenudeone

InsideInsurance wrote: »

I am surprised that the police can only access one of the records on their system.

I can confirm exactly how two policies appear to the police.

The database the police access can only hold the full details of one policy at a time.
If there is more than one policy against the same registration mark, there will be a marker to show that a second policy exists, but no details of that second policy will be visible. Before using information from the database to form their belief that a vehicle is uninsured, police should check whether that marker is shown.

However, it's all irrelevant in this case, because a valid certificate was produced at the time, so it doesn't matter what the database shows, what the insurance call centre says, or how firmly the officer believes the driver is uninsured; the seizure isn't valid.

mikey72

thenudeone wrote: »

I can confirm exactly how two policies appear to the police.

The database the police access can only hold the full details of one policy at a time.
If there is more than one policy against the same registration mark, there will be a marker to show that a second policy exists, but no details of that second policy will be visible. Before using information from the database to form their belief that a vehicle is uninsured, police should check whether that marker is shown.

However, it's all irrelevant in this case, because a valid certificate was produced at the time, so it doesn't matter what the database shows, what the insurance call centre says, or how firmly the officer believes the driver is uninsured; the seizure isn't valid.

But, even worse, it would inform the police that another unseen policy was present on the car, so adding even more weight to the document in front of them. So (c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven. becomes even more unlikely, and the seizure even more malicious.