police impounded sons car

Faith177

Ok confused now so what if the thing not disclosed say for sake of arguement (i know it doesn't apply in this case) was claims. If the company didn't know about the claims and then found out and it means that they would not have offered cover at all if they had know they cannot stop cover straight away then write to the policyholder saying we have cancelled because xyz.

To apply it to this case say gf rang up and said bf car impounded can I cover to remove it and they said yes but she hadn't said that the reason it was impounded was because the bf didn't have insurance or tax.

The police then ring to confirm cover before releasing and say gf is trying to remove did you know that it was impounded due to no insurance tax ect. Had the company know this they never would have agreed to her doing the change of vehicle do they still have to keep it on cover even though it's a risk they wouldn't normally accept?

Sorry it's quite hard to explain as I'm not great with words but i'm really lost lol

mikey72

Faith177 wrote: »

Ok confused now so what if the thing not disclosed say for sake of arguement (i know it doesn't apply in this case) was claims. If the company didn't know about the claims and then found out and it means that they would not have offered cover at all if they had know they cannot stop cover straight away then write to the policyholder saying we have cancelled because xyz.

To apply it to this case say gf rang up and said bf car impounded can I cover to remove it and they said yes but she hadn't said that the reason it was impounded was because the bf didn't have insurance or tax.

The police then ring to confirm cover before releasing and say gf is trying to remove did you know that it was impounded due to no insurance tax ect. Had the company know this they never would have agreed to her doing the change of vehicle do they still have to keep it on cover even though it's a risk they wouldn't normally accept?

Sorry it's quite hard to explain as I'm not great with words but i'm really lost lol

It's got insurance and now it's taxed.
Cars are usually impounded for the very reasons you mention, and every insurer I've had specifically states you can use their insurance to remove the car from the impound yard, so that would appear to be a red herring.
But no, even if they wouldn't have offered cover, they did, and they have to follow the process to rescind the cover. They certainly can't do it because a third party told them some unknown "fact", they have to check the facts with the policyholder.

Sgt_Pepper_2

mikey72 wrote: »

You haven't actually read any of this thread, have you?

Does he ever?

photome

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Does he ever?

NO, but dont say to much or he accuses you of stalking

atrixblue.-MFR-.

vax2002 wrote: »

Insurance is in force until it is cancelled in writing.
Thats the law.
However, we dont know what he told the police, if the car was secure and parked when the police arrived, he should have stayed out of the way.
If he admitted driving without insurance, the car will be seized.

vax pount me to the LAW you refure to!.

even point me to the LEGAL ruling.

or you could point me to a REGULATION ruled by OFT.

you often confuse what is LAW, LEGAL, and REGUALTION.

lovinituk

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Yeah, that's right, she's stuck and its the fault of the police.


Nothing to do with the idiot who drove without insurance.

jizzler wrote: »

There you go folks another sarky comment from some nerd with nothing better to do !

Actually I think he nailed it with that comment!

Weird_Nev

Hang on.....

Give me a moment.... I'm sure I've got some somewhere.....

Nope. Sorry. Fresh out of sympathy.