Getting Car Out Of Police Compound

forgotmyname

Few questions not answered here.

The person is named on the business policy so covered to drive vehicles on that policy. Yes.

But does the business policy cover employees private cars? Thats the issue i think.

I know my old firms insurance stopped covering employees cars when they did errands.

System

Does it also cover the employees for SDP? or can it only be for trade purposes.

Tradex will only covers business principals and their spouses vehicles for private use. Also employees business business vehicles for SADP is an optional extra.

Arg

The police are probably being dicks because they've become confused. What you need is to look at the laws covering the polices ability to seize and not release the car then if you're confident the police are wrong try taking them to court.
I remember hearing of a similar situation where the car impound weren't releasing someones car because of some stupid rules they had made up themselves.

dacouch

!!!!!! wrote: »

Does it also cover the employees for SDP? or can it only be for trade purposes.

Tradex will only covers business principals and their spouses vehicles for private use. Also employees business business vehicles for SADP is an optional extra.

Yes a driver can be Trade Use and / or SDP, Insurers don't like allowing SDP use for general employees to avoid covering employees own vehicles. To get SDP use for employees ranges from some Insurers refusing totally to some who will allow it for management only (Directors are generally ok for SDP).

Motortrade policies are not designed to cover employees vehicles despite what many motor traders believe

forgotmyname

There was one like this on TV, He claimed to work at a garage and its insured under their policy.

It wasnt and they towed it. Same as above

The company you work for has a fleet policy, But it doesnt cover your personal car. Unless its specifically added and it may exclude social use.

Joe_Horner

The law is quite clear on this. S.5 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motoir Vehicles says:

Release of vehicles5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, if, before a relevant motor vehicle is disposed of by an authorised person, a person—

(a)satisfies the authorised person that he is the registered keeper or the owner of that vehicle;

(b)pays to the authorised person such a charge in respect of its seizure and retention as is provided for in regulation 6; and

(c)produces at a police station specified in the seizure notice a valid certificate of insurance covering his use of that vehicle and a valid licence authorising him to drive the vehicle,

the authorised person shall permit him to remove the vehicle from his custody.

(2) Where a person satisfies paragraph (1)(a) and (b) but cannot satisfy paragraph (1)(c), and nominates for this purpose a third person who produces a valid certificate of insurance covering that person’s use of that vehicle and a valid driving licence authorising that person to drive that vehicle, the authorised person shall permit that person to remove the vehicle from his custody.

It does NOT need to be a certificate "naming" the car, nor does it need to be one in the name of the RK.

If the existing trade policy will legitimately cover either your brother or his employer to drive the car (and doesn't have a clause excluding use to recover a seized vehicle) then they MUST release it because the law says they must, and the law trumps any "policy" they may have.

If the policy doesn't cover then a single day's temp cover (usually around £15 to £20) is enough - again provided the day policy doesn't specifically exclude the claiing of seized vehicles - because the law does NOT say how long the policy has to last for.

sho_me_da_money

Many thanks for all your suggestions however, what it has come down to is this - The compounds/police are saying that "in an effort to tackle fraudulent policies, the car ownership must tie up with the insurance details".

Prior to him paying the employer, the employer should have told him to sign all the vehicle details in the name of the company. As the employer wasn't aware of this (he seemed just as surprised yesterday when they turned him away), he basically allowed my brother to drive around. Obviously my brother thinks he is legal and covered however, as it stands, he isnt. The situation he is in today is the same as if he simply drove without insurance.

Now the car is worth £1000

To get it out the compound - £150 + £20 per day it is there.

Cover for 30 days = £300ish

Insurance he has already paid to his employer for the year - £1000

I am really disappointed by this.

sho_me_da_money

It is likely that this has happened (taken from a random search result when researching Motor Traders Policies'

http://www.roadrunnerinsurance.co.uk/about_mt/faq.aspx

12. What types of vehicle can be covered under my Motor Trade policy with Road Runner Motor Trade Insurance?

Vehicles must be the property of the policyholder – we cannot cover vehicles owned by an employee or spouse. There are also certain restrictions on the type of vehicle that can be covered and the extent of cover available for certain types of vehicle. We will explain any relevant restrictions as part of our quote. If you already have a policy with us, your policy schedule will include details of the restricted vehicles

dacouch

I'm guessing it's a slightly shady second hand car dealer he works for.

forgotmyname

Sounds like he tried to beat the system and failed.

He paid the employer to insure his car on the company policy to avoid having to pay ££££ insurance himself.
But its not a company vehicle and possibly wont be covered for private use even if he puts the car in the companies name.

My dad mentioned this today, He can no longer pop to the shops in the company van. Business use and commute only.