car seizures by police for no insurance

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Read it!!!!

I understand Insurance thank you, it's what I do for a living.

I can state as fact that if an Insurance Policy or (Now days) a Certificate does not (Clearly) state that a vehicle must have it's own Insurance for the DOC to be operative. Then the other vehicle does not need to have it's own Insurance.

I can also state as fact that Insurance policies do not specify that a vehicle must be "Legal" to be on the road. It's a basic principle of RTA Insurance that the Certificate must cover whatever risk are shown on the Certificate.

In addition to the RTA, Insurers cannot refuse a claim due to a Warranty / Requirement eg if there actually was a requirement for the car to be "Legal" if the breach of the Warranty / Requirement is not connected to the actual claim. This means that even if there was a requirement in the policy for the car to be "Legal" eg have say an MOT or Road Tax etc etc etc they cannot deny a claim as the car not being "Legal" would have no effect on a claim.

What Insurers can do is assuming their policy stipulates the car is "Roadworthy" then if there a claim that was "Caused" or "Significantly Caused" by the car being unroadworthy then they can deny the claim. However due to the beauty of the RTA they would still have to pay liable third party claims and then try and recover it from their policyholder.

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

I understand Insurance thank you, it's what I do for a living.

Just like the person I clarified it with earlier.

Also:

• The vehicle will only be released when the keeper provides evidence that the registered keeper is no longer committing an offence of having no insurance and the person proposing to drive the vehicle away is insured to do so.

So the vehicle will not be released if the vehicle is not insured.

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Looks like you are part of the problem then.

If you tried doing that now, then it wouldn't work. Because if they allowed the vehicle out of the pound, then they would be allowing the keeper to commit an offence.

On the subject of releasing a vehicle for a friend, I consider the inconvenience and the big fee he paid incentive and punishment enough. Happy to help out a friend in need.

Oh, and that part you are quoting in red is not for the release of a vehicle seized under 165A, does not apply to a vehicle seized under 165A

Only applies to vehicles held by DVLA seized under CIE.

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Just like the person I clarified it with earlier.

Also:


So the vehicle will not be released if the vehicle is not insured.

You're ignoring the contents of my posts which state you're wrong about the other cars needing to be covered if it's not stated and also about cars not needing to be "Legal" for the policy to be valid.

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

On the subject of releasing a vehicle for a friend, I consider the inconvenience and the big fee he paid incentive and punishment enough. Happy to help out a friend in need.

But you helped him get his car back, which was still uninsured. So the punishment still didn't work. So it wasn't enough punishment.

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

But you helped him get his car back, which was still uninsured. So the punishment still didn't work. So it wasn't enough punishment.

You're talking carp, I helped him minimize his losses after paying heavily already, helped him return his vehicle to his off road location, so he could either sell it or insure it.

oh and I edited the post above.

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

You're ignoring the contents of my posts which state you're wrong about the other cars needing to be covered if it's not stated and also about cars not needing to be "Legal" for the policy to be valid.

I think we need to agree to disagree. The company who you work for may not have their t&c's written very well. But every company I have used make it quite clear that if a vehicle isn't road legal, then it isn't covered.

It would be stupid of any insurance company to insure a vehicle that isn't being driven in accordance with the law.

Also it depends on the company's deffinition of 'Roadworthy'. Most companies state that this means road legal. And if it doesn't have it's own insurance, then it isn't.

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

You're talking carp, I helped him minimize his losses after paying heavily already, helped him return his vehicle to his off road location, so he could either sell it or insure it.

oh and I edited the post above.

If the vehicle wasn't SORN, then you were helping him break the law.....I hope you feel proud of yourself.

Wig

You are talking carp, all of your posts in this thread are wrong.

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

Oh, and that part you are quoting in red is not for the release of a vehicle seized under 165A, does not apply to a vehicle seized under 165A

Only applies to vehicles held by DVLA seized under CIE.

The OP doesn't state what his vehicle was seized under.