car seizures by police for no insurance

Wig

That's the first sensible thing you have said all day.

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

Lol I'm a broker I deal with lot's of Insurers and read the policy documents of the one's I don't deal with as well.

You don't understand, they have no option but to cover it due to a) The Road Traffic Act b) FSA rules c) Ombudsman rules.

There is no definition in an Insurers policy about "Roadworthy", no Insurers specify that it means "Road Legal".

If you're such an expert show me it in your own Insurers policy, or let me know who you're insured with and I'll find the relevant parts or show you where they're missing eg do not exist. I'm guessing you'll ignore this bit rather than show where your policy states this or defines "Roadworthy" or even states "The car must be legal"

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

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

No, you are in the wrong for helping a friend who rightly so had his vehicle seized because it wasn't insured. And then you helped him to get the car back so that he coud do it again.

Well at least with changes in legislation you won't be able to help uninsured drivers back onto the road again. :T:T:T

Wig

That, it would appear, would depend on who seizes it, the police or the DVLA.

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

Lol I'm a broker I deal with lot's of Insurers and read the policy documents of the one's I don't deal with as well.

You don't understand, they have no option but to cover it due to a) The Road Traffic Act b) FSA rules c) Ombudsman rules.

There is no definition in an Insurers policy about "Roadworthy", no Insurers specify that it means "Road Legal".

If you're such an expert show me it in your own Insurers policy, or let me know who you're insured with and I'll find the relevant parts or show you where they're missing eg do not exist. I'm guessing you'll ignore this bit rather than show where your policy states this or defines "Roadworthy" or even states "The car must be legal"

Well all the insurance companies that I have used must be wrong according to you then.

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

That, it would appear, would depend on who seizes it, the police or the DVLA.

No it doesn't make any difference any more.

Wig

Yes it does, CIE is only enforced by DVLA. and it would only be seized after a 21 day notice was issued by DVLA and the owner failed to pay up. After that the RK would be required to insure or SORN, or the whole process happens again.

Joe_Horner

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Well all the insurance companies that I have used must be wrong according to you then.

"All the insurance companies you've used" (though you still havent said who they are so their policies can be checked) may well have terms relating to MOTs, Tax etc in their policies but those terms are unenforceable because the Road Traffic Act specifically says that any such terms are invalid with regard to the legal minimum (third party) cover.

They can use such a clause to invalidate any cover for your own car, including fire or theft, and they can use them to sue you for repayment of any payments made by them, but they CANNOT use them to invalidate the cover required by law for third party liabilities.


eta: I have DOC cover which doesn't require the vehicle to have its own cover on my £80 per year classic policy and I use it at times to drive otherwise uninsured modern cars when I need to move or tow things that are too big for our Dafs. It's NOT my concern if the owner's breaking the CIE regs because I'm not his keeper.

If the Police decided to stop and (unlawfully) seize the car they'd be politely informed why they shouldn't and would be faced with a claim for every penny in costs, inconvenience and trauma that I suffered if they seized it anyway.

It would be entertaining

Wig

Joe_Horner wrote: »

They can use such a clause to invalidate any cover for your own car, including fire or theft, and they can use them to sue you for repayment of any payments made by them,

No they can't, unless they can show that the breach of policy contributed to the accident. i.e. "MUST HAVE MOT"

An entirely unenforceable clause because lack of MOT cannot ever contribute to an accident.

Joe_Horner

Yeah, sorry, should have been more specific - they can use such a clause to invalidate [...] where the breach is material to the claim.

Didn't think to add that because it's such a basic tenet of contracts that it sort of went without saying