car seizures by police for no insurance

Joe_Horner

Incidentally, these recent threads have brought up a curious question which maybe one of the insurance professionals could give an opinion on?

If a car is seized unlawfully (say, perfectly valid DOC in place but they seize anyway) and a court ruling is obtained to say so, would a DOC policy with an exception for releasing a seized vehicle provide cover to collect it?

My gut feeling is it would have to cover because the seizure would no longer be a seizure (having been ruled ulawful) so, even though you were collecting it from the compound, you wouldn't be "releasing a seized vehicle" any more than if you were going to pick it up from a car park?

Wig

I don't think you could get a court ruling fast enough before they sell or crush your car, there must be a time limit by which you have to collect your car or else it gets sold to recoup the losses of the recovery company.

But it's an interesting one, I would say "no". because at the end of the day it was still a seizure.

Tilt

If the keeper had no insurance on it, it would probably be a no. Otherwise, the release would cause the keeper to commit an offence. Also if the car had no insurance, it should be SORNd which means it would more than likely have no tax either so 2 more reasons why it wouldn't be released.

Aretnap

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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

So in other words, you don't think that insurers should cover it, therefore they don't cover it. Spot the flaw in the logic?

Insurance companies do indeed insure vehicles which aren't being driven in accordance with the law. It is, for example, illegal to drive a vehicle which has bald tyres, but your insurance policy still covers you to do so. And before you protest that your policy requires the vehicle to be roadworthy; no it doesn't. Section 148 of the Road Traffic Act specifically prevents insurers from making cover (or at least, the third party cover required under the Road Traffic Act) dependant on the condition of the vehicle, and any clause in the policy which purported to do so would be rendered void by statute.

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Your insurance would cover you to drive your friends car, as long as their car was already insured (but without you being included on the policy).

No. I've already given a link which proves that that is not a condition of my policy. It may be for yours.

dacouch

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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

So how would you justify an Insurer refusing a claim say an accident where the policyholder does not have say Road Tax then which I assume you would class as not legally being allowed on the road? He has no Road Tax so if he goes into the back of someone else is the lack of Road Tax material to the accident?

On the above basis how would driving a SORNed car on the road affect having an accident?

Again would not having an MOT be material to an accident?

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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

They're either wrong (Very common mistake for call center staff to make a lot use the same logic as you) or more likely they are talking about their own Employers product.

They cannot tell you whether another Insurer requires the other car to be insured as a) They would normally have no idea b) It differs from Insurer to Insurer c) It's not a legal requirement so they cannot make sweeping assertions as each company makes their own decision.

I'm guessing you go with the cheap and cheerful Insurers who tend to have this restriction. As I mentioned earlier the two largest (by a long way) car Insurers do not have this requirement.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

If the keeper had no insurance on it, it would probably be a no. Otherwise, the release would cause the keeper to commit an offence. Also if the car had no insurance, it should be SORNd which means it would more than likely have no tax either so 2 more reasons why it wouldn't be released.

Releasing it would make no difference to the offence the keeper was committing because he's already comitting it while it's in the compound simply by being the registered keeper of an uninsured car. It makes no difference to that offence whether it's on his drive, on the road, or in a Police compound at the time!

SORN is a funny old thing in that there's no "administrative" way to cancel it - you can't "declare a car un-SORN". You also sometimes NEED to drive a car that's had a SORN declaration made for it. That's why there's no offence of "driving a car that's SORN". Doing so is dealt with under the laws relating to any tax or insurance that should be in place.

As an example, we recently returned a car my partner bought to the road which had been SORN for about 10 years. In order to do so we had to get it through an MOT. My DOC cover doesn't require the car top be covered and it doesn't exclude cars owned by my partner, so I was perfectly legal in driving it to the pre-booked test even though it had no tax, no MOT, no insurance that "named" it by registration, and (as far as DVLA were concerned) was subject to a SORN notice.

Doing so allowed us to hold off buying insurance in her name just in case I'd missed something getting it ready which might have wasted a week or two of cover. Once it passed, we then got her insured and the car taxed and no-one broke any laws

Joe_Horner

dacouch wrote: »

I'm guessing you go with the cheap and cheerful Insurers who tend to have this restriction. As I mentioned earlier the two largest (by a long way) car Insurers do not have this requirement.

I go for the £80 a year, fully comp with agreed value, insurers who don't put that restriction on :beer:

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Try taxing your vehicle on line with DOV insurance....you can't do it.

DOC cover could never be used to tax a car.
Only the keeper can tax a car, and the keeper has to have insurance.
That has nothing to do with whether another policy covering another person is valid.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

DOV insurance covers you to drive somebody elses vehicle, when the insurance on that vehicle doesn't cover other drivers. But the vehicle MUST have it's own insurance, otherwise it will not be road legal, and the DOV insurance will be void.

The only people who can legally drive a car that doesn't have it's own insurance are those with traders insurance

There is no such thing as an illegal car.
A car cannot be prosecuted.
Only a person can be prosecuted for specific offences as laid down in an Act of parliament.
Everything about the car doesn't suddenly become illegal if the keeper commits some offences.

A driver who is not the keeper cannot be prosecuted if the keeper hasn't got a policy as required by S144A
A keeper who isn't in day to day control of the car (such as a leasing company) cannot be prosecuted for using or permitting someone to drive it in contravention of S143

The fact that the keeper:
-may not have insurance which he is required to have under s144A,
-may have SORN'd it but is still using it
-has failed to tell DVLA of a change of address or owner
are all offences committed BY THE KEEPER but none of this makes any difference to someone who merely borrows the car and whose insurance policy covers them to drive other cars and doesn't make any other conditions.

There is no law which says that S143 cover for a driver is invalidated if the keeper has committed an offence under S144A. If you think there is, please tell me the Act, section and subection.

Most of the people here seem to have "got" the fact that there are two completely separate offences under different sections of the Road Traffic Act which apply to different people in different circumstances, which I outlined clearly in post 56, together with links to legislation and a Court of Appeal Decision confirming exactly what I've said.

I you can't accept blatant truths staring you in the face, perhaps I should just have said: