car seizures by police for no insurance

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Read the previous posts!!

If you have read the first few posts of this thread, you are either very brave or just trolling, when you admit to helping your friend who had their car seized for no insurance. Personally I think you are just trolling.

What are you talking about?

You have only made one post on this thread which was sensible, post number....101

Yeah, I guess I must be a troll, LOL :rotfl: if that's what makes you happy.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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

So it was part of the process of returning the car back to road use. Personally I should think you could be on a sticky wicket if you were pulled over. But I'm not sure. However that same DOC insurance would not allow you to release a car that had been seized for no insurance (which is what this thread is about).

Jamie_Carter

thenudeone wrote: »

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.

I rest my case :T:T:T

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It's a condition of the law, not your policy.

:rotfl:
Doesn't mean I can't legally drive a taxed MOTd vehicle with no 'own insurance' under my DOC cover. There is no law that says I can't do that.

My cover is under LV
http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf
page 11.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Get yourself a 1966 Daf 32 Daffodil (or any similar classic) and limit it to 12k miles (inc business use) per year. And don't worry, at the speed that thing goes, you need a full year to do 12k miles

It can be your "main" car, and NCD isn't applicable so you can use that on something else.On the other hand, get 3 points and they probably won't touch you next year. They may also decline to renew if you have a claim, which seems like a good way to promote sensible driving to me!

I thought it must be classic car insurance.

At least you won't get those 3 points for speeding.

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I rest my case :T:T:T

I wish you would.

Jamie_Carter

thenudeone wrote: »

I have already given the link to the Order, and someone else has kindly already posted the wording, but since you have difficulty with it, here it is again:

5.—(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,

It DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT state that the policy must specifically identify the vehicle being recovered.

As long as the certificate covers the driver, in any way, then the vehicle MUST be released.

In practice, to prevent abuse, most insurers which offer DOC cover have an exclusion clause on the certificate which does not provide cover in order to recover other vehicles; but that is an insurance policy limitation, and not a blanket statutory ban.

I've changed the bold to red so you can see it this time.

Jamie_Carter

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Ultimately, there's no way you can stop someone reclaiming a car if they're determined enough - they can always takie out a policy and then cancel within the 14 days "cooling off" if they really want to.

And that's what people tend to do. Or in most cases they get in insured in a friends name who has a clean licence.

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

However that same DOC insurance would not allow you to release a car that had been seized for no insurance (which is what this thread is about).

Only if seized by the DVLA after giving the RK 21 days notice, and the RK failing to pay £100 and declaring SORN which would have discharged him of any offence and liability to seizure.

If seized by the police, the vehicle would be released using valid DOC cover, because CIE is not enforced by the police it is entirely built around a set of rules which require a warning letter and a demand for a fine, which, if paid discharges the offence completely.

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I've changed the bod to red so you can see it this time.

(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.

..................................:wall: DOC -without an exclusion for seized vehicles (such as Aviva) - would cover the use of that vehicle.