car seizures by police for no insurance

dacouch

Tilt wrote: »

But you asked; "see if either of you can find these (They don't exist)" in the link you posted and i'm merely answering your question.

I said in the policy which is the actual contract

dacouch

Joe_Horner wrote: »

That may well be so under FSA rules - I don't have much to do with those so completely unquaified to comment - but from the law's POV, the RTA only precludes invalidating the legal minimum.

This is the relevant Ombudsman rules on lack of MOT, they apply a similar process of using logic and fairness across their rulings on similar situations.

13. roadworthiness

Most motor policies contain an express requirement that the vehicle must be maintained in a roadworthy state. If so, where there is good evidence that the loss or damage was caused (or substantially contributed to) because the vehicle was unroadworthy, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to reject the claim.

In other cases, the insurer might reduce the payout on the basis that the vehicle was not in good condition. If so, where there is good evidence that the vehicle would have failed an MOT test, we are likely to consider it fair for the insurer to take this into account in assessing its value.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/motor-valuation.html

This rule which must be obeyed trumps it from the FSA.

A rejection of a consumer policyholder's claim is unreasonable, except where there is evidence of fraud, if it is for:

(1) non-disclosure of a fact material to the risk which the policyholder could not reasonably be expected to have disclosed; or

(2) non-negligent misrepresentation of a fact material to the risk; or

(3) breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure protection contract):

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1

[Deleted User]

rev_henry wrote: »

Your TV licence example is poor, TV Licensing are a private company, the police are the police.

Also, unlicensed TV ownership isn't an offence.

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

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

(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.

No, because that vehicle isn't legal to drive on the road, end of story!!

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

Your broker (I;m guessing it's Swinton) knows as much about Insurance as you do.

Ring them and ask them where in an Aviva Policy that it states

a) the other other vehicle must be insured
b) the policy is void if the car is not "Legal to be on the road"

You / he can view an Aviva Policy wording from here http://broker.aviva.co.uk/products/personal/motor/private-car.html#documents see if either of you can find these (They don't exist)

Well you guess wrong!!!

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

That's not actually in the Policy so has no legal standing and would refer to being UK registered etc.

As has been mentioned before, an Insurer cannot decline a claim for your car not being road legal in the sense of not having tax, mot being sorned etc. This is due to FSA rules, Ombudsman Rules and more importantly the Road Traffic Act which does not allow it by Law

FSA (Financial Standards Authority)
What we do: who we regulate

We are an independent organisation responsible for regulating financial services in the UK.
The FSA was set up by government. The government is responsible for the overall scope of our regulatory activities and powers.
We regulate most financial services markets, exchanges and firms. We set the standards that they must meet and can take action against firms if they fail to meet the required standards.


NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES

Jamie_Carter

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Should we let TV inspectors steal your wide screen telly and trash it just because you dont have a licence?

Yes. If you can afford a big wide screen TV, then you can afford your licence. Why should some people get away without paying it when the rest of us have to? If everyone paid it, then the fee might be lower for the rest of us.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Roll a bulldozer over your house if you dont insure it or pay your mortage..hoof your chattels out on the street?

It isn't a legal requirement to insure your home.

If you don't pay your mortgage, then they can take your house off you.

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Apart from the moral aspect of it,it is an incredible waste of resources to crush something and dispose of it in this way.

What is morally wrong about taking another uninsured vehicle of the road?

Someone quoted earlier how much uninsured drivers cost in the UK each year (so maybe you should read the whole thread). If they pay the fine, and insure their vehicle, then they can have it back. They are crushed when they don't.

Jamie_Carter

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The answer is to punish the wrongdoer for the offence by fine or imprisonment ,driving ban or other penalty. There is no justification to steal and destroy property save for this flawed legislation.

By the same argument we should..

chop hands off shoplifters

hack the penis off rapists

Demolish the homes of those who dont have insurance,engage in criminal activity and/or anti social disorder

Smash the tv's of people who dont have a licence

Put down dogs in the days when one should have had a dog licence

Demolish pubs and off licences for selling alcohol to underage drinkers

Are you serious, or just trying to wind people up?????

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

FSA (Financial Standards Authority)
What we do: who we regulate

We are an independent organisation responsible for regulating financial services in the UK.
The FSA was set up by government. The government is responsible for the overall scope of our regulatory activities and powers.
We regulate most financial services markets, exchanges and firms. We set the standards that they must meet and can take action against firms if they fail to meet the required standards.


NOT INSURANCE COMPANIES

Lol are you going to try and convince me now that the Financial Services Authority aka FSA don't regulate Insurance Companies.

Don't tell me, your broker told you it, so it must be true.

P.S Who are the Financial Standards Authority?

Wig

Herzlos wrote: »

It doesn't have to, (a) states someone must prove they are the registered keeper and (c) states they must have valid insurance covering their use of the car. As far as I understand it, DOC cover usually stipulates that the other car can't be owned the the policy holder, so in most cases the DOC wouldn't allow the car to be removed.

The only actual solutions are to (a) Just insure the car properly or (b) let them scrap the car.

You could try arguing with the police about releasing a car that's still technically uninsured, but I'm sure they've encountered any scam you can come up with.

Read post #141 or better still #58 which quotes the relevant bit paragraph (2)