car seizures by police for no insurance

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

That won't work. The vehicle has to be insured.

No it doesn't; it just has to be a policy which doesn't have the (now very common) exclusion for recovering other cars which have been seized.
Therefore very difficult to find (but not impossible) without buying a policy specifically for the vehicle.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

When insurance policies allow you to drive other vehcles it just allows you to drive vehicles that already have their own insurance, but you are not included on the policy.

Not always. some policies have this condition. mine doesn't.

Please don't start a discussion on it. It's already been done to death here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4240655

thenudeone

skivenov wrote: »

I'd say you're best off letting them scrap it. Walking's cheaper anyway.

This post may well be a troll but for info. - walking away isn't cheap.

The charges will mount up at the statutory rate every day it's not collected up to the maximum period (14days??).

Then it will be scrapped. Any funds left from the value after deducting the storage charges must be given to the owner, but if it's a banger with no real value, the keeper still has to pay all the statutory fees to the Recovery co, who will probably sell the debt to a debt collector.
So look forward to a visit from some muscly men asking for payment of the debt.:T

Don't drive until you can do it legally next time.

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Very true. But it's the best scheme so far, and hits people in the pocket where it hurts most. Don't forget they can also get fined for no insurance on top of losing their car, and having to buy another one.

It isn't perfect but it's a vast improvement.

For someone who lives day to day and hardly has more than £20 in their pocket, it won't hurt in the pocket them much, because fines and seizure / storage costs will never be paid; but it does take them of the road until they can stump up enough for another banger and some fuel.

Before the seizure law came in, police literally had to walk away leaving them to drive away uninsured, because without any legal authority, any seizure would cost the force money in storage and potentially expensive legal claims.

The ability to take someone's car away and increased detection through ANPR and the live database have made significant reductions in uninsured driving, and about time too.

Tilt

Everything you need to know is here;

http://stayinsured.askmid.com/stay-insured.html

According to this, a few people on here are wrong.

System

Tilt wrote: »

Everything you need to know is here;

http://stayinsured.askmid.com/stay-insured.html

According to this, a few people on here are wrong.

Askmid is wrong as well

Providing you have a current motor insurance policy and it appears on askMID.com then no fixed penalty will be issued to you.

Is incorrect. If you can produce a valid insurance certificate then it is immaterial whether it appears on the database or not. providing it is confirmed with the insurer (which is what they will do if ANPR fed by Askmid indicates no insurance) that it is valid then no FP.

Askmid can only be used as a quick check to decide whether to stop somebody or not. It is not authoratative, how can it be if it can take a few days (by Askmid's own admission) for policy details to appear on the database.

fivetide

!!!!!! wrote: »

Askmid can only be used as a quick check to decide whether to stop somebody or not. It is not authoratative, how can it be if it can take a few days (by Askmid's own admission) for policy details to appear on the database.

quite right. Especially as a lot of insurers now email you the documents to print out.

I have insured a car before and printed out the certificate just in case I get stopped driving it home. Once the certificate is confirmed as genuine then that's ok.

They are simply trying to cover off the chav trick of cancelling the direct debit and keeping the certificate in the hope that plod hasn't seen the same stunt hundreds of times before.

Aretnap

Tilt wrote: »

Everything you need to know is here;

http://stayinsured.askmid.com/stay-insured.html

According to this, a few people on here are wrong.

That's a bit of a red herring. There are two completely different offences - using a vehicle without insurance (which usually means driving it) and keeping a vehicle which has no insurance (unless it is SORNed). Using is a fairly serious offence which results in a large fine, penalty points or a ban and possible seizure of the car. Keeping is a minor offence - small fine, no points and no seizure.

You can legally drive a car which has no insurance policy of its own, assuming you can find an insurance company which is still willing to give you DOV cover which doesn't exclude such vehicles, but the keeper of the uninsured car would be committing an offence whether or not anyone drove it.

Tilt

Aretnap wrote: »

That's a bit of a red herring. There are two completely different offences - using a vehicle without insurance (which usually means driving it) and keeping a vehicle which has no insurance (unless it is SORNed). Using is a fairly serious offence which results in a large fine, penalty points or a ban and possible seizure of the car. Keeping is a minor offence - small fine, no points and no seizure.

You can legally drive a car which has no insurance policy of its own, assuming you can find an insurance company which is still willing to give you DOV cover which doesn't exclude such vehicles, but the keeper of the uninsured car would be committing an offence whether or not anyone drove it.

Yes, assuming that the driver at the time is not the keeper/owner of the car.

dacouch

The MID is only about 95% accurate so at least 5 in every cars will not show up on it at any one time

Jamie_Carter

thenudeone wrote: »

No it doesn't; it just has to be a policy which doesn't have the (now very common) exclusion for recovering other cars which have been seized.
Therefore very difficult to find (but not impossible) without buying a policy specifically for the vehicle.



Not always. some policies have this condition. mine doesn't.

Please don't start a discussion on it. It's already been done to death here https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4240655

Believe it or not I am actually on hold to an insurance company (on another issue). So I asked the question, and I'm afraid you are wrong. The car MUST have it's own insurance. And someone else with cover to driver other vehcles on their own insurance would not be able to drive a vehicle that doesn't have it's own insurance. And wouldn't be able to release the car from the compound.