car seizures by police for no insurance

Jamie_Carter

!!!!!! wrote: »

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.

What they said was correct. But what you said applies when the Askmid database is wrong.

dacouch

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

Technically your wrong.

Traditionally very few Insurers specifcally required the other vehicle to be insured when using the DOC extension. Quite a few but certainly not all of them now stipulate the other vehicle must be insured.

You need to bear in mind that Car Insurance is in effect like any other contract, however it's also governed by the Road Traffic Act.

Like any other contract, you cannot rely on terms that are not written into the contract (Policy). Unless the Policy or the Certificate expressly states the other car must have it's own Insurance.

Interestingly the majority of Insurers with the condition in their policy do not state it on the Certificate. The Certificate is a legal document which states what is covered for third party cover to comply with the RTA. The RTA binds the Insurer to pay third party claims on whatever is covered by the Certificate. Thus if it's not shown on the Certificate (But is clearly stated in the Policy), the Insurer would still need to pay third party claims but would have the right to recover from their policyholder.

Insurance companies front line call centre staff have very little knowledge of Insurance and are taught solely on their own Insurers products. The majority of them (Who do not know the full situation) when presented with this question will make a guess that the other car needs to be covered. The ones that have been trained on this will only know the answer with regards to their own employer.

I could show you a large amount of household name Insurers including the two largest, who do not state the other vehicle must be insured and thus it does not need to be covered for the Insurance to be valid.

If the message has not got through, then the other car does not need to be insured UNLESS your Insurer specifically states that the other car must have it's own insurance.

If anyone wants to check their own Insurers stance on this, you just need to look in your policy booklet under the section titled "Liability" or "Liability to others". This section will contain the cover for driving other cars and will state any conditions. You can also check your Certificate of Insurance. If it does not specifically state the other car must hold it's own insurance then it does not need to have it's own Insurance

Jamie_Carter

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.

I don't think there are many policies these days (maybe with the exception of trader policies), that will allow you to drive a vehicle that doesn't have it's own insurance.

But you wouldn't be able to release a car from the compound with DOV cover.

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

Technically your wrong.

Traditionally very few Insurers specifcally required the other vehicle to be insured when using the DOC extension. Quite a few but certainly not all of them now stipulate the other vehicle must be insured.

You need to bear in mind that Car Insurance is in effect like any other contract, however it's also governed by the Road Traffic Act.

Like any other contract, you cannot rely on terms that are not written into the contract (Policy). Unless the Policy or the Certificate expressly states the other car must have it's own Insurance.

Interestingly the majority of Insurers with the condition in their policy do not state it on the Certificate. The Certificate is a legal document which states what is covered for third party cover to comply with the RTA. The RTA binds the Insurer to pay third party claims on whatever is covered by the Certificate. Thus if it's not shown on the Certificate (But is clearly stated in the Policy), the Insurer would still need to pay third party claims but would have the right to recover from their policyholder.

Insurance companies front line call centre staff have very little knowledge of Insurance and are taught solely on their own Insurers products. The majority of them (Who do not know the full situation) when presented with this question will make a guess that the other car needs to be covered. The ones that have been trained on this will only know the answer with regards to their own employer.

I could show you a large amount of household name Insurers including the two largest, who do not state the other vehicle must be insured and thus it does not need to be covered for the Insurance to be valid.

If the message has not got through, then the other car does not need to be insured UNLESS your Insurer specifically states that the other car must have it's own insurance.

If anyone wants to check their own Insurers stance on this, you just need to look in your policy booklet under the section titled "Liability" or "Liability to others". This section will contain the cover for driving other cars and will state any conditions. You can also check your Certificate of Insurance. If it does not specifically state the other car must hold it's own insurance then it does not need to have it's own Insurance

You are forgetting the fact that DOV cover is to drive a road legal vehicle. If the vehicle doesn't have it's own insurance, then it isn't road legal.

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I'm afraid you are wrong. The car MUST have it's own insurance.

You insurance company may specify that as a condition of DOC cover but mine doesn't.

Whether the keeper has insurance doesn't affect my DOC extension unless my insurer has made it a condition (which it hasn't)

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

Yes they would.

As someone else has kindly pointed out there are two completely separate offences of no insurance. They relate to different circumstances and different people

S143 Road Traffic Act 1988
-applies to driver or other user (eg an employer)
-applies if using vehicle on a road or public place, but not on completely private land
-applies regardless of whether the vehicle is taxed or not, or declared off-road or not, and regardless of who is the owner and keeper.
-must have a certificate from an authorised insurer which covers the driver's use of the vehicle. This section of the law does make any other stipulations about the policy and does not require that the certificate or policy specifically mentions the vehicle being driven or that someone else must have a policy specifically covering the vehicle. So a DOC extension, a trade policy, a company fleet policy, would all be valid as long as the certificate covers the driver for the vehicle's use.
-6-8 points penalty
-police have a power of seizure under S165A
-it's also an offence to cause or permit this offence. But this does not automatically apply to the keeper any more or less than any other person.

S144A
-ONLY applies the keeper (not the driver, user or anyone else)
-only applies if the vehicle is taxed and not declared off-road
-applies regardless of whether the vehicle is being driven, parked, or on public or private land, or even out of the county
-keeper must have an insurance policy specifying the vehicle (or a class such as "all vehicles owned by the policyholder")
-no penalty points
-police have no power of seizure
-no offence of cause or permit this offence

There are a lot of differences between the two separate offences but many people just mix the two up together and come to the wrong conclusion.

This has already been discussed at great length over 5 pages on the link I gave earlier. I'm not going to repeat everything here all over again, but I am correct, and a careful read-through of the legislation will demonstrate that.

The offence wordings are here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

This Court of Appeal case (Pryor v Greater Mancester Police)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.html proves conclusively that a DOC extension IS valid for the purposes of s143 EVEN IF THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE OR POLICY SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE VEHICLE.

jaydeeuk1

fivetide wrote: »

Yes but how many times do you see it on the police programmes where they get stopped for no insurance and find a banned driver at the wheel?

Exactly. And put some cloned plates on from a dodgy ebay seller for a car you know is insured/taxed/mot'd and you'll only get rumbled if pulled over for speeding.... Doubt you'd stay behind to give details in an accident.

Just put 3rd party insurance included in price of fuel so it can't be avoided, perhaps 10p - 15p a litre, and all this nonsense will disappear overnight, insurance premiums will drop too.

Aretnap

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

I don't think there are many policies these days (maybe with the exception of trader policies), that will allow you to drive a vehicle that doesn't have it's own insurance.

That's my experience too, though I'm not sure if they're entirely non-existent or just unusual. Something like garage insurance might also cover it - a mechanic may well want to road test a vehicle which has been kept off-road and uninsured for a while - though it would presumably only apply to a car the garage was actually working on.

But you wouldn't be able to release a car from the compound with DOV cover.

Wouldn't you? The actual legislation says

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,
the authorised person shall permit him to remove the vehicle from his custody.

(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.

So if you don't have/can't get insurance yourself you can nominate a person to collect the vehicle, and that person must have insurance which covers his use of the vehicle - nothing about it having to cover the vehicle itself. Again this would depend on finding an insurer who doesn't exclude collecting an impounded car from its DOV cover - most (all?) do exclude it these days.

Unless the law has been changed since 2005?

jaydeeuk1

Aretnap wrote: »

Unless the law has been changed since 2005?

Was amended in 2008, but I too thought the loop hole of getting a mate to pick up your uninsured car was closed. And if not, it needs to be.

Jamie_Carter

thenudeone wrote: »

You insurance company may specify that as a condition of DOC cover but mine doesn't.

Whether the keeper has insurance doesn't affect my DOC extension unless my insurer has made it a condition (which it hasn't)



Yes they would.

As someone else has kindly pointed out there are two completely separate offences of no insurance. They relate to different circumstances and different people

S143 Road Traffic Act 1988
-applies to driver or other user (eg an employer)
-applies if using vehicle on a road or public place, but not on completely private land
-applies regardless of whether the vehicle is taxed or not, or declared off-road or not, and regardless of who is the owner and keeper.
-must have a certificate from an authorised insurer which covers the driver's use of the vehicle. This section of the law does make any other stipulations about the policy and does not require that the certificate or policy specifically mentions the vehicle being driven or that someone else must have a policy specifically covering the vehicle. So a DOC extension, a trade policy, a company fleet policy, would all be valid as long as the certificate covers the driver for the vehicle's use.
-6-8 points penalty
-police have a power of seizure under S165A
-it's also an offence to cause or permit this offence. But this does not automatically apply to the keeper any more or less than any other person.

S144A
-ONLY applies the keeper (not the driver, user or anyone else)
-only applies if the vehicle is taxed and not declared off-road
-applies regardless of whether the vehicle is being driven, parked, or on public or private land, or even out of the county
-keeper must have an insurance policy specifying the vehicle (or a class such as "all vehicles owned by the policyholder")
-no penalty points
-police have no power of seizure
-no offence of cause or permit this offence

There are a lot of differences between the two separate offences but many people just mix the two up together and come to the wrong conclusion.

This has already been discussed at great length over 5 pages on the link I gave earlier. I'm not going to repeat everything here all over again, but I am correct, and a careful read-through of the legislation will demonstrate that.

The offence wordings are here
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

This Court of Appeal case (Pryor v Greater Mancester Police)
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.html proves conclusively that a DOC extension IS valid for the purposes of s143 EVEN IF THERE IS NO CERTIFICATE OR POLICY SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO THE VEHICLE.

The compound would not release the vehicle if it didn't have insurance that specified that vehicle.

Although with the insurance that you mention (which is for traders), the car can technically be driven (usually by a mechanic on a test drive). As soon as the driver gets out of the vehicle, then it isn't insured. So any vehicle that hasn't been SORN'd must have it's own insurance.

The reason for this is obvious. For example, if a car was parked on a private driveway, and lets say the hand brake fails. The car rolls down the hill and kills someone.

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are forgetting the fact that DOV cover is to drive a road legal vehicle. If the vehicle doesn't have it's own insurance, then it isn't road legal.

Jamie_Carter

Aretnap wrote: »

That's my experience too, though I'm not sure if they're entirely non-existent or just unusual. Something like garage insurance might also cover it - a mechanic may well want to road test a vehicle which has been kept off-road and uninsured for a while - though it would presumably only apply to a car the garage was actually working on.

Wouldn't you? The actual legislation says

So if you don't have/can't get insurance yourself you can nominate a person to collect the vehicle, and that person must have insurance which covers his use of the vehicle - nothing about it having to cover the vehicle itself. Again this would depend on finding an insurer who doesn't exclude collecting an impounded car from its DOV cover - most (all?) do exclude it these days.

Unless the law has been changed since 2005?

You are reading this wrong:

(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,
the authorised person shall permit him to remove the vehicle from his custody.

It has to specify that vehicle.

For example: If I had been banned from driving, then I wouldn't be able to get insurance. So a friend could insure the car in their name to recover it from the compound.