car seizures by police for no insurance

Aretnap

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

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.

Found this from 2008 but as far as I can see it only changes the storage/release fee and tinkers with some definitions. Can't see anything about closing the get your mate to pick it on his DOV cover loophole - though the insurance companies can pretty much close it themselves by stipulating that most or policies can't be used for that purpose.

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.

That would be trader insurance that is for the car trade.

I remember something on TV once where a car was pulled over due to no insurance on the ANPR. A mechanic was driving under trader insurance. But the ownder still got done for not having insurance for the vehicle. If the car had been owned by the garage, then it would have been covered by the trader insurance.

By the way, the mechanic wasn't personally doing anything illegal.

Jamie_Carter

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

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.

It has, unless the mate gets the car insured in their name.

Aretnap

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

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.

I don't think I'm reading it wrong. An insurance policy doesn't have to specify a particular vehicle in order to cover use of that vehicle. I have DOV cover, so if I were to drive my friend's car my policy would cover my use of that vehicle, even though it doesn't specify it. Section 143 of the RTA uses much the same wording ("in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person"); so if your interpretation was correct, no DOV cover could ever be valid.

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

You are reading this wrong:

It has to specify that vehicle.

No.

I know what I said and I said what was written in the Road Traffic Act.

The requirement for release is a policy which covers the driver's use of the vehicle.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1606/regulation/5/made
This is exactly the same wording as s143, and is completely different to s144A which relates to the keeper's obligation to insure a vehicle. The release does not require a certificate which specifically identifies the vehicle. The law simply doesn't make that requirement. You may think it should or it does but it just doesn't.

You're confusing two separate offences. i thought I'd already pointed that out.

Oh yes - I had, you'd just ignored it.:T

GO AND READ THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

and stop presenting your opinions about what the law is or should be as if they were fact, without quoting a single authoratitive source.

The answers are all in the legislation.gov.uk website.

Anything else is trolling.

thenudeone

Just for good measure -here is the policy booklet for my LV policy.

http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf

As you can see, LV do not specify that DOC cover is dependant upon the vehicle having it's own policy. Therefore the DOC cover still applies.

So if I want to borrow a friend's off-the road and uninsured car, I can drive it and still be insured as required by s143. I would not be committing any insurance related offences by doing so.

Tilt

Aretnap wrote: »

I don't think I'm reading it wrong. An insurance policy doesn't have to specify a particular vehicle in order to cover use of that vehicle. I have DOV cover, so if I were to drive my friend's car my policy would cover my use of that vehicle, even though it doesn't specify it. Section 143 of the RTA uses much the same wording ("in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person"); so if your interpretation was correct, no DOV cover could ever be valid.

You have to be careful there as some DOC policies exclude cars which are not themselves insured.

Under the new CIE regs, a taxed car must carry it's own insurance (which is the keepers responsibility) otherwise it must be SORNd.

Tilt

thenudeone wrote: »

Just for good measure -here is the policy booklet for my LV policy.

http://www.lv.com/upload/lv-rebrand-2009/pdfs/insurance/car/21121973_lv-motor-doi.pdf

As you can see, LV do not specify that DOC cover is dependant upon the vehicle having it's own policy. Therefore the DOC cover still applies.

So if I want to borrow a friend's off-the road and uninsured car, I can drive it and still be insured as required by s143. I would not be committing any insurance related offences by doing so.

No but your friend would. And you wouldn't be covered to get a seized car released (which is what this thread is about).

Jamie_Carter

thenudeone wrote: »

No.

I know what I said and I said what was written in the Road Traffic Act.

The requirement for release is a policy which covers the driver's use of the vehicle.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/1606/regulation/5/made
This is exactly the same wording as s143, and is completely different to s144A which relates to the keeper's obligation to insure a vehicle. The release does not require a certificate which specifically identifies the vehicle. The law simply doesn't make that requirement. You may think it should or it does but it just doesn't.

You're confusing two separate offences. i thought I'd already pointed that out.

Oh yes - I had, you'd just ignored it.:T

GO AND READ THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

and stop presenting your opinions about what the law is or should be as if they were fact, without quoting a single authoratitive source.

The answers are all in the legislation.gov.uk website.

Anything else is trolling.

I'm not quoting opinions, I'm quoting facts.

If people listen to you then they could drop themselves in trouble, as you are reading the legislation, and misinterpreting it. You have to remember that often more than one peice of legislation applies.

It is due to misinterpreting legislation that a good lawyer can often get his clients off. Because they are good at twisting the meanings around.

You need to read the legislation with more of an open mind, rather than interpret it to suit your agenda.

Jamie_Carter

Aretnap wrote: »

I don't think I'm reading it wrong. An insurance policy doesn't have to specify a particular vehicle in order to cover use of that vehicle. I have DOV cover, so if I were to drive my friend's car my policy would cover my use of that vehicle, even though it doesn't specify it. Section 143 of the RTA uses much the same wording ("in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person"); so if your interpretation was correct, no DOV cover could ever be valid.

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).