Driving a Van on car insurance....what is the likely penalty??

brat

Contact your insurance company. They will let you know whether your insurance cover allows your use of that vehicle in the precise circumstances. Explain what has happened, that you presumably thought you would be covered, and see what they say. Some vans are car-derived, so that may be acceptable to the insurers.

derrick wrote: »

It seems like the police allowed the OP to continue driving the van, if so they must assume they had insurance, otherwise they would have impounded the van!

Not quite. We have to believe the car's use is uninsured before we can seize, which is much more than mere suspicion. This is why the OP was given the opportunity to produce the valid insurance.

derrick

brat wrote: »

Not quite. We have to believe the car's use is uninsured before we can seize, which is much more than mere suspicion. This is why the OP was given the opportunity to produce the valid insurance.

Have seen them on the police shows where they take the car if the driver can not prove there and then that they have insurance, for the driver to prove later that the car was legit, seems some police constable don't know their aris from their elbows.

And I did not say suspicion, I said assume.
.

steve-L

The important question is when did the car actual change hands....

Leaving it with the scrap yard with paperwork signed and an understanding you have a 12 hour cooling off period might be negotiable with the scrap dealer unless the already signed and dated the V5.

Most likely they didn't do it THAT DAY...... so if its dated the NEXT DAY you're in the clear assuming the van was covered by your policy if they will put this in writing.

brat

derrick wrote: »

Have seen them on the police shows where they take the car if the driver can not prove there and then that they have insurance, for the driver to prove later that the car was legit, seems some police constable don't know their aris from their elbows.

The law requires them to believe. If they merely suspect, then the seizure is unlawful.

derrick wrote: »

And I did not say suspicion, I said assume.
.

I understand what you said. But the criterion of 'assumption that the driver has insurance' is not the pivot point for seizure. That pivot point has to rest on the officer's belief that the vehicle is not insured.

Foxy-Stoat_3

As stated, you should be calling your insurance company and clarify if a commercial vehicle is defined as a "motor car" or not and read your policy conditions of using the DOC extension.

Failing that, just take the certificate of insurance to the police station and hope the person behind the desk doesn't look to closely. Assuming you got a producer document when you were stopped. Does it just state a reg number or does it state the make, model and words "commercial vehicle"?

You may of had a very lucky escape, if not then you and your other half may well get prosecuted.

Skinto_7

brat wrote: »

The law requires them to believe. If they merely suspect, then the seizure is unlawful.


I understand what you said. But the criterion of 'assumption that the driver has insurance' is not the pivot point for seizure. That pivot point has to rest on the officer's belief that the vehicle is not insured.

Can the officer not do a roadside check to validate the drivers insurance?

If they had they would maybe have confirmed that the driver had, what they thought, was legit insurance in place, and that any discrepancy from this was nothing more than an unintentional oversight, this would have allowed them to get on with their day and catch all the real criminals that seem to be a bit too much hard work for them to bother with!!!

custardy

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Can the officer not do a roadside check to validate the drivers insurance?

If they had they would maybe have confirmed that the driver had, what they thought, was legit insurance in place, and that any discrepancy from this was nothing more than an unintentional oversight, this would have allowed them to get on with their day and catch all the real criminals that seem to be a bit too much hard work for them to bother with!!!

So what happens if they hit your car whilst they drive home?

Skinto_7

custardy wrote: »

So what happens if they hit your car whilst they drive home?

I'd be pretty p1ssed if i ended up footing the bill (although more with the Insurance company than the driver), however as far as i was aware the OP hadn’t hit anyone and it was just a random stop.

On that basis and in the circumstances set out by the OP, i see no reason why anyone would want to punish someone to the extent of risking their license and the consequences that may come with that.

custardy

Skinto_7 wrote: »

I'd be pretty p1ssed if i ended up footing the bill (although more with the Insurance company than the driver), however as far as i was aware the OP hadn’t hit anyone and it was just a random stop.

On that basis and in the circumstances set out by the OP, i see no reason why anyone would want to punish someone to the extent of risking their license and the consequences that may come with that.

So dont worry about being covered, as long as you dont hit anyone?
just say you though you were covered.
its all good

Mrs_Imp

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Can the officer not do a roadside check to validate the drivers insurance?

If they had they would maybe have confirmed that the driver had, what they thought, was legit insurance in place, and that any discrepancy from this was nothing more than an unintentional oversight, this would have allowed them to get on with their day and catch all the real criminals that seem to be a bit too much hard work for them to bother with!!!

I'm a bit confused by this. Are you saying that you WANT the police to spend extra time at the side of the road doing insurance checks, rather than doing a quick stop then getting the motorist to show their documentation at the station. Surely that means that they would have even less time to be catching the 'real criminals'