Car impounded despite being insured

Aleeyssa

I recently changed insurance company when my renewal cost was extortionate I pay through direct debit and always check the amounts go out ... Last Thursday I got stopped as the car was not showing any insurance I was given a producer and told to check my documents I was flabbergasted .... Anyway on closer inspection of my documents one digit of my number plate had been incorrectly printed and so it was not showing as insured I phoned the insurance company and changed it immediately. I was told by the police to wait for my new certificate to show the error had been corrected. On sat my partner drove my car half a mile (he has his own fully comprehensive insurance on another vehicle which covers him to drive mine third party) he was stopped by police who said there was no insurance on the car and that he wasn't insured either so they impounded my car. Anyway both my partner and I went to the police station proved that the car and he was insured and that the car should not have been impounded .... Fine we got the car back but we had to pay £170 to get it back and the police say I am liable for that cost ..... How can that be I was insured my partner was insured ..... Not happy at all

Hackman_2

You are not liable, your 165 form should have been stamped no charge and the garage should have released the car without charge.

kingstreet

Raise a complaint to the Chief Constable of the force in question.

Hackman_2

kingstreet wrote: »

Raise a complaint to the Chief Constable of the force in question.

Better off doing it with the forces recovery manager first.

thenudeone

Moved from original post on another thread)

The police have the power to seize a car if 3 things happen:
1) the driver is asked to produce an insurance certificate covering their use of the vehicle
2) they fail to produce one
3) the police officer has reasonable grounds to BELIEVE (not just suspect but BELIEVE) that the driver is not insured.
Road Traffic Act 1988 S165A 3)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A
NB: section 143 referred to is the requirement to have third party insurance

Does your partner actually have DOC cover? Many people assume that it automatically comes with comprehensive insurance, but it doesn't, and many insurers are withdrawing it or being choosy about who they offer it to.

If so, but the certificate wasn't produced at the time, the seizure was probably lawful and your only hope is to persuade the police that with the information available, the officer couldn't have reasonably have BELIEVED that the driver was uninsured. He may have suspected it, but a mere suspicion is not sufficient to seize a car. It has to be much stronger than a suspicion. The officer would need to explain what information he used to come to the belief that the driver was uninsured.

So thing such a these become important:
Did your partner tell the police that he had third party cover under his(?) own policy?
Did your partner give the police the certificate covering him? (If so the seizure is clearly unlawful)
Did your partner tell the police the vehicle registration which his policy was on?
Did your partner tell the police which insurance company his policy was on?
Did the police take any steps to check any of this? by checking the insurance database for your partner's car to see whether a policy existed in his name; telephoning the insurance company etc.?

If someone has a clean licence and insurance on a car they own (both of which can be checked by the police) and claimed that they were covered third party to drive other cars; I'd suggest there wasn't reasonable grounds to believe the driver was uninsured, but it's not clear cut. Essentially you'd have to persuade a court that that belief was unreasonable given the information available.

Seizure is an option, not a requirement. The police can still issue a producer and prosecute the driver if it turns out they weren't insured after all, if they're not sure about it.

Some people have reported here that they have received refunds when they later prove they were insured at the time, but I wouldn't bank on it.

thenudeone

Hackman wrote: »

You are not liable, your 165 form should have been stamped no charge and the garage should have released the car without charge.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Just because you were actually insured DOES NOT MEAN that any seizure is illegal or that you get your car back for free.

My post above gives the legislation involved. As long as there was a legitimate power of seizure (see the post above for the requirements) the police are under no obligation to refund any storage fees. They might do so, but they have no obligation to.

If you think they do, please give the link to the legislation which says so.

Hackman_2

thenudeone wrote: »

Moved from original post on another thread)

The police have the power to seize a car if 3 things happen:
1) the driver is asked to produce an insurance certificate covering their use of the vehicle
2) they fail to produce one
3) the police officer has reasonable grounds to BELIEVE (not just suspect but BELIEVE) that the driver is not insured.
Road Traffic Act 1988 S165A 3)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A
NB: section 143 referred to is the requirement to have third party insurance

Does your partner actually have DOC cover? Many people assume that it automatically comes with comprehensive insurance, but it doesn't, and many insurers are withdrawing it or being choosy about who they offer it to.

If so, but the certificate wasn't produced at the time, the seizure was probably lawful and your only hope is to persuade the police that with the information available, the officer couldn't have reasonably have BELIEVED that the driver was uninsured. He may have suspected it, but a mere suspicion is not sufficient to seize a car. It has to be much stronger than a suspicion. The officer would need to explain what information he used to come to the belief that the driver was uninsured.

So thing such a these become important:
Did your partner tell the police that he had third party cover under his(?) own policy?
Did your partner give the police the certificate covering him? (If so the seizure is clearly unlawful)
Did your partner tell the police the vehicle registration which his policy was on?
Did your partner tell the police which insurance company his policy was on?
Did the police take any steps to check any of this? by checking the insurance database for your partner's car to see whether a policy existed in his name; telephoning the insurance company etc.?

If someone has a clean licence and insurance on a car they own (both of which can be checked by the police) and claimed that they were covered third party to drive other cars; I'd suggest there wasn't reasonable grounds to believe the driver was uninsured, but it's not clear cut. Essentially you'd have to persuade a court that that belief was unreasonable given the information available.

Seizure is an option, not a requirement. The police can still issue a producer and prosecute the driver if it turns out they weren't insured after all, if they're not sure about it.

Some people have reported here that they have received refunds when they later prove they were insured at the time, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Did the police check the instance database and mib for the ohs vehicle to establish if he can drive other vehicles?

Hackman_2

thenudeone wrote: »

I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Just because you were actually insured DOES NOT MEAN that any seizure is illegal or that you get your car back for free.

My post above gives the legislation involved. As long as there was a legitimate power of seizure (see the post above for the requirements) the police are under no obligation to refund any storage fees. They might do so, but they have no obligation to.

If you think they do, please give the link to the legislation which says so.

It matters not to me what you think.

thenudeone

Hackman wrote: »

It matters not to me what you think.

This is a form where people ask for help with issues / problems.

So whilst I don't care what you think, it matters to me if you give incorrect information, because that's clearly not helpful to anyone, although it might make you think you're "big" and "important".

Given that you haven't given any substantive answer; it's clear you know you were wrong, but don't have the guts to admit it.

The correct answers to questions like this are nearly always just a couple of clicks away, on the legislation.gov.uk website.