Car impounded - advice needed

worstluckever

My Mrs took her car to her friends house, she was having a drink. I met her there later after work. Because she'd been drinking I said I'd drive the 1 mile home. On the way back a police car travelling in the opposite direction passed. I checked my mirror and could see him u turning. Soon as he came to the car window he was seemingly very happy to tell me I wasn't on the insurance. I said I've got a licence and was driving cos my Mrs had a drink. He done me there and then and the tow truck was ordered before my !!!! touched the back seat of the police car. I accept the charge for the offence of driving with no insurance, but I'm annoyed they towed the car away even though the car is insured in the wife's name and she is the registered keeper all this was on the computer of the police car. He said it's procedure but I think it's just procedure for someone to make 150 quid at least. I offered him the car key and said my wife will pick the key up from the station as he said he's taking the car in case I got back in it! He was in no cooperational mood (are they ever) and got it towed. And why does my Mrs have to produce her documents to get the car back if everything on the computer says it's insured in her name and registered is this because the information on the computer is unreliable? If so does that takes the policeman's rights to take the car away in the first place? If I'd been stopped for drink driving they don't take the car, what's the difference? And he explained on his recognition device it showed that the Mrs was insured but she wasn't driving. I said he did well to spot the driver in the dark, rain and whilst travelling in the opposite direction so quickly, very strange.

tykesi

'worstluckever'?

Sounds like you made your own luck in this instance and got what you deserved! Not sure it was worth resurecting a six month old thread to point this out!

Inch_High_2

worstluckever wrote: »

My Mrs took her car to her friends house, she was having a drink. I met her there later after work. Because she'd been drinking I said I'd drive the 1 mile home. On the way back a police car travelling in the opposite direction passed. I checked my mirror and could see him u turning. Soon as he came to the car window he was seemingly very happy to tell me I wasn't on the insurance. I said I've got a licence and was driving cos my Mrs had a drink. He done me there and then and the tow truck was ordered before my !!!! touched the back seat of the police car. I accept the charge for the offence of driving with no insurance, but I'm annoyed they towed the car away even though the car is insured in the wife's name and she is the registered keeper all this was on the computer of the police car. He said it's procedure but I think it's just procedure for someone to make 150 quid at least. I offered him the car key and said my wife will pick the key up from the station as he said he's taking the car in case I got back in it! He was in no cooperational mood (are they ever) and got it towed. And why does my Mrs have to produce her documents to get the car back if everything on the computer says it's insured in her name and registered is this because the information on the computer is unreliable? If so does that takes the policeman's rights to take the car away in the first place? If I'd been stopped for drink driving they don't take the car, what's the difference? And he explained on his recognition device it showed that the Mrs was insured but she wasn't driving. I said he did well to spot the driver in the dark, rain and whilst travelling in the opposite direction so quickly, very strange.

What was there to stop you going back and getting the spare key had it been left at the side of the road?

AdrianC

worstluckever wrote: »

If I'd been stopped for drink driving they don't take the car, what's the difference?

The difference is that somebody who is hit and injured by a drink driver will get compensation from that driver's insurance.
If you'd hit and injured somebody, there would have been no payment at all, since you were driving whilst uninsured.

In addition, a drink-driver would have been at the police station, so unable to collect the vehicle. You were free to walk home and get the spare key to recover the vehicle, continuing to drive uninsured.

Inch_High_2

AdrianC wrote: »

The difference is that somebody who is hit and injured by a drink driver will get compensation from that driver's insurance.
If you'd hit and injured somebody, there would have been no payment at all, since you were driving whilst uninsured.

In addition, a drink-driver would have been at the police station, so unable to collect the vehicle. You were free to walk home and get the spare key to recover the vehicle, continuing to drive uninsured.

Really?


The vehicle had insurance but not for him.

AdrianC

Inch_High wrote: »

Really?

The vehicle had insurance but not for him.

Really. The insurance are just going to reject the claim, since the driver is not insured.

If the car was parked by the uninsured driver without the handbrake applied properly, and rolled away - then there might be some debate as to whether the cover for the car itself applies. But if it's an uninsured driver? Nope. No way.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

The difference is that somebody who is hit and injured by a drink driver will get compensation from that driver's insurance.
If you'd hit and injured somebody, there would have been no payment at all, since you were driving whilst uninsured.

If the OP had hit someone his wife's insurers would still have been liable to compensate the injured party, in spite of the fact that he wasn't named on the policy. They could then have sought to recover the money from him and/or his wife. Even if there was no insurance on the vehicle at all the victim could still have got compensation from the MIB.

And anyway, speaking for myself I'd rather they stopped the drunk driver in the first place than let him run me over secure in the knowledge that I can always claim a bit of compo for my broken neck.

I suspect the reason is more that a drunk driver, unlike an uninsured driver, will generally be arrested. He won't be driving his car while he's sitting in a cell anyway, so there's no need to seize it to stop him driving before he sobers up.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

Really. The insurance are just going to reject the claim, since the driver is not insured.

If the car was parked by the uninsured driver without the handbrake applied properly, and rolled away - then there might be some debate as to whether the cover for the car itself applies. But if it's an uninsured driver? Nope. No way.

Road Traffic Act section 151 requires them to pay third party claims so long as the driver is identified, regardless of whether he's covered by the policy. Even if your car is stolen, your insurer can be required to pay for damage/injuries caused by the thief.

Inch_High_2

AdrianC wrote: »

Really. The insurance are just going to reject the claim, since the driver is not insured.

If the car was parked by the uninsured driver without the handbrake applied properly, and rolled away - then there might be some debate as to whether the cover for the car itself applies. But if it's an uninsured driver? Nope. No way.

You're not doing very well on the insurance advice today.

worstluckever

Inch_High wrote: »

What was there to stop you going back and getting the spare key had it been left at the side of the road?

No spare key, but that's irrelevant, what's to stop me getting back in it when out the pound? What's to stop a drink driver downing half a bottle of whiskey before he gets back in his car after being released? My argument is the car is insured so could have been left on the roadside I'd already been done for no insurance I accept that. I'd understand if they took it away with no insurance at all. It's like someone knocking at your door to say you've no TV licence then take your cooker away, there's no reason other than to make someone 150 quid!