Vehicle seizure recovery problem

shaun_from_Africa

facade wrote: »

But that's insane: they impound a properly insured car, for nothing to do with insurance, then say the insurance doesn't cover you to recover it and is effectively no longer valid because it is now the other side of a fence???

Why is it insane?
The problem isn't that the OPs insurance won't cover him to collect the car but that his brother in law needs specific insurance to collect the impounded vehicle.
Even though the OPs insurance may well cover him, he can't collect the car due to not having a hard copy of a valid driving licence which is something that the police have stated they require.

BillyFord

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why is it insane?
The problem isn't that the OPs insurance won't cover him to collect the car but that his brother in law needs specific insurance to collect the impounded vehicle.
Even though the OPs insurance may well cover him, he can't collect the car due to not having a hard copy of a valid driving licence which is something that the police have stated they require.

If the ops insurance covers collection then why not add the brother in law?

Minrich

The only thing required to remove an impounded car is the permission of the owner to the person collecting with the required insurance and driving licence for its use on a road . Quite simple . Anyone can collect it if they have the insurance to do so and licence. There is no "Force Policy" that can stop this happening as it would be illegal.
As above , get the Bro in Law on the OP's Insurance , job done.

facade

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Why is it insane?

This part

gunnapaul2 wrote: »

The police won't give the release go ahead without impound insurance.

Reads as if now it is impounded, you need different insurance to release it.

BillyFord

facade wrote: »

Reads as if now it is impounded, you need different insurance to release it.

This was never an issue until insurance companies started putting the releasing impounded vehicles clause on their certificates. There is no requirement under 165 or any other part of the rta for such insurance.

BillyFord

Minrich wrote: »

The only thing required to remove an impounded car is the permission of the owner to the person collecting with the required insurance and driving licence for its use on a road . Quite simple . Anyone can collect it if they have the insurance to do so and licence. There is no "Force Policy" that can stop this happening as it would be illegal.
As above , get the Bro in Law on the OP's Insurance , job done.

Remember the days of HO/RT1's when you could produce at a police station of your choice? Is it legislation or policy that dictates you can only produce at stations nominated by the police to have a vehicle released? Not withstanding the fact most stations have closed.

facade

BillyFord wrote: »

This was never an issue until insurance companies started putting the releasing impounded vehicles clause on their certificates. There is no requirement under 165 or any other part of the rta for such insurance.

Maybe I am just being thick

But what the hell difference does it make to the Insurance company, whether you are showing the certificate to a man at a desk, or driving the car on the road?

Is there really a clause in my policy docs that says my insurance certificate is invalid if my car is impounded?

There is no additional risk to them (unless all impounds are accident blackspots, and well known for damaging cars), all that is happening is waving the certificate at a clerk who ticks a box on a form.

If you are taking out a new policy, they can ask you where the car is, and you say "impounded" and they suddenly massively increase the price? That is nothing short of extortion (or "supply & demand" as it is known the greater your demand, the smaller & more expensive the supply becomes )

I'm not over happy that they ask if you have an impending prosecution, when you haven't officially done anything until you are convicted either.

BillyFord

facade wrote: »

Maybe I am just being thick

But what the hell difference does it make to the Insurance company, whether you are showing the certificate to a man at a desk, or driving the car on the road?

Is there really a clause in my policy docs that says my insurance certificate is invalid if my car is impounded?

There is no additional risk to them (unless all impounds are accident blackspots, and well known for damaging cars), all that is happening is waving the certificate at a clerk who ticks a box on a form.

If you are taking out a new policy, they can ask you where the car is, and you say "impounded" and they suddenly massively increase the price? That is nothing short of extortion (or "supply & demand" as it is known the greater your demand, the smaller & more expensive the supply becomes )

I'm not over happy that they ask if you have an impending prosecution, when you haven't officially done anything until you are convicted either.

Being honest mate, I haven't a clue what your policy or certificate states. What I was referring to is the bold print across many certificates stating you cannot use the policy to release an impounded vehicle. I would suggest that's to stop you getting one out using third party cover that uninsured. However if you are caught without insurance you could end up in a catch 22, purely down to wording that may contradict the law.

alibean121

This made me curious so I pulled my policy out and there's no exclusion on there so I'll pop down and pick it up

You should definitely get your BIL to check his actual policy though, you may well be lucky.

dacouch

alibean121 wrote: »

This made me curious so I pulled my policy out and there's no exclusion on there so I'll pop down and pick it up

You should definitely get your BIL to check his actual policy though, you may well be lucky.

Any such exclusion is normally contained on the Certificate of Insurance