Vehicle seizure recovery problem

molerat

Minrich wrote: »

it means if ABC123D is the registration number (on the certificate) that is the only car you can recover with that certificate . So you cannot recover a car under the third party extension (which most comprehensive policies have) , which is what is said in the first post !

THE ONLY CAR YOU CAN RECOVER FROM SEIZURE IS ABC123D OR ANY OTHER REGISTRATION NUMBER THAT IS SPECIFICALLY DETAILED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE , NO OTHER WAY .

Now i CAN go and get insurance for a car that my mate owns and with the certificate go an get it recovered . IT WOULD HAVE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER ON THE CERTIFICATE

Many insurers will not insure a car that is not owned by the policy holder. The "impound insurers" will only insure the owner on a 30 day policy but will insure owner + named driver on an annual policy. Shrewd business move.

BillyFord

Minrich wrote: »

The NIP knowledge (re reminders being sent) i agree has changed . It was never done in the past , due to several reasons .....one of which was the "not responding in 28 days" breach and not providing the driver details ..... Which 28 day would you use ? The 28 days from the original NIP or the 28 days from a reminder ? or a reminder of a reminder ! If you were in the habit of sending reminders then nobody would answer the first one and then couldn't be prosecuted due to the 28 day rule .... (Failing to disclose driver details at the time the offence)

If it was an issue then why is it not now?

Minrich

BillyFord wrote: »

Shouting won't make you right.

http://www.surrey.police.uk/About-Us/Our-policies-and-procedures/InfoItemId/347

You can get a car out on third party cover if your policy doesn't exclude you from doing so.

But i was right and continue to be right ....

If the registration number is on the certificate you can get it out , whether it is comprehensive , tpft of third party ....

Minrich

BillyFord wrote: »

If it was an issue then why is it not now?

It still is , but the issue rarely arises as the defendant attending court can never prove they didn't receive the first NIP ..... How could you ? or the defendant is told to plead guilty to the original offence or found guilty and the failure to notify driver details is not proceeded with ... etc

Minrich

molerat wrote: »

Many insurers will not insure a car that is not owned by the policy holder. The "impound insurers" will only insure the owner on a 30 day policy but will insure owner + named driver on an annual policy. Shrewd business move.

But also Many do . Named driver on the original owners insurance would resolve most issues .

BillyFord

Minrich wrote: »

But i was right and continue to be right ....

If the registration number is on the certificate you can get it out , whether it is comprehensive , tpft of third party ....

You don't need the registration number on the certificate you just need to be covered to drive it.

molerat

Minrich wrote: »

But also Many do . Named driver on the original owners insurance would resolve most issues .

Agreed but OP seems to be not listening.

Minrich

BillyFord wrote: »

You don't need the registration number on the certificate you just need to be covered to drive it.

and how else would an insurance certificate specify the vehicle in question other than by registration number ? (unless it was any any vehicle policy in the hands of a recovery agent)

BillyFord

Minrich wrote: »

and how else would an insurance certificate specify the vehicle in question other than by registration number ? (unless it was any any vehicle policy in the hands of a recovery agent)

What does yours say about third party cover on other vehicles? Have you listed every vehicles you may want to drive?

Minrich

But the third party extension is not valid for seized cars (Every Insurance Company has this specifically excluded) and forces do not allow it .... We are going round in circles now !