Car impound despite have motor trader policy

Leafar16

My friend was driving his wife's car who is the registered keeper and the policy is on her name.
He has his own motor trader policy which states that he can drive any cars held in trust by or in the custody or in control of the policyholder for motor trade purposes.

Limitations as to use:
1) For motor trade purposes
2) For social,  domestic and pleasure purposes only if the cars are the property of the policy holder.
3) For personal business use

When stopped he said that he was travelling on business to see part exchange car and showed his trader policy. 
Police called the broker who my friend used to get the policy and was not satisfied with with the information he got. 
He took the car off my friend and gave him the ticket which had the tick opposite to social,  domestic and pleasure which was incorrect. 
A few hours later my friend paid £150 and got the car back and now awaiting a letter from the police about 6 points which he's not happy with. 
My friend now is in touch with his insurance company to get clarification and I decided to ask here meanwhile what are your thoughts and what can he do about it? 
Thank you 

forgotmyname

He had a trade policy. Was her car listed on the policy?

Depending on the policy they all vary.  Some are a repair garage and they can drive customers cars for test drives etc.
Depending on the policy wording that vehicle may require its own valid insurance.

Dealer where he is covered for test drive of vehicles he is purchasing again maybe required to have its own insurance.
Vehicles in stock often require the cars details to be logged onto the account to be covered.

Other variations exist, so what type of policy and the wording?

Herzlos

So what clause is he trying to use to claim he's covered and why do the police not agree?

On the face of it, it looks like he was caught driving his wifes car without insurance and is trying to claim it was for work, but I don't think that'd apply for a car that's not his or on the policy. Why isn't he a named driver on his wifes policy, or using a car on his traders policy for a trip related to the trade? Can he prove he was driving for business?

I've never heard of a car dealer driving to a buyer to view a trade-in, but I guess in this market it's not impossible.

TooManyPoints

If the trade policy says:

"...any cars held in trust by or in the custody or in control of the policyholder for motor trade purposes."

and 

"...My friend was driving his wife's car who is the registered keeper..."

Then it doesn't matter what it was being used for as presumably it wasn't "....held in trust by or in the custody or in control of the policyholder for motor trade purposes."

Seems like he's banged to rights unless he's covered by any other policy somehow. He needs to contact the insurers to put the circumstances of his journey to them and ask them to verify he was covered (if indeed he was).

daveyjp

What he does is go to Court and get the police to prove their case as the process has now started for prosecution for driving without insurance.

'Driving the car to a potential purchaser' looks like a convenient reason for a trader when stopped, but if he was doing that and the purchaser is willing to give evidence he can go to Court and present his case.

Car_54

daveyjp said:

What he does is go to Court and get the police to prove their case as the process has now started for prosecution for driving without insurance.

'Driving the car to a potential purchaser' looks like a convenient reason for a trader when stopped, but if he was doing that and the purchaser is willing to give evidence he can go to Court and present his case.

He was actually (allegedly) driving "to see part exchange car", but the principle is the same.

sheramber

Why was he driving your wife's car to see a trade in car?  Why was he not driving a dealership car?

facade

daveyjp said:

What he does is go to Court and get the police to prove their case as the process has now started for prosecution for driving without insurance.

Actually, he has to prove that he was insured, it would be impossible for the police to prove that he wasn't. Driving without valid insurance cover is one of the few offences where you have to prove innocence.

Leafar16

Thank you for your responses!
On his policy the limitation states:
For personal business use. 
You can probably argue that it can be anything connected with business activity which was the case.
Interesting that the Plod used his discretion to tick on the ticket the box opposite to Social, Domestic and Pleasure which my friend denied. So the officer was not convinced and now my friend has to prove that it was a business trip in the court in order to challenge the contravention.
Hope his insurance company would be able to clarify the details of the policy. 

Grumpy_chap

Leafar16 said:

On his policy the limitation states:
For personal business use. 
You can probably argue that it can be anything connected with business activity which was the case.

But it rather sounds as though his wife's car is not covered by the business policy:

Leafar16 said:

My friend was driving his wife's car who is the registered keeper and the policy is on her name.
He has his own motor trader policy which states that he can drive any cars held in trust by or in the custody or in control of the policyholder for motor trade purposes.

Limitations as to use:
1) For motor trade purposes
2) For social,  domestic and pleasure purposes only if the cars are the property of the policy holder.
3) For personal business use

If it was a business journey, then the wife's car is not "held in trust by or in the custody or in control of the policyholder for motor trade purposes".
If it was a SD&P journey, then the car is not "the property of the policy holder".  The car is the wife's property.

Is the policy holder the individual, or a Ltd Co.?

I would expect that the Police would also look at the totality of the situation when assessing the journey as to whether the individual was on a business purpose or SD&P, and not just accept:

Leafar16 said:

he said that he was travelling on business to see part exchange car 

Had he just driven out of Tesco car park with a boot load of groceries?
Were the children in the back seat with their muddy football boots on?
Time of day? 
Address of the car that he was about to see?  Contact details?  It would have been easy for the PC to make a call to the proposed vendor of the car to confirm...

What was the reason the individual was stopped in the first place?

Petriix

It makes zero sense not to be a named driver on his wife's insurance if he wishes to drive her car at all. It often reduces the overall premium if there are multiple drivers unless there are offences or accidents to declare.

There really isn't any excuse for chancing it.