Impounded car - special impound insurance?

proformance

Hi

My son's car was (rightfully) seized for not having insurance.

Upon escorting him to release it, they said he needed special "impound insurance", as most insurance policies include a clause that excludes driving out of impound lots. 

The challenge is, the quotes are £550+, which seems excessive. 

Is there an alternative to this? 

Many thanks 

Z

facade

My insurance policies include a clause which says that they cannot be used to secure the release of a vehicle other than the one identified in the policy- you cannot get your mate's car out by turning up with DOC cover on your own insurance.

Therefore it can be used to secure the release of the vehicle identified in the policy.

There is no reason why "normal" insurance won't release a car from impound - what possible reason could there be for it not to? It insures the car to be driven on the road, which is what happens as soon as it gets out of the gate of the impound yard.

EDIT: my Aviva policy has this exclusion

Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration number, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority, unless the effective date of the certificate pre-dates the date of the seizure

Rather badly worded, it states in black & white that you can secure the release of a vehicle not identified on the policy provided the policy started before it was seized.  (And obviously you can secure the release of the identified vehicle at any time...) 

I suspect they have mixed up their words, or Legalese does not mean what it says in plain English! (Maybe the ", other than the vehicle identified above by its registration number," was meant to be deleted so that a policy taken out today can't release any vehicle impounded yesterday, including the one the policy covers- but I can hardly be expected to guess what they mean when they have written something in black & white can I?)

proformance

facade said:

My insurance policies include a clause which says that they cannot be used to secure the release of a vehicle other than the one identified in the policy- you cannot get your mate's car out by turning up with DOC cover on your own insurance.

Therefore it can be used to secure the release of the vehicle identified in the policy.

There is no reason why "normal" insurance won't release a car from impound - what possible reason could there be for it not to? It insures the car to be driven on the road, which is what happens as soon as it gets out of the gate of the impound yard.

EDIT: my Aviva policy has this exclusion

Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration number, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority, unless the effective date of the certificate pre-dates the date of the seizure

Rather badly worded, it states in black & white that you can secure the release of a vehicle not identified on the policy provided the policy started before it was seized.  (And obviously you can secure the release of the identified vehicle at any time...) 

I suspect they have mixed up their words, or Legalese does not mean what it says in plain English! (Maybe the ", other than the vehicle identified above by its registration number," was meant to be deleted so that a policy taken out today can't release any vehicle impounded yesterday, including the one the policy covers- but I can hardly be expected to guess what they mean when they have written something in black & white can I?)

Hi @facade,

Thanks for responding.

FYI - It should be explicitly noted that I purchased this Aviva (Zero) policy AFTER the vehicle was seized.

Even so, the policy's exclusions wording does indeed seem to be interpretable as you posted (it's the same as yours). See below:



"
Exclusions:
...
Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above (by its registration number), which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority, unless the effective date of the certificate pre-dates the date of the seizure
"


Even if it isn't in the spirit of the policy, if the black-and-white wording suggests that the vehicle's release CAN be secured, how much water do you think the argument would hold in the impound lot?

I assume the employees there are well-versed in policy particulars (as it is probably in their interest to retain vehicles for as long as possible). I would've assumed that they would be cognizant of the fact that NO mainstream insurers (a la Aviva) are (currently) including "compound insurance", if nothing else.

Strange one, indeed! I am glad it wasn't just me who was stumped by the wording. I scratched my head over it for a good 15 minutes.

Thanks again,

Z

cw8825

The new policy will not cover the release of the car from the impound. The wording is written that the certificate can be used to secure the release but only if the policy was already in force - not the case here 

Taken from the aviva GI broker policy FAQ. The zero policy is likely to be similar

Do you offer cover when a vehicle is impounded?

No, we do not offer cover at new business. We will only cover the vehicle if it’s already insured under the policy

You  need to contact aviva to explain the situation as if the impound will contact them to check your cover. 

You could then be at risk of this policy being cancelled  

From experience the impound insurance is extortionate because it’s not offered from majority of insurers and the people who need it have little choice go pay. I have heard of it being cheaper to let the car be destroyed depending on the value of the car. 

Normal process is to get the car out the impound and then insure with a full policy 

facade

There is little point in us arguing over it, the wording is clear enough, and if the intent was not to be used to secure the release of the vehicle if impounded before the policy started they should have made it explicit with a separate exclusion clause.

Now if the impound won't accept it, that is a different matter.

Maybe the whole thing is something for the Ombudsman to investigate, if they won't cover impounded cars they should say so when you take out the policy- maybe a question like ~"Is the vehicle currently impounded?" then refuse cover and they should certainly say so in the exclusions if they take the trouble to exclude release of other vehicles. It seems like mis-selling to me other wise, as the policy cannot be used if you can't get the car back!

(It is not in the AVIVA policy booklet either)

I can't imagine a reason why a full insurance policy on the vehicle won't cover it's release in the first place, be interesting to find out what justification the insurers have for that.

However, this doesn't help the OP.

Sorry, but I can only go on what my policy says, since that is my contract with AVIVA.

TooManyPoints

The new policy will not cover the release of the car from the impound. The wording is written that the certificate can be used to secure the release but only if the policy was already in force - not the case here 

That is incorrect.

You only need to read the first phrase of the exclusion:

Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration number,....

The vehicle in question is the one "identified above". The rest of the description of the exclusion refers to other vehicles and  so is irrelevant.

facade

The OP's problem is the impound may not accept it, there seems to be  a ££££££££ industry for "impound insurance", which would seem unnecessary unless it is enabled by someone making money out of it.

I believe the impound is privatised.

Co-incidence? 

proformance

I've spoken with someone who did successfully release their car based on the same Aviva (Zero) policy (with the same exclusion wording). I suppose it's case-by-case, and largely dependent on who I am speaking with.

To me, the wording pretty clearly permits the release of the insured vehicle from seizure, irrespective of time/date of seizure, and allows for the release of ANOTHER vehicle only where the effective date of the certificate pre-dates the date of the seizure

Is this not everybody's interpretation?

I will give it a shot later today

TooManyPoints

The OP's problem is the impound may not accept it,...

Then he needs to see the manager of the place and serve notice on them that his car is being unlawfully impounded and that he will seek damages for loss of its use for the period from when he first presented a valid certificate of insurance until the time it is eventually released. It is scarcely his fault that the people running the pound choose to employ people who cannot understand plain English.

My certificate (Churchill) includes a similar exclusion, though does not mention anything about dates:

"Use to secure the release of a motor car, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration mark, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority."

The purpose of that exclusion is quite clear: the policy includes a "driving other cars" extension and it is to prevent me securing the release of my mate's uninsured car from the pound. But it would not prevent me from securing the release of my own car.

The staff apparently told him that "...most insurance policies include a clause that excludes driving out of impound lots." We've highlighted two major insurers that do no such thing (and as you said, why would they?) and it is unlikely that any, let alone most, do so.

These people need sorting out. 

  

facade

proformance said:

I've spoken with someone who did successfully release their car based on the same Aviva (Zero) policy (with the same exclusion wording). I suppose it's case-by-case, and largely dependent on who I am speaking with.

To me, the wording pretty clearly permits the release of the insured vehicle from seizure, irrespective of time/date of seizure, and allows for the release of ANOTHER vehicle only where the effective date of the certificate pre-dates the date of the seizure

Is this not everybody's interpretation?

I will give it a shot later today

Please let us know what happens.

If you search t'interweb there are no end of brokers claiming that normal insurance doesn't cover impounded cars (true- for damage), impound yards won't accept it to release a car (hmm....), and therefore you need to get special impounded car insurance (from them).

It is massively expensive apparently because (cue World's smallest violin playing) of 

• the high risk?? (when it only works to release the car, not even to drive it on the road- it does provide damage cover whilst impounded, so I suppose this might be where the high risk comes from, parts often go "missing" when inside the secure compound) 
• urgency of cover (insurance ramps up the closer you are to when you want the cover to start) 
• driver risk profile (only Naughty Boys who might have accidents get their cars impounded).

No mention of profiteering or license to print money....

Now normal insurance does not cover damage to the car whilst it is in impound storage, Aviva policy booklet has an exclusion on damage to the vehicle.

We won't pay for

Loss or damage arising from confiscation or requisition or destruction by or under order of any government or public or local authority.

Obviously, if an employee of the impound damages it through negligence then the impound is liable for the damage anyway.

proformance

TooManyPoints said:

The OP's problem is the impound may not accept it,...

Then he needs to see the manager of the place and serve notice on them that his car is being unlawfully impounded and that he will seek damages for loss of its use for the period from when he first presented a valid certificate of insurance until the time it is eventually released. It is scarcely his fault that the people running the pound choose to employ people who cannot understand plain English.

My certificate (Churchill) includes a similar exclusion, though does not mention anything about dates:

"Use to secure the release of a motor car, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration mark, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority."

The purpose of that exclusion is quite clear: the policy includes a "driving other cars" extension and it is to prevent me securing the release of my mate's uninsured car from the pound. But it would not prevent me from securing the release of my own car.

The staff apparently told him that "...most insurance policies include a clause that excludes driving out of impound lots." We've highlighted two major insurers that do no such thing (and as you said, why would they?) and it is unlikely that any, let alone most, do so.

These people need sorting out. 

  

Thanks @TooManyPoints

To be clear - I took the policy out AFTER the seizure. I want to make the point again before I seek confirmation of everyone's interpretations with that in mind, before I head over there (in a moment).

Do you also interpret the policy's wording where it relates to time pertains only to vehicles other than the insured one?

In other words, do you agree that the wording suggests that I can secure the release of the insured vehicle, despite having purchased the policy after the seizure? Further, the time element would pertain only to vehicles other than the insured one.

Is this also your interpretation?