Impounded car - special impound insurance?

TooManyPoints

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.

No most probably don't. But insuring your own car against accidental damage to it is not compulsory. If it's damaged whilst it's in the pound the owner will have to bear the cost and they have no right to demand the owner insures against that risk. In any case, that's not what they are suggesting. They obviously want to ensure that Third Party cover as required by the RTA (the lack of which saw the car taken to the pound) is in place. And if that is the case they need to employ people who can interpret simple clauses in Insurance Certificates. 

To be clear - I took the policy out AFTER the seizure.

It doesn't matter when you took it out. All that matters is that is is valid on the day you collect the car.

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

Yes.

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.

Yes.

Is this also your interpretation? 

Yes it is. It's as plain as day. Let's look at the sentence in detail:

"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"

So let's omit the bit that defines the vehicle:

"Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle 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"

That would make the exclusion applicable to the recovery of any vehicle from the pound. But, let's put the omitted phrase back:

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

That phrase has immediately defined which vehicles are affected by the exclusion. It restricts it to vehicles other than the one covered by the policy. So the rest of the exclusion is irrelevant to you because the one you are seeking to release is the one covered by the policy (i.e. "the vehicle identified above (by its registration number"). Whatever the rest of the  exclusion clause says does not matter because it does not apply to your vehicle..

I cannot see how anybody can place any other interpretation on that clause.

proformance

That's great - I will try my luck!

Another question, if I may - 

The compound (and seizure receipt) is quite clear in the requirement of the V5C/logbook to secure the vehicle's release.

However, as the car is a company lease, I was never given the V5C. The leasing company (to whom I've been advised to speak) is unavailable until tomorrow (working hours).

I have a heap of contract documents that confirm I am the registered keeper, but nothing like a V5C that says that I am (or who is) the owner.

Is it a waste of time going to try?

Trying not accrue another billable day in the compound. 

facade

You aren't the registered keeper (or the owner!), the lease company is, which is why you don't have a V5c.

Proof that the vehicle is leased to you, and proof of your identity as the leasee should suffice in lieu of a V5c.

Take everything you have, passport, driving licence, utility bills for proof of address, lease agreement, insurance etc.

They must seize leased vehicles all the time, and I doubt if the lease company have to collect them.

TooManyPoints

I think you have an answer to that on the other forum you've been posting.

I see that as a problem. As well as that, if you manage to prove the pound staff wrong on the insurance issue they are hardly likely to cut you any slack on the ownership issue. That said, there must be a way round this as I cannot imagine lease companies running round car pounds producing their V5Cs. But I don't know the answer.

facade

Here is something from the Met. about what you need. They don't mention lease vehicles, but pretty much every other way you wouldn't have a V5c.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/vr/vehicle-recovery/seized-vehicles/

I suppose loosely you are representing the lease company as they signed the vehicle over to your care.

The lease agreement is your authority to keep it and use it.

proformance

facade said:

Here is something from the Met. about what you need. They don't mention lease vehicles, but pretty much every other way you wouldn't have a V5c.

https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/vr/vehicle-recovery/seized-vehicles/

I suppose loosely you are representing the lease company as they signed the vehicle over to your care.

The lease agreement is your authority to keep it and use it.

Thanks for this. 

They said that a letter from the lease company stating they authorise me to drive the vehicle would suffice. 

Regarding the insurance - unofficially, they seem to have accepted that the exclusion wording pertains to other vehicles and thus I "should" be able to release the vehicle tomorrow (once I've got this letter form my lease company). 

Fingers crossed! 

facade

Doesn't the lease agreement authorise you to keep and drive the vehicle? (I rather thought that was the whole point of a lease agreement )

I've never seen a lease agreement, but it seems odd that it doesn't, what if you get stopped and they do a PNC check showing the car is registered to Superlease Inc, not you? Do they seize the suspected stolen vehicle if they can't get someone from Superlease Inc. to say you have authority to keep & drive it? I'd have thought not, leasing is pretty common.

Oh well, just get the letter if you can wait until tomorrow.

proformance

facade said:

Doesn't the lease agreement authorise you to keep and drive the vehicle? (I rather thought that was the whole point of a lease agreement )

I've never seen a lease agreement, but it seems odd that it doesn't, what if you get stopped and they do a PNC check showing the car is registered to Superlease Inc, not you? Do they seize the suspected stolen vehicle if they can't get someone from Superlease Inc. to say you have authority to keep & drive it? I'd have thought not, leasing is pretty common.

Oh well, just get the letter if you can wait until tomorrow.

I think it is a grey area. 

I remember once trying to overturn a parking PCN and the local authority needed to see something that showed the lease company permitting me to drive the car. 

I literally got a letter from them which summarised just this in one paragraph.

The impound people are asking for exactly the same type of letter, but with a recent date, and addressing the impound lot.

You would have thought this would all be a lot less grey, given how much lease cars there must be! 

born_again

proformance said:

That's great - I will try my luck!

Another question, if I may - 

The compound (and seizure receipt) is quite clear in the requirement of the V5C/logbook to secure the vehicle's release.

However, as the car is a company lease, I was never given the V5C. The leasing company (to whom I've been advised to speak) is unavailable until tomorrow (working hours).

I have a heap of contract documents that confirm I am the registered keeper, but nothing like a V5C that says that I am (or who is) the owner.

Is it a waste of time going to try?

Trying not accrue another billable day in the compound. 

In the OP you said.

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. 

Yet now you are implying this is your car?
Which is it?

Or is it you car & son was driving it?

mdann52

As a general question to the room (and I have not gone through the policy T&Cs either way) - as the vehicle is not in possession or custody of the OP at the policy start date, is this excluded under the terms at all?

The police will do a check through the MID, and if the insurer aren't aware it was in the pound when the policy was taken out, is there a risk of it being cancelled?