what to do?

glitterstar

Hi, im not sure if this is the right place to post this but -

My friend had his car taken away from him in December 2007, he was drining past police who were doing checks on cars, it flashed up as him not having insurance.
He had took out insurance on it in July 2007, but when he contacted the insurance company when he got pulled over they told him that he was only ever insured with them for one month, they never tried to contact him to tell him this. He is not sure if they were still taking money out of his account as his bank are taking there time on sending statements out to him.

Also when he got pulled over he had to get his dad to come and pick him up who has insurance to drive other cars apart from his own, the police officer refused and said he wasnt insured so couldnt drive it - was he right in saying this?

The car that was taken away has now been scrapped as my friend couldnt scrape all the money together in 14 days to get the car out, the police told him it also needs the blown exaust to be fixed before they let it go, and then they refused to let him access his car once it had been impounded, the log book and all registration documents were in the boot, the tax is now due for the car that has been scrapped but my friend does not have any proof as the impound have said many times that they will send the certificate out, but they haven't.

Another thing is that the police officer told my friend he would probably have to go to court and pay a fine plus get 3 points on his licence due to driving without insurance - he still hasn't heard anything about this?! How likely is it that they will go through with it as he hasn't heard any thing from them.

Sorrry if post is a bit confusing, and thank you for taking time to read it, if anyone can give some advice i would be very grateful.

iolanthe07

The police officer was correct in saying that you friend's dad was not insured to drive the car. He may well have had a clause in his policy stating that he could drive any car (third party only), most of us have this, but the car itself still has to be insured on someone's policy. The clause does not give carte blanche to drive an uninsured car. Your friend should have received a certificate of insurance from the insurance company - did he show this to the police? Unfortunately some people take out insurance on an instalment basis and just pay the first month, hoping that they can get away with it. Understandably the insurance industry and the police take a very dim view of this.

anewman

Friend should have had an insurance document stating for what period he/she was insured for. If this was done monthly the documents would have been posted monthly.

As it's got to go to court anyway, all your friend can do is get as many documents relating to the insurance as reasonably possible together. It's a good idea to read through them now to see what periods were insured for and what terms were for renewal, i.e. was it automatic etc. Friend might *possibly* have a case if they're an inexperienced driver with little experience of insurance and can show they *genuinely* believed they were insured at that time. But I am not a lawyer so don't take my word on that.

But my guess is they didn't rush to get insured to get the car back, so that doesn't look to good in court as if you're not insured and you're not getting insured surely that proves they didn't want to be insured in the first place?!

Wig

iolanthe07 wrote: »

but the car itself still has to be insured on someone's policy. .

Your reason for saying this is?

I am aware that certain insurance policies have this as a clause "you may drive other cars as long as the car has a seperate policy covering it" But other insurers have no such extra wording..... eg. "you may drive other cars with the owners permission on a TPO basis" some even give you comprehensive cover.

But I would like to know where it is written in law that the other car must have insurance? As far as I am concerned, if you have a clause allowing this, then automatically the other car becomes insured.

As to the insurance problem,
What length of cover does the insurance certificate say? If the insurer wishes to cancel the policy they must give written warning to the policy holder. Definately check bank records, but doesn't he have his last statement or 2? Or online access to his bank account?

Wig

Sorry OP,


Your case is so complex, if you want redress, your friend had better seek the services of a solicitor.

BTW The copper need not have been correct in what he said, because they had the power to take the vehicle anyway - IMHO IANAL.

flutterbyuk25

Can't help on the insurance side but if tax is due then your friend needs to write a letter to DVLA stating that he no longer has the vehilce, giving date (or approx date) it left his possession and name of scrap yard it went to. This will get him taken off as keeper and he won't be liable for it any longer. He needs to write to DVLA Swansea SA99 1AR.

HTH

x

iolanthe07

but the car itself still has to be insured on someone's policy. .
Your reason for saying this is?

My reason for saying this is that it was clearly spelled out to me by my insurance broker when I wanted to drive my mother's car which, at the time, was off road and had no insurance (though it was taxed & MOT'd). He led me to believe that this was industry standard, but I'm very happy to be corrected if that is wrong.

Wig

Well maybe one day you or I will have a definitive answer. I am also happy to be corrected, but I would need the law spelled out infront of me before I agree.

Conor_3

Wig wrote: »

But I would like to know where it is written in law that the other car must have insurance? As far as I am concerned, if you have a clause allowing this, then automatically the other car becomes insured.

Only until the point you get out of it. At that point on, it's uninsured until you get back in it again. I get the feeling that either the father didn't turn up with the full policy or turned up and the copper found something the father had overlooked regarding the vehicle having insurance on it in its own right.

Trouble is its a grey area and nobody seems to be able to give a definite answer.

Conor_3

Wig wrote: »

Well maybe one day you or I will have a definitive answer. I am also happy to be corrected, but I would need the law spelled out infront of me before I agree.

The law isn't the problem here but what different insurers class as requirements for driving cars under "other vehicle" extensions.

Wig

glitterstar wrote: »

Another thing is that the police officer told my friend he would probably have to go to court and pay a fine plus get 3 points on his licence due to driving without insurance - he still hasn't heard anything about this?! How likely is it that they will go through with it as he hasn't heard any thing from them..

Very likely.

If he hasn't heard anything after 6 - 7 months then seek legal advice if they subsequently do remember him after that.