Seizure of car by the police

[jomac-uk]

I was recently stopped by the police for driving my sisters car, she had loaned the vehicle to me as i had recently sold mine. My sister cancelled her insurance as she had another car to use. The police state i was uninsured at the time, as my insurance policy was on my old vehicle and not on the car. The end results and knock on effects were nearly �600, loss of earnings fees to recover the car from the compound, taxi's etc.
When i explained this to my insurers, they checked with the underwriters who informed me that i WAS insured, and that a lot of drivers sell cars, keep the insurance running and then buy another. Despite having a letter from the insurers, the police still refuse to accept the vehicle was insured at the time. I was given NO other option at the road side but to have the vehicle siezed.

[redcrx]

did your sister have the car insured under her own name at all? Did you explain that to your insurers

Even if you did have "any car" cover on your own policy for old car, the car you borrowed would have to have its own insurance too.

Otherwise we'd all have an old banger insured somewhere and be driving any car we felt like driving

[jomac-uk]

No i was very precise with the insurers, my sister cancelled the insurance on her old car, the one i borrowed, i had just sold my car and borrowed hers (i was unaware at the time she had cancelled her insurance) I had a valid insurance policy but on my old car. The police claim that the policy becomes void when i sell the vehicle. The underwriters confirmed in writing, that the policy DOESNT become void when i sell my car, and that my policy did in fact cover me for 3rd party on the borrowed vehicle, so in the eyes of the insurers, i WAS covered, but the police are maintaining their stand

[redcrx]

so your insurers stated you were insured even though your sisters car was not insured in its own?

[redcrx]

youre right, your policy doesnt become void when you sell your car though

[Ethel]

Your policy entitled you to drive a legally roadworthy car, which means it MUST be insured in its own right.

Your sister's car was not insured and you having insurance to drive it does not alter that fact.

If you had parked the vehicle on the public highway and left it, it would be an uninsured vehicle.

So, your insurance company is right - you were insured to drive 'any other vehicle' at the time.

But the police are right - that was an uninsured vehicle on the public highway.

[jomac-uk]

The polices argument is simply the policy expired when i sold the car, the underwriters have clearly stated that the policy hadnt expired and i was covered to drive the vehicle on the highway (their exact words)

[redcrx]

get it in writing that you could drive the car without it being insured in its own right and you may have cause for complaint.

The police will want to know that the insurance was valid given ALL the correct information before theyll even consider your complaint Id have thought

[jomac-uk]

This is what i am trying to get across, i HAVE that in writing from not only the insurance brokers but THE underwriters, who state i was fully covered to drive the car on a 3rd party only risk

[redcrx]

but do they say you were insured even though the car was UNINSURED in its own right.

You may well have insurance which includes any other vehicle but unless its also insured YOU ARE NOT.

[Ethel]

You don't seem to understand what I have already said.

As far as your insurance company are concerned, at the time you were insured to drive any vehicle not belonging to you THAT WAS ROAD LEGAL.

This means it must be insured in its own right, taxed and mot'd

The car was not insured and should not have been on the public highway at all.

When you drive another car on your own insurance you are insured only whilst you are driving it, and third party only. If you parked the car, and it caught fire causing thousands of pounds worth of damage to other vehicles and property it would not be insured, unless it was insured in its own right.

The letter from the insurance company confirms you were insured to drive at the time. It cannot possibly state you were insured to drive that particular vehicle. If it does, they have made a grave error.

[jomac-uk]

OK i have the letter here, and i will repeat the first paragraph of that letter from Direct Choice.

We are writing on behalf of Broker Direct PLC that the driving other cars extension on your motor insurance policy DOES cover vehicles that are un-insured elsewhere. We appologise that this was not made clear on your documents and if any further queries remain, please call us on 0844 etc

[New Judge]

The seizure of the vehicle was because it did not have a Third Party policy in force in its own right.

Vehicles now have to be continually insured individually. To keep one on the road without such an individual policy is an offence which can lead to seizure.

The fact that you were insured to drive other cars (as are most policyhollders) does not alter that fact. Such a policy extension only allows you to do the driving, not the owner to do the "keepng"..

[Ethel]

Thank you for confirming the point, New Judge.

I was running out of ways to say it differently

[Oneeyedvic]

New Judge - Vehicles now have to be continually insured individually. To keep one on the road without such an individual policy is an offence which can lead to seizure.

what about if the vehicle was kept off road? And purely driven on the road through OP's insurance

[Ethel]

No, oneyedvic

A car kept off road does not need to be insured. But the minute it goes on the public highway it MUST be insured for third party liabilities in its own right.

The OPs insurance insures him to drive, but the car must be street legal with its own insurance. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to park up and get out, except on private property.

Don't forget that the OPs insurance is third party liability WHILST he is driving. He parks up, leaves it and something happens - it catches fire causing damage to lots of other cars and property,for example - it would not be insured at all. Not even third party.
Does this convince you

http://www.life-assurance-bureau.co.uk/car-ins urance/faqs/car-Am-I-insured-to-drive-someone- elses-car.htm

[Oneeyedvic]

Sorry, Ethel, just trying to figure this out:

If OP kept vehicle off road and then drove it to another person's house, ensuring that he never parked it on the road, then surely he is not breaking the law?

Whilst vehicle would not be insured whilst off road, no law is being broken since it is off road. Whilst on road, it would be covered by his own insurance.

[New Judge]

Yes he is because "driving" is also "keeping". (You can "keep" a vehicle but not "drive" it, but you cannot drive a vehicle without keeping it). It is the keeping that makes the vehicle liable to continuous insurance.

[New Judge]

And one more thing that had not occurred to me:

Your "old" policy should have been cancelled by you when you sold your car. Despite what you may have been told, you no longer had a material interest in the car which your policy covered and to retain the policy in case you want to drive other cars would not be permitted by the insureres.

Imagine this. You buy a 10 year old Ford Fiesta (value �150) and take out a policy which allows you to drive other cars that do not belong to you. You sell the Fiesta and spend the rest of the year driving round in a Ferrari belonging to one of your mates.

Your insurers have priced the Third Party bit of your premium based on a car capable of doing 70 mph with a following wind. You meantime are driving around in a supercar.