-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Impound (seized) car insurance
- Thread starter Blueskye
- Start date
Cardo
Active Member
It would appear, as is frequently the case, there are a lot of misunderstandings/miscommunications in this case.
If a car is being driven without valid insurance, then it will be seized and taken to the police pound. That is the policy that pretty much all police forces in England and Wales follow. It is irrelevant whether an insured party can rock up in 30s to take it away. Towing the car (and the associated costs) is one of the deterrents to driving without insurance.
In relation to collecting the car, there is no specific “police pound” insurance. What they state is you need to have an insurance policy for the specific vehicle. You cannot use the “policyholder is able to drive third party vehicles” clause on an insurance policy for a different vehicle.
The OP has stated Person A has an insurance policy for the vehicle. I would suggest Person A rocks up at the police pound with the V5/logbook and the insurance certificate for the vehicle, showing them as a driver and collect the vehicle ASAP before fees pile up (eventually, police do dispose of vehicles, if not collected).
I know the above for a fact having dealt with it from the non-driver side.
If a car is being driven without valid insurance, then it will be seized and taken to the police pound. That is the policy that pretty much all police forces in England and Wales follow. It is irrelevant whether an insured party can rock up in 30s to take it away. Towing the car (and the associated costs) is one of the deterrents to driving without insurance.
In relation to collecting the car, there is no specific “police pound” insurance. What they state is you need to have an insurance policy for the specific vehicle. You cannot use the “policyholder is able to drive third party vehicles” clause on an insurance policy for a different vehicle.
The OP has stated Person A has an insurance policy for the vehicle. I would suggest Person A rocks up at the police pound with the V5/logbook and the insurance certificate for the vehicle, showing them as a driver and collect the vehicle ASAP before fees pile up (eventually, police do dispose of vehicles, if not collected).
I know the above for a fact having dealt with it from the non-driver side.
The discretionary thing could be as simple as Person C failing the attitude test at the side of the road. Or it could be that the cops that stopped him/her didn't believe you would attend within 3 minutes, having been burnt by people saying that before. Or they could just simply be militant about no insurance offences (after all - if Person C had hit someone that other party would end up shafted having to claim off their own insurance through no fault of their own). Hard to say really, and generally when people champion "discretion" what they really mean is "I want the cops to always let me off with a warning".
Giving the Police some credit they must hear all manner of nonsense from dodgy members of the public, promising this, that and the other and failing to deliver or going back on their word, or whatever, so when an "honest" person gets tarred with the same brush it seems more draconian than it might perhaps need to be.
If one were to find a silver lining - I would be thankful that (as yet) they weren't trying to prosecute you for permitting someone to drive whilst uninsured, etc.
EDIT: If the cockup was primarily on DL's side, you could probably get them to write a letter to the effect saying that Person C would have been insured by them for third party liabilities at the time, which should make C's imminent prosecution go away. It won't invalidate the impound fines, etc since under the circumstances the seizure was perfectly lawful and they're obliged to do it.
Giving the Police some credit they must hear all manner of nonsense from dodgy members of the public, promising this, that and the other and failing to deliver or going back on their word, or whatever, so when an "honest" person gets tarred with the same brush it seems more draconian than it might perhaps need to be.
If one were to find a silver lining - I would be thankful that (as yet) they weren't trying to prosecute you for permitting someone to drive whilst uninsured, etc.
EDIT: If the cockup was primarily on DL's side, you could probably get them to write a letter to the effect saying that Person C would have been insured by them for third party liabilities at the time, which should make C's imminent prosecution go away. It won't invalidate the impound fines, etc since under the circumstances the seizure was perfectly lawful and they're obliged to do it.
Last edited:
LiamPope
Member
And also that this administrative error has been spotted before Person C potentially has an accident and is only then found to be uninsured!
Sounds like a right mess either way, OP! Hope you get it sorted!
Sean.
Active Member
Sounds like they cocked up. Have you got written proof or only verbal that person C was listed on the policy?!
LiamPope
Member
Sounds like you know what you're talking about! So out of interest is that comparethemarket.com article a load of bollox, then? What are they going on about with 'some policies wont cover retrieving your impounded car' and 'specialist policy for impounded cars', etc? Why would that exist if all you need is regular cover or a minimum 30 day temp cover? No wonder people are confused.
Thanks, I think the police were being overzealous (although from their end is warranted by what they thought the situation was).The discretionary thing could be as simple as Person C failing the attitude test at the side of the road. Or it could be that the cops that stopped him/her didn't believe you would attend within 3 minutes, having been burnt by people saying that before. Or they could just simply be militant about no insurance offences (after all - if Person C had hit someone that other party would end up shafted having to claim off their own insurance through no fault of their own). Hard to say really, and generally when people champion "discretion" what they really mean is "I want the cops to always let me off with a warning".
Giving the Police some credit they must hear all manner of nonsense from dodgy members of the public, promising this, that and the other and failing to deliver or going back on their word, or whatever, so when an "honest" person gets tarred with the same brush it seems more draconian than it might perhaps need to be.
If one were to find a silver lining - I would be thankful that (as yet) they weren't trying to prosecute you for permitting someone to drive whilst uninsured, etc.
EDIT: If the cockup was primarily on DL's side, you could probably get them to write a letter to the effect saying that Person C would have been insured by them for third party liabilities at the time, which should make C's imminent prosecution go away. It won't invalidate the impound fines, etc since under the circumstances the seizure was perfectly lawful and they're obliged to do it.
Personally I don’t understand why on earth would anyone drive without insurance so from my perspective it sounds silly I or anyone would dare to do this, but they see it daily..
The silver lining isn’t quite there yet. We have received no paperwork and they -so far - threatened me with prosecution.
I think the real silver lining is that there was no accident
ACarneiro
Active Member
Well, something sensible, at least.
Would be really interested to know how it all pans out if you would be kind enough to let us know when you finally get your car back?
I have written proof of pre renewal and we’re awaiting for DL to make a final decision for the cover during the incident.
So I can’t slap away the impending motoring conviction for Person C just yet.. as we need to await for the decision.
This is WHY I am so confused!Sounds like you know what you're talking about! So out of interest is that comparethemarket.com article a load of bollox, then? What are they going on about with 'some policies wont cover retrieving your impounded car' and 'specialist policy for impounded cars', etc? Why would that exist if all you need is regular cover or a minimum 30 day temp cover? No wonder people are confused.
DL confirmed they’re happy for the policy holder to stroll away from the pound but they said the police may not accept it and require the specialist insurance nonetheless.
Sean.
Active Member
Out of interest why was Driver C stopped / pulled over? Presumably if drive by ANPR'd - the car would've come up clean on the national database.
Jason71
Well-Known Member
I can only assume that if normal insurance does not cover you while in an impound yard then that means while you drive the car from the parking spot in the yard to the gate you would not be insured and the police will not let you drive un-insured.
This sounds like the definition of insanity therefore it is probably true
This sounds like the definition of insanity therefore it is probably true
LiamPope
Member
Also, if one can really be not insured while in an impound, I hope everyone in this situation is doing their due diligence and declaring SORN until they get their cars back into an insured area!
Now from what you’ve said: The renewal quote had C on it, and you didn’t ask DL to remove C. You paid the premium. So, offer & acceptance. Ta da!?
In cases of administrative error C might technically still be insured. I.e. no offence committed.
If DL are in breach of contract they might be liable for your losses e.g the seizure costs etc. however, the policy booklet said to check your policy/certificate issued, and I’m assuming you didn’t. So you haven’t fulfilled your obligations under the contract either (and in doing so mitigated the loss). You’ll probably foot the seizure bill.
In cases of administrative error C might technically still be insured. I.e. no offence committed.
If DL are in breach of contract they might be liable for your losses e.g the seizure costs etc. however, the policy booklet said to check your policy/certificate issued, and I’m assuming you didn’t. So you haven’t fulfilled your obligations under the contract either (and in doing so mitigated the loss). You’ll probably foot the seizure bill.
richrootes
Member
As person A, being so close by I’d have gone down there with my keycard, got in the car and driven off - whilst videoing everything of course. I hope you manage to retrieve teslacam evidence of this shambles - if you have, take it to a solicitor and see what they say. This is an absolute overreach
To be fair, based on the information DL gave to the police, as far as they were aware, the person driving wasn’t insured. Standard procedure = seize car. Release of car= standard procedure. It’s not the police’s fault the insurance wasn’t all in order. The fallout though does seem quite a mess.
Cardo
Active Member
I’ve had a read of the article. It’s not something that’s particularly common. They could be referring to an insurance policy for a person without specifying a vehicle (very rare). I’m aware some very short term insurance policies also won’t allow you to drive the vehicle away. Essentially, they don’t want you insuring the car for one day, removing it from the pound and then continuing to drive without insurance. The bog standard insurance policy most of us have will be perfectly adequate for recovering a car from the pound. The OP’s insurance policy, despite there being a disagreement/issue over Person C’s cover, sounds like it should be suitable to remove the car.Sounds like you know what you're talking about! So out of interest is that comparethemarket.com article a load of bollox, then? What are they going on about with 'some policies wont cover retrieving your impounded car' and 'specialist policy for impounded cars', etc? Why would that exist if all you need is regular cover or a minimum 30 day temp cover? No wonder people are confused.
There are also other types of insurance policy that will allow the likes of vehicle tradespeople to remove cars from the pound. But now we’re getting into the weeds…
Similar threads
