Seizing an Insured Car?

[E55BOF]

Just caught a little of a programme on ITV on clampers. Two Special Constables stopped a Romanian driving their boss's van, which only the boss was insured to drive. While they were doing the paperwork, said boss added the driver to the van's insurance.

There's no argument that the driver was uninsured when stopped, and the driver and his boss would no doubt receive appropriate fines for the offences committed.

However, at the time when the van was loaded on the transporter, there was insurance in force for the driver. It seems to me that continuing with the seizure served no purpose other than deliberately buggering about the driver and his boss; the police were not getting an uninsured vehicle off the road, which is purportedly the object of this sort of seizure.

I assume the action was legal, but it seemed rather like the police wasting the police's time to me, and not a good advertisement for them.

 

[markjay]

I have to agree.

Unless (possibly) they were unable to positively verify on the spot that the drivers were indeed added to the policy? It might not have yet shown on the MID database etc.

But otherwise... yes this does seem odd.

 

[moonloops]

It is seized at the point of the offence. To be released once police are satisfied everything is in order, which it sounds like they weren't.

Causing the uninsured a bit of grief? Fine in my book.

 

[ash59fifty-uk]

They do it regularly to a guy near me, has insurance, MOT, license etc and have seized a few of his cars for not being insured

He even did a video of picking the car up (recent one) at the impound, the lady who released the car saw that all documents were in date and the car had been insured even at the time they impounded it

Ha, found it ~ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KMKqZbElh6M

I once got done by the police for an uninsured car. Had just bought my first Impreza, which had the most annoying alarm immobiliser switch that had to be flicked back and fourth in a sequence. Car was parked up on private driveway and the alarm went off, so I'm sat inside like a clown trying to turn it off

Police turn up (fair play) I explain the situation, they then check the car over and do checks as expected. Comes back no insurance, but as I had key in the ignition they tried to do me for no insurance

Another time my 2nd Impreza which was insured that day of buying it, but wasn't showing on their system so it got seized. Back to same place as in above video, I got it back the next day and claimed the recovery penalty back from the police

Never had any police attention with any other car owned!

My local constabulary aren't the best, but my experiences were back when it was sufficient to provide producers, hardly any ANPR or whatever. So not sure why in this day and age none of these details are held or available?

 

[E55BOF]

It is seized at the point of the offence. To be released once police are satisfied everything is in order, which it sounds like they weren't.

Causing the uninsured a bit of grief? Fine in my book.

There was no suggestion that they were not satisfied that all was now in order. The certificate of insurance was sent over on the driver's mobile 'phone, and the whole conversation centred on the time of the stop and the commencement time of the new certificate of insurance.

I'm old enough, and middle-class enough, still to believe that in general our police are wonderful - well, pretty good, anyway - but this episode did nothing to reinforce that belief.

 

[markjay]

They do it regularly to a guy near me, has insurance, MOT, license etc and have seized a few of his cars for not being insured

He even did a video of picking the car up (recent one) at the impound, the lady who released the car saw that all documents were in date and the car had been insured even at the time they impounded it

Ha, found it ~ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KMKqZbElh6M

Ended up watching all his clips....... very colourful chap. I must say that I was with him up to the clip were he gets arrested in his Gym, the PCs that arrested him for his no-show in court were 100% doing their job as you would expect them to. So not sure who I should believe now.... but was well worth watching either way.

 

[DSB SL AMG]

I watched the program...was pretty shocked with the special PC acting as shift chief is that what cost cutting has done to UK law enforcement

What powers of enforcement and arrest do specials have?

 

[alabbasi]

Why would they seize the car period? Arrest the driver or make them get insurance on the spot. Sounds like a big waste of tax payer money.

 

[MancMike]

The vehicle was uninsured when they stopped it. Penalties and rigmarole ensue. If all people have to do is get a friend of a friend who is insured to drive any vehicle, next to nobody would be insured and those insured to drive any car would have lots of friends and be well off. You've effectively created another teir to insurance.

 

[MancMike]

Why would they seize the car period? Arrest the driver or make them get insurance on the spot. Sounds like a big waste of tax payer money.

How would that work with the distance selling regulations? Buyer was time boxed into a sale by law enforcement? Also, people then only buy insurance when stopped by police??

Some people just weren't born with a brain.

 

[alabbasi]

How would that work with the distance selling regulations? Buyer was time boxed into a sale by law enforcement? Also, people then only buy insurance when stopped by police??

Some people just weren't born with a brain.

The insurance situation is idiotic in the UK. Here in the US, you're automatically insured on a car that you purchase for 30 days, 3rd party only under your own policy.

You're policy will also cover you when driving anyone else's car provided that they have insurance. At the end of day you can only drive one car at a time. It really depends on the position that the government wants to take. Whether to create obstacles and bureaucracy to make life more difficult or to simplify and make sure that people on the road are covered.

I'm not condoning uninsured motoring, but being this narrow is not useful.

 

[MancMike]

Yeah, we had that.

Then gits started buying Fiestas when they're driving Ferraris.

It's not rediculous, it's more advanced.

Guess what you'll be having in X years?

 

[219]

Just caught a little of a programme on ITV on clampers. Two Special Constables stopped a Romanian driving their boss's van, which only the boss was insured to drive. While they were doing the paperwork, said boss added the driver to the van's insurance.

There's no argument that the driver was uninsured when stopped, and the driver and his boss would no doubt receive appropriate fines for the offences committed.

However, at the time when the van was loaded on the transporter, there was insurance in force for the driver. It seems to me that continuing with the seizure served no purpose other than deliberately buggering about the driver and his boss; the police were not getting an uninsured vehicle off the road, which is purportedly the object of this sort of seizure.

I assume the action was legal, but it seemed rather like the police wasting the police's time to me, and not a good advertisement for them.

The driver is likely to escape prosecution , unless it can be proved that he knowingly drove without insurance .

There is a standard defence in the case of an employers vehicle that the driver had no reason to suppose that he was not insured .

 

[219]

Why would they seize the car period? Arrest the driver or make them get insurance on the spot. Sounds like a big waste of tax payer money.

It isn't an arrestable offence - so I discovered when the uninsured woman demolished my garden wall and wrote my car off in my driveway .

 

[219]

The vehicle was uninsured when they stopped it. Penalties and rigmarole ensue. If all people have to do is get a friend of a friend who is insured to drive any vehicle, next to nobody would be insured and those insured to drive any car would have lots of friends and be well off. You've effectively created another teir to insurance.

Thing is , police used to condone it .

An acquaintance once asked me to go with him down to a rural police station where his car had been impounded for no insurance .

They told him that if someone turned up who could show their fully comp certificate , with DOC cover , they would release the car and didn't care what happened after that , as long as it was gone out of their car park .

I drove down in my car with the guy , parked round the corner and walked into the station and showed my certificate - I then drove the car round to where my car was , handed the keys to the owner , and left in my car . Of course he made it worth my while , but he could probably have insurer it for the same money ( about £20 IIRC back then ) .

I have to say that attitudes were a bit more lax 40 years ago , and I wouldn't consider doing such a thing nowadays - but at that time it was the police who suggested it to the driver as they didn't want the car lying in their car park ! One has to wonder why they siezed it in the first place .

 

[E55BOF]

The vehicle was uninsured when they stopped it. Penalties and rigmarole ensue. If all people have to do is get a friend of a friend who is insured to drive any vehicle, next to nobody would be insured and those insured to drive any car would have lots of friends and be well off. You've effectively created another teir to insurance.

I was under the impression that if a vehicle did not have insurance already in force, a 'driving other vehicles' clause on another driver's policy did not provide cover.

In any event, you miss the point. The driving without insurance is the offence; the object of seizure is supposedly to take uninsured vehicles off the road. The vehicle was now insured, and being driven by one of the named drivers.

 

[Scott_F]

However, at the time when the van was loaded on the transporter, there was insurance in force for the driver. It seems to me that continuing with the seizure served no purpose other than deliberately buggering about the driver and his boss; the police were not getting an uninsured vehicle off the road, which is purportedly the object of this sort of seizure.

I assume the action was legal, but it seemed rather like the police wasting the police's time to me, and not a good advertisement for them.

The purpose is to raise money.

Once a vehicle has been seized, it is immediately liable to a "release fee" (probably about £150) and if the owner is slow to reclaim it then the daily storage charges rapidly mount up too.

As you say, it's not a good advert for the police but the pressure to raise revenue subverted any notion of good policing a long time ago.

Another time my 2nd Impreza which was insured that day of buying it, but wasn't showing on their system so it got seized. Back to same place as in above video, I got it back the next day and claimed the recovery penalty back from the police.

Never mind the release fee, you should have sued the police for wrongful seizure of your car.

 

[219]

I was under the impression that if a vehicle did not have insurance already in force, a 'driving other vehicles' clause on another driver's policy did not provide cover.

In any event, you miss the point. The driving without insurance is the offence; the object of seizure is supposedly to take uninsured vehicles off the road. The vehicle was now insured, and being driven by one of the named drivers.

It depends on the wording of the policy , some do stipulate the vehicle must be insured elsewhere , others don't .

In particular , traders policies do tend to offer this sort of cover , so that vehicles can be purchased and driven away , usually with notification ASAP afterwards .

 

[219]

The purpose is to raise money.

Once a vehicle has been seized, it is immediately liable to a "release fee" (probably about £150) and if the owner is slow to reclaim it then the daily storage charges rapidly mount up too.

As you say, it's not a good advert for the police but the pressure to raise revenue subverted any notion of good policing a long time ago.





Never mind the release fee, you should have sued the police for wrongful seizure of your car.

I had a pull some years back for no MOT - thing was the car had just passed that afternoon , after being out of MOT for about a week due to failing a test and waiting for parts . Luckily , in the absence of the certificate ( I had collected the car off the forecourt after the garage closed for the evening ) luckily I had printed off the test history from the VOSA website and the two cops were reasonable enough to accept it - but a jobsworth on a bad night might not have ...

 

[bob6600]

My car got pulled once. Mother was driving (insured as named) driver but he arthritis got really bad, really quickly. Switched driver and sods law got pulled for routine checks as car was fine, insured, taxed etc.

I was not able to drive at the time due to recovering from an op but the police (rightly) said the driver is not insured on this vehicle. So they asked if my mother can drive it back, they refused. I asked if I could get there (was few minutes from my house) could I stop it being impounded if I brought my documents with me and they said no. The pound was 100 yards from where they were stopped.

So the next day I went to the station, showed my docs and got something stamped to say I could pick it up. On asking the officer why my mother wasn't allowed to drive it home she replied it was at the officer's discretion. The officers were made aware that my mother was registered disabled but it didn't stop them dumping them on the side of the road.

Cost was £150 and a lot of aggravation