Car seized, no insurance, but SDP certificate in force

[Observer2]

PetrolTed said:

Can't see why so much effort is being expended on behalf of this person. He wasn't insured. He deserves all he gets, particularly if he's working in the car on a regular basis.

Misses the point doesn't it. The police should act within the law, not make it up as they go along. In this case, the insured may have acted irresponsibly (we don't know how much). That doesn't justify unlawful seizure of his vehicle.

Edited by Observer2 on Monday 1st October 10:32

[tigger1]

safespeed said:

Was this chap, in fact, legally insured? That's what I want to know.

IMHO (IANAL) - no, he was not insured, as he was driving his vehicle outside the terms of his insurance.

My insurance specifically forbids certain activites (using it for hire, racing etc) - if I do those things I'm not insured. Using it for business when not insured for business is, in my eyes, no different.

Seizure reasonable? Not sure. Insurance valid, personally, I think not.

[Observer2]

Noger said:

"insurance certificate said:

ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
(the above language is a bit ambiguous but appears to confirm that insurers will accept a third party claim regardless of breach of use restrictons) "

All that means is that an insurer will not repudiate a third party claim. You can make a claim against pretty much any liability policy you like, effectively you ARE covered as third party. What the insurer has to do is prove they are not liable. That has nothing to do with cover or not !

Edited by Noger on Monday 1st October 08:28

Yes I agree your last point. "Ambiguous" was not a good choice of word. The ordinary meaning of the language is clear but it is also self-evident. Obviously nothing in the certificate can affect the right of a third party to make a claim (against the insured/insurer). The question is, will the insurer accept liability if there has been a misrepresentation. That is not clear.

[Chrispy Porker]

Surely, the police do not have to 'know' he was uninsured.?
A reasonable suspicion is sufficient to seize the vehicle.

[Observer2]

Chrispy Porker said:

Surely, the police do not have to 'know' he was uninsured.?
A reasonable suspicion is sufficient to seize the vehicle.

Is that a question or a statement? Where is the statutory power granted?

Edited by Observer2 on Monday 1st October 11:36

[Chrispy Porker]

It's my understanding of the law.

I have no law book handy !

[andmole]

safespeed said:

Sheriff JWPepper said:

Safespeed as you bill yourself as the drivers' champion I find it slighly odd that you are spending your time trying to assist someone who has blantantly abused their insurance.

Eh?

I don't 'bill myself as the drivers' champion'.

Is 'blatant abuse of insurance' an offence?

Was this chap, in fact, legally insured? That's what I want to know.

A very reasonable response from Safespeed to a very rude comment.

[Deva Link]

tigger1 said:

safespeed said:

Was this chap, in fact, legally insured? That's what I want to know.

IMHO (IANAL) - no, he was not insured, as he was driving his vehicle outside the terms of his insurance.

My insurance specifically forbids certain activites (using it for hire, racing etc) - if I do those things I'm not insured. Using it for business when not insured for business is, in my eyes, no different.

Seizure reasonable? Not sure. Insurance valid, personally, I think not.

As a 'man on the Clapham omnibus', I would agree with the above. OK, maybe the insurance company would have had to pay a 3rd party claim (which they'd then be entitled to recover) and maybe Nick Freeman would get him off a no insurance charge, but he certainly would not appear to be properly insured so on that basis siezing the vehicle is reasonable.

[Observer2]

Chrispy Porker said:

It's my understanding of the law.

I have no law book handy !

You're broadly correct.

Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 said:

152 Power to seize etc. vehicles driven without licence or insurance
After section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—

“165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance
(1) Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.
<snip>
(3) The second condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.
<snip>
(5) Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;
(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;
(c) use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).
(6) Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—
(a) in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;
(b) in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section.
But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

The "reasonable grounds" is clearly debatable both ways.

[Chrispy Porker]

Agreed
However a lot of people seem to think the police have to be sure that the vehicle has no insurance. That is clearly not the case.

[PetrolTed]

So if I drive my car on track despite my insurance stating that I'm not covered, then I'm still insured? Seems like a fair analogy.

I don't follow the logic here. He was using the car in a manner that his insurance didn't cover. If he injured someone whilst delivering then I only hope that his employer's insurance did cover him.

[Observer2]

PetrolTed said:

So if I drive my car on track despite my insurance stating that I'm not covered, then I'm still insured? Seems like a fair analogy.

I don't follow the logic here. He was using the car in a manner that his insurance didn't cover. If he injured someone whilst delivering then I only hope that his employer's insurance did cover him.

Obviously not covered for damage to own car. Not sure about the third party liability. Do track day organisers require sight of valid insurance including track day cover?

[PetrolTed]

Observer2 said:

PetrolTed said:

So if I drive my car on track despite my insurance stating that I'm not covered, then I'm still insured? Seems like a fair analogy.

I don't follow the logic here. He was using the car in a manner that his insurance didn't cover. If he injured someone whilst delivering then I only hope that his employer's insurance did cover him.

Obviously not covered for damage to own car. Not sure about the third party liability. Do track day organisers require sight of valid insurance including track day cover?

3rd Party Liability doesn't apply on track. If someone crashes into you then it's tough (I believe there was a case recently reaffirming this).

[safespeed]

PetrolTed said:

Observer2 said:

PetrolTed said:

So if I drive my car on track despite my insurance stating that I'm not covered, then I'm still insured? Seems like a fair analogy.

I don't follow the logic here. He was using the car in a manner that his insurance didn't cover. If he injured someone whilst delivering then I only hope that his employer's insurance did cover him.

Obviously not covered for damage to own car. Not sure about the third party liability. Do track day organisers require sight of valid insurance including track day cover?

3rd Party Liability doesn't apply on track. If someone crashes into you then it's tough (I believe there was a case recently reaffirming this).

Third party motor insurance is defined by the road traffic act. The road traffic act doesn't apply to privately owned land to which the public don't have access.

[Noger]

Observer2 said:

PetrolTed said:

So if I drive my car on track despite my insurance stating that I'm not covered, then I'm still insured? Seems like a fair analogy.

I don't follow the logic here. He was using the car in a manner that his insurance didn't cover. If he injured someone whilst delivering then I only hope that his employer's insurance did cover him.

Obviously not covered for damage to own car. Not sure about the third party liability. Do track day organisers require sight of valid insurance including track day cover?

For the purposes of the RTA, a track is not a road. So you don't need insurance. So you may well be breaching the conditions of the policy, but you are still "insured" as soon as you get back on a road. Breaching conditions of use also get an insurer out of Article 75 insurer as well. Although this is often "racing or rallying" I have no idea if an organised track day would cover this.

Perhaps a better example is the condition to maintain a roadworthy vehicle. The policy is still in force, it is not voidable, you can of course make your vehicle roadworthy again and still be covered. But you may well not get a claim paid. In this case the Insurers are still RTA so would have to pay any third party. But are you technically without insurance. In which case could the BiB stop unroadworthy cars and do them for no insurance as well ?

[matty g]

Hiya Guys the op on safe speed was from myself on behalf of a friend.

Just to clarify
He has had his insurance before he took the very part time job on so he didnt mislead the insurance at the begining of his policy.

He only does the del job maybe a couple of times a month to boost his income whilst he waits to here from the RAF.

can anyone clarify the statement in the policy regarding:
ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
As I read it another way. I read it as though nothing affects my right to claim of somebody else(hope i`m wrong)

The issue seems to be that he had no businees cover however the car was insured but was seized for not having insurance as opposed to not having the right kind of insurance.
Surely the police should have said well were reporting you for not having business insurance be on your way if we see you doing it again we will arrest you blah blah blah.

The police apparently spoke to the insurance who confirmed SDP and then the car was siezed
But still there is insurance in force and still is for the car


The police left this lad at the side of the road at 11:30 pm on a sat night with the child seat the buggy and some of his belongings.

As it turns out he quit the job that night coz of the hassle and didnt get paid so was he actually working. was not for hire or reward

He accepts that he was in the wrong for not having business cover. but he didnt realise he would need it.

Cheers so far
matt

[vonhosen]

matty g said:

Hiya Guys the op on safe speed was from myself on behalf of a friend.

Just to clarify
He has had his insurance before he took the very part time job on so he didnt mislead the insurance at the begining of his policy.

He only does the del job maybe a couple of times a month to boost his income whilst he waits to here from the RAF.

can anyone clarify the statement in the policy regarding:
ADVICE TO THIRD PARTIES - Nothing contained in this certificate affects your right as a third party to make a claim
As I read it another way. I read it as though nothing affects my right to claim of somebody else(hope i`m wrong)

The issue seems to be that he had no businees cover however the car was insured but was seized for not having insurance as opposed to not having the right kind of insurance.
Surely the police should have said well were reporting you for not having business insurance be on your way if we see you doing it again we will arrest you blah blah blah.

The police apparently spoke to the insurance who confirmed SDP and then the car was siezed
But still there is insurance in force and still is for the car


The police left this lad at the side of the road at 11:30 pm on a sat night with the child seat the buggy and some of his belongings.

As it turns out he quit the job that night coz of the hassle and didnt get paid so was he actually working. was not for hire or reward

He accepts that he was in the wrong for not having business cover. but he didnt realise he would need it.

Cheers so far
matt

The question to ask yourself in order to determine if he is insured or not is

Does this policy, cover this person, to drive this car, for this purpose ?

If the answer to any part of that is 'no', then he doesn't have insurance.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 1st October 15:35

[Observer2]

PetrolTed said:

3rd Party Liability doesn't apply on track. If someone crashes into you then it's tough (I believe there was a case recently reaffirming this).

I assume you mean third party insurance is not a legal requirement**. Doesn't that defeat your own argument? If a vehicle is used on track day and is not insured, it doesn't matter - there is no requirement for third party liability insurance anyway.

(** This is important because I assume there is potential liability to third parties on a track day. Whether or not that liability is insured is a separate matter. For example, if you negligently stuff your car into the back of someone on a track day, they could sue you, no? I can imagine the test of negligence is different to road driving, but there must be still be a test for negligence that can be applied.)

[10 Pence Short]

I'd imagine for track days you would be insured using the organisors liability cover.

[stara]

although i have the utmost respect for the police, this kind of pathetic behaviour really REALLY winds me up as it makes the police look like idiots, make sure your friend "quit" his job just before he was stopped for the offence.