impounded car - quick question
Discussion
i've just seen an ad for a car that has got me thinking - it's nothing special at all but one i've been looking for as a cheap daily hack and need some legal-ish advice on my thinking
vendor says it was seized as he couldn't prove insurance - he can't afford release fee (?) and is offering the car, the V5 and his bill of sale for approx 50% current market value. buyer pays release fee and any storage costs but it would still be cheap enough if i moved quickly on it.
if i pitch up with the release fee, receipt from current RK, the new keeper supplement and proof of my own insurance would they release it to me ? a quick google seems to be suggesting that they would but i am totally unversed in these things so offer up the Q for some advice
or.., is there not a bargepole long enough?
paul
vendor says it was seized as he couldn't prove insurance - he can't afford release fee (?) and is offering the car, the V5 and his bill of sale for approx 50% current market value. buyer pays release fee and any storage costs but it would still be cheap enough if i moved quickly on it.
if i pitch up with the release fee, receipt from current RK, the new keeper supplement and proof of my own insurance would they release it to me ? a quick google seems to be suggesting that they would but i am totally unversed in these things so offer up the Q for some advice
or.., is there not a bargepole long enough?
paul
paulmakin said:
i guess
but i would check with the pound before doing anything involving money. erm, actually, maybe i should just ask them about releasing it !!
That would be a start. But you're still buying something totally sight unseen, and untested. And you'd probably have to have it insured before you could even see it...but i would check with the pound before doing anything involving money. erm, actually, maybe i should just ask them about releasing it !!
i'm not overly concerned about the untested, "as is where is" nature of the sale. i know the marque and model well and the MoT history seems to suggest a degree of care in it's past.
i have a well equipped mobile tool box (cell 'phone and AA card) so as long as it could drag it's sorry ass out of the yard i'll be good !!
will call the vendor in the morning and get the details of where it's being held and speak to the pound to make sure it still exists - it didn't occur to me that it might have already been cubed but seems to have been seized within the last week so should still be there
paul
i have a well equipped mobile tool box (cell 'phone and AA card) so as long as it could drag it's sorry ass out of the yard i'll be good !!
will call the vendor in the morning and get the details of where it's being held and speak to the pound to make sure it still exists - it didn't occur to me that it might have already been cubed but seems to have been seized within the last week so should still be there
paul
paulmakin said:
if i pitch up with the release fee, receipt from current RK, the new keeper supplement and proof of my own insurance would they release it to me ? a quick google seems to be suggesting that they would but i am totally unversed in these things so offer up the Q for some advice
Possibly. For example - http://www.hampshire.police.uk/internet/advice-and... - see selling the vehicle after seizure. Both you and the seller will have to attend.Best to contact the relevant constabulary to check its policy/procedure though.
If is a Local Authority which has seized it, that could be something else. Each one appears to make its own rules. Also their staff aren't always the sharpest tools in the box. If you are faced with a 'Carole Beer' type your patience might be tested.
Either way you have to move fast.
paulmakin said:
i'm not overly concerned about the untested, "as is where is" nature of the sale. i know the marque and model well and the MoT history seems to suggest a degree of care in it's past.
However, it's current location (and the comment that the owner can't afford the release fee) suggests a total lack of care in it's present.I'm assuming we're talking shed money here. Was the car advertised, or is it from 'some guy down the pub'...?
TooMany2cvs said:
Also remember that many insurance policies are explicit that they can't be used to free a seized vehicle, if the seizure was before the purchase of the policy.
What utter rubbish! That would mean that no car seized for no insurance would ever get released and they'd all get crushed. Insurers add clauses for good reason and I can think of no reason why their cover would be prejudiced insuring a seized vehicle. You do talk b
ks sometimes.Edited by elanfan on Thursday 26th May 09:14
elanfan said:
What utter rubbish! That would mean that any car seized for no insurance would never get released and they'd all get crushed. You do talk bks sometimes.
It applies to DOC, so you can't use your policy to release a mate's car. ks sometimes.My Insurance Docs said:
Driving other cars – What is not covered:
- Use to secure the release of any private motor car which has been seized or confiscated by or on behalf of any government or public authority.
elanfan said:
DOC extension fair enough and is only right but there was no mention of DOC it was a general comment that policies exclude this.
No, I'm agreeing with you. However, there's a slew of insurers offering 'special cover' for impounded cars which makes me suspect theres a bit more to it.https://www.google.co.uk/#q=seized+car+insurance&a...
Normally I'm of the view that "If it sounds too good to be true... (etc.)", but this doesn't even sound good. It sounds like the Jaws theme music playing as I'm paddling in the sea. Unless this is some kind of super-rare, handbuilt exotica, why the desperation to go through such potential pitfalls?
elanfan said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Also remember that many insurance policies are explicit that they can't be used to free a seized vehicle, if the seizure was before the purchase of the policy.
What utter rubbish! That would mean that no car seized for no insurance would ever get released and they'd all get crushed. Insurers add clauses for good reason and I can think of no reason why their cover would be prejudiced insuring a seized vehicle. You do talk bks sometimes.Edited by elanfan on Thursday 26th May 09:14
ks. Many standard polices specifically exclude being used to free seized vehicles. Hence you may have to buy a specialist policy designed for this specific purpose.https://www.insurancerevolution.co.uk/insurance/im...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm afraid it's not bks. Many standard polices specifically exclude being used to free seized vehicles. Hence you may have to buy a specialist policy designed for this specific purpose.
I can see that when taking out insurance, having to disclose a pending "driving without insurance" conviction would be troublesome. But I call custard on this until someone posts a cut/paste or scan of a policy actually showing this exclusion. ks. Many standard polices specifically exclude being used to free seized vehicles. Hence you may have to buy a specialist policy designed for this specific purpose. As above, mine only has it under DOC terms, which makes sense.
silentbrown said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I'm afraid it's not bks. Many standard polices specifically exclude being used to free seized vehicles. Hence you may have to buy a specialist policy designed for this specific purpose.
I can see that when taking out insurance, having to disclose a pending "driving without insurance" conviction would be troublesome. But I call custard on this until someone posts a cut/paste or scan of a policy actually showing this exclusion. ks. Many standard polices specifically exclude being used to free seized vehicles. Hence you may have to buy a specialist policy designed for this specific purpose. As above, mine only has it under DOC terms, which makes sense.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Why are there so many company offering "out of impound" insurance if a normal policy covers it? 10 secs on google brings up loads of firms offering this cover stating that your average motor policy won't cover it. Are they allowed to lie like that to sell policies?
Probably because a: it's difficult to get cover if you've been caught driving without, and b: they have no qualms about selling 30-day cover to someone who will happily continue to drive once that cover expires?Are they lying? If not, all it needs is for someone to post a link or image of a policy document showing the clause you say "specifically excludes" you using it to retreive an impounded vehicle.
FWIW, the Met don't seem to mention that 'normal policies' aren't suitable.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Reclaiming-a-...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff