Friday 22nd October 2004

Uninsured cars to be towed away

Government seeks responses to new proposal

---

Don't have any insurance? Then prepare for to have your car towed away by the authorities. New government proposals to allow the police to seize, and where appropriate destroy, uninsured vehicles were set out today by road safety minister David Jamieson.

In the UK there are an estimated 1.2 million people - about one in twenty motorists - who regularly drive uninsured, and honest motorists pay an estimated £30 each to cover the cost of claims made against the uninsured.

Today's consultation "Seizure of vehicles being driven uninsured" seeks views on giving the police the power to seize a vehicle being used by an uninsured driver. The vehicle would be released after the driver can produce the correct insurance documentation and has paid a fine. The police would be able to destroy vehicles that were not collected within a prescribed period.

Jamieson said, "We're proposing to give the police powers to seize vehicles being used by uninsured drivers. Getting these vehicles off the road will improve road safety for everyone and reduce the nuisance people experience when they try to make a claim off someone who turns out to be uninsured.

"Honest motorists are fed up with the menace of uninsured driving. Not only do they add about £30 to every insurance policy, they are also more likely to break other traffic law - such as driving dangerous vehicles. We're already making progress in reducing the number of people who drive uninsured, but these measures will bring that number down further."

[lanciachris]

So they can enter private land and remove cars for almost any reason, this just adding one more reason to the list.

Car collectors better keep their guard up.

[ed.]

A good idea and quite likely to make anyone who does pay feel good for about 30 seconds...
(as long as they ignore the hourglass that was our civil liberties)

My concerns are who is going to be doing the seizing. Assuming the present extortionist practises of clamping and towing is ever regulated or stopped; I don’t want them to be kept in business as a result of this.

[CraigAlsop]

They don't really want to fix the problem - if they did, all they would have to do is give everyone 3rd party insurance, paid for by fuel tax, as in Australia. That way, you can't be uninsured.
Same goes for road tax.

Would put a lot of people out of a job though.

[thanuk]

How do they know which cars are insured? Insurance company databases aren't much use because many cars will be insured on trade or fleet policies where the insurer doesn't have details of the vehicles, just a total value of cover.

[wedgepilot]

A small step in the right direction, and to be applauded IMHO. Like you say, detection and enforcement will be the key here.

Presumably cars with a SORN would be exempt, seeing as they don't get driven on the road anyway...

[turbosei]

Did you see the watchdog story about the clampers towing away legally parked cars then charging the owners to recover them?

Police said they couldn't do anything... surely that's theft though isn't it?

Something deeply suspect about anyone having the right to tow away a vehicle without the Police in attendance.

[havoc]

turbosei - they can only do that from private land. Which isn't unreasonable, if used sensibly. Imagine - you own a pub, and your car park is littered with dumped vehicles...but you can't tow them away because they're not yours!!! That's not reasonable, is it?

But what is happening is what always happens - the sociopathic and the conscienceless find a way to abuse the law for their own gains...much like the Safety Camera Partnerships, really!!!

As for uninsured vehicles...if it's on the public road, tow it. If it's on private land (even someone's drive), leave it, but fine the owner unless it's got a SORN.

Oh - as for the uncollected ones...why not auction the roadworthy ones??? Get them MOT'd after, say, 3 months. Any which pass or have minor, fixable, defects should be auctioned as-is, and the net money raised put into a pot to compensate victims of uninsured drivers!!! Then the remaining unsafe cars are scrapped.

[canam]

Don't panid guys, the article referred to vehicles being used uninsured.
And as for the Motor Insurance Database, all fleets have to keep the database updated, which is done either by the Insurance Company or the policyholder.

[daydreamer]

Always amazes me the negative comments that any action by the government gets on boards like this. I am as much of a Blair hater as the next guy, but this does look like a genuine attempt to tackle a problem that is incredibly annoying to your honest motorist.

I've been hit by an uninsured driver (me driving down the main road - him coming out of a side street). Not my fault at all, but a real hassle to even get the no claims situation back as it should be.

We are presently in a situation where it is cheaper to get caught and fined for driving without insurance, than it is to purchase the insurance every year. This has to change.

[oppressed mass]

Agree with havoc here, I have no problem with uninsured cars being towed if AND ONLY IF it can be handled properly.

Also, each uninsured car cost + £30 onto your insurance so seize em and resell em (at the other end of the country to avoid being chased by Mr Oithatsmycar)

But, and here's the thing, if your car is towed and you can only get it back by presenting insurance then all offender will do is take out insurance, pay fine, retrieve car, cancel insurance, get 80% of premium back, start again. (alternatively market for bent covernotes will rocket)

net result more money for gov't and uninsured cars still on road to go round the pay my fines money go round. Cynical? Uh huh..

[Rob_the_Sparky]

Havoc,

Agreed - why crush the cars? Auction would make much more sense and I'm sure will save perfectly servicable vehicles from the scrap yard.

Rob

[gemini]

FFS
Is this the has been news today or what?

See the thread re North Yorks police towing your vehicle - at least a fortnight ago!

[Graham66]

Am I missing something here? I always thought I was insured, not the car, hence that bit in the policy where i can drive another car not owned by me or hired to me under a HP agreement

So how do they know which cars have incurance? I could quite legally drive my neighbours car under my policy as described above - so assuming my neighbour has not bought insurance, would that car be towed or scrapped? Even though I am driving it legally?

Confused of Ealing

[RB Will]

anyone ese though that if u take away some scums uninsured car said scum or scums mates will go steal them another one?

[victormeldrew]

Mmm. Currently we have 3 cars. I'm using the Tiv, the wife uses her A2, and my A8 sits uninsured on the drive as currently I have no need to use it. However, I may use the wifes A2 on occasion (ie for a long trip as the Tiv is limited mileage), and when I do so she would have to use the A8 as she won't drive the Tiv. No problem legally as her insurance covers her for other cars.

So if the A8 is "clocked" being driven, assumed to be being driven uninsured and subsequently seized, where would I stand? I'm not going to insure it to get it back, I don't want it insured as I am not using it!!!

This seems, like so much New Labour legislation, to be shot full of holes.

[smedlen]

I thought the other car had to be insured by the other owner for you to drive it on your policy. Else we could all give our pride and joys to the pet dog and insure a Metro.

[victormeldrew]

Thats exactly the point, I am not insured to drive it and I don't. My wife is insured to drive any vehicle with the owners consent so she is insured, and sometimes does drive it (not often as its only 3rd party liability). There is no specific insurance for the A8 per se, hence the potential for the A8 to be seized.

Sorry if its a bit confusing!

[sublimatica]

victormeldrew, I'm pretty sure that your wife is breaking the law when she drives your A8 if it's not specifically insured. Every vehicle must have insurance, which is why we have three insurance policies for our three cars, and we all name drivers on policies for cars, not the other way round. (We don't name cars on individuals' policies.)

Check with the police or your insurer but in the small print on your insurance policy it should say that your wife is only insured to drive other vehicles which are insured.

You and your wife are taking a big old risk with her driving the A8 at the moment if you're not sure of the situation. Like I say, I'm pretty sure she's breaking the law.

[sublimatica]

victormeldrew said:

This seems, like so much New Labour legislation, to be shot full of holes.

Despite your admission that you're not sure of the situation with your A8, you're assuming that the proposal from the Government is the thing that's full of holes, not your 'assumptions' on the insurance situation with your own vehicles?

The idea of crushing uninsured vehicles when they're found being used is a worthy one. I don't see any reasonable objections in this thread; just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions to random possible problems...

If your wife is driving your uninsured A8 (in the same way that the scrotes drive their uninsured vehicles) and the police sieze it to be crushed, what's your specific objection, victormeldrew? Should there be one rule for the scrotes and one rule for the middle classes?

[Yugguy]

This is bollocks. What about all the company cars that don't show up on the database?