So, you're on duty at a static point on a road where vehicles are prohibited from driving. You give a direction to a vehicle to stop, it does and your colleague speaks to the driver who is in work uniform (for the local kebab house) and has a food storage box in the passenger footwell.
You run the car through and the insurance comes back with SDP only. You question the driver, who denies driving with food for delivery. You decide to give him a STERN warning and remind him not only will the car be taken away from him, he will gain 6 points, a £200 fine and if he caused an accident could go to prison.
You decide to nominate the car for ANPR for the next two days with medium stop. Thinking that if he is going to be delivering, he will be stopped.
You go and speak to the owner of the Kebab house, remind him of the law and he says "None of my cars have insurance for business" and doesn't seem to concerned.
My course of action was: remind him that he is causing or permitting drivers to drive without insurance, if they do have an accident he could lose his business and go to prison or have a very heavy fine and a compensation order against him.
Once I had done that, I put in an Intel report.
What would you do?
Insurance
Started by
General Purpose
, Jul 15 2012 11:04 PM
91 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:17 AM
As soon as I observed the take away containers I would of asked "where are you delivering that" - Just to make polite conversation - which would then in turn make it harder for him to deny later once I found out he has only SDP.
#3
Posted 16 July 2012 - 07:32 AM
Quick interview at the side of the road, If all the circumstances point to the driver delivering and there is no business use or carriage of food for hire or reward then probably seize the vehicle for no insurance, issue FPN / summons.
The magistrates can decide from there.
As for the owner report for permitting the use and they can have 6 points as well, if driver found guilty obviously.
The magistrates can decide from there.
As for the owner report for permitting the use and they can have 6 points as well, if driver found guilty obviously.
#4
Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:02 AM
What would you do?
You've not ignored the offence and the force will now be aware of the problem so your course of action is absolutely fine. Others may of course choose to take the insurance issue further but if you're not sure about the exactly legalities then what you've done is sensible.
Quick interview at the side of the road, If all the circumstances point to the driver delivering and there is no business use or carriage of food for hire or reward then probably seize the vehicle for no insurance, issue FPN / summons.
It's not that simple. Just because someone is driving about using their car for business purposes on a SDP policy does not automatically mean that they have no third party insurance company. Some insurance companies will refuse to cover under these circumstances and you have a valid S143 charge. Others will still provide third party cover under these circumstances (but not comprehensive for the driver) in which case there's no S143 offence. Of course, even if no offence the insurance company may then choose to cancel the policy later due to the false information provided.
In short you probably need to contact the insurance company before you decide on a course of action. If you can't do this at the roadside (e.g. late at night) then I would be leery of seizing a vehicle for a S143 under these circumstances.
#5
Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:15 AM
It's quite simple.It's not that simple. Just because someone is driving about using their car for business purposes on a SDP policy does not automatically mean that they have no third party insurance company. Some insurance companies will refuse to cover under these circumstances and you have a valid S143 charge. Others will still provide third party cover under these circumstances (but not comprehensive for the driver) in which case there's no S143 offence. Of course, even if no offence the insurance company may then choose to cancel the policy later due to the false information provided.
In short you probably need to contact the insurance company before you decide on a course of action. If you can't do this at the roadside (e.g. late at night) then I would be leery of seizing a vehicle for a S143 under these circumstances.
That's down to the driver to prove they are covered in whatever respect. Yes you would normally contact the insurance company but if the company is closed and they (The driver) doesn't have the appropriate (ie business or carriage of goods) cover then the car comes in and it's down to the driver to appeal if they want.
#6
Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:29 AM
The problem is that they might have the appropriate cover. The Road Traffic Act states for S143:
The driver has presented to you a valid insurance certificate that is in force and indemnifies third parties against him driving his vehicle. The exact circumstances under which the insurance company will honour this policy is a contractual matter between them and the driver. You can of course make them aware of the business use and it is quite possible that they will treat the policy as null & void and the car comes in. On the other hand they might state the driver is still covered in which case no S143 offence has been committed and the car cannot be seized.
Out of interest, some policies (such as those by Elephant) state they will not cover the driver if they are driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. If this was stated on the insurance certificate, would you be seizing their car and proceeding with a S143 if you stopped a drunk driver?
A person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act
The driver has presented to you a valid insurance certificate that is in force and indemnifies third parties against him driving his vehicle. The exact circumstances under which the insurance company will honour this policy is a contractual matter between them and the driver. You can of course make them aware of the business use and it is quite possible that they will treat the policy as null & void and the car comes in. On the other hand they might state the driver is still covered in which case no S143 offence has been committed and the car cannot be seized.
Out of interest, some policies (such as those by Elephant) state they will not cover the driver if they are driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. If this was stated on the insurance certificate, would you be seizing their car and proceeding with a S143 if you stopped a drunk driver?
#7
Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:39 AM
The problem is that they might have the appropriate cover. The Road Traffic Act states for S143:
The driver has presented to you a valid insurance certificate that is in force and indemnifies third parties against him driving his vehicle. The exact circumstances under which the insurance company will honour this policy is a contractual matter between them and the driver. You can of course make them aware of the business use and it is quite possible that they will treat the policy as null & void and the car comes in. On the other hand they might state the driver is still covered in which case no S143 offence has been committed and the car cannot be seized.
Out of interest, some policies (such as those by Elephant) state they will not cover the driver if they are driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs. If this was stated on the insurance certificate, would you be seizing their car and proceeding with a S143 if you stopped a drunk driver?
If the driver shows me an insurance certificate that backs up what the insurance database says then yes the vehicle comes in. The certificate would also fail to show cover for carriage of goods or business use.
Never seen that Under the influence clause on a policy yet. Does it refer to under the influence ie one pint but passes a breath test or a warn or over the legal limit?
#8
Posted 16 July 2012 - 11:58 AM
The Elephant one is listed in their Key Facts document. However, that was a bit of a trick question, the physical state of the driver is one of the statutory reasons that insurance companies are NOT allowed to invalidate cover on.
The point though is that in this case the insurance company will honour the policy, hence no S143 offence, but will thereafter attempt to civilly recover the cost from the driver. Although business usage can result in the insurance company nullifying the cover, some companies tend to go down this route instead meaning no S143 offence is committed.
You may successfully argue that you have enough for a S165 seizure as you only need reasonable suspicion that a vehicle is not insured. However, my force would not authorise a seizure under these circumstances without confirmation from the insurance company, presumably to help prevent payouts to those that turn out to be insured after all as it depends on the insurance company response.
The point though is that in this case the insurance company will honour the policy, hence no S143 offence, but will thereafter attempt to civilly recover the cost from the driver. Although business usage can result in the insurance company nullifying the cover, some companies tend to go down this route instead meaning no S143 offence is committed.
You may successfully argue that you have enough for a S165 seizure as you only need reasonable suspicion that a vehicle is not insured. However, my force would not authorise a seizure under these circumstances without confirmation from the insurance company, presumably to help prevent payouts to those that turn out to be insured after all as it depends on the insurance company response.
#9
Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:08 PM
What would I do?
I'm on a road closure.
I would keep that road closed.
Upon finding out that the vehicle did indeed have an insurance policy, I would have told the driver that he should really get business insurance and then proceeded to give him directions for the diversion. I would then stick an intel report in so that any officers stopping him, perhaps in worse circumstances in the future, would be able to make an informed decision.
I would then return to my road closure post.
I'm on a road closure.
I would keep that road closed.
Upon finding out that the vehicle did indeed have an insurance policy, I would have told the driver that he should really get business insurance and then proceeded to give him directions for the diversion. I would then stick an intel report in so that any officers stopping him, perhaps in worse circumstances in the future, would be able to make an informed decision.
I would then return to my road closure post.
#10
Posted 16 July 2012 - 12:16 PM
What would I do?
I'm on a road closure.
I would keep that road closed.
Upon finding out that the vehicle did indeed have an insurance policy, I would have told the driver that he should really get business insurance and then proceeded to give him directions for the diversion. I would then stick an intel report in so that any officers stopping him, perhaps in worse circumstances in the future, would be able to make an informed decision.
I would then return to my road closure post.
Where does he say he's on a road closure? He is on a road where there is a prohibition for motor vehicles.
#11
Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:45 PM
I misread/made assumptions.
He was on a static posting on a pedestrianised zone? Or on a road where vehicles cannot drive (pretty useless as roads go)? Or on a play street?
He was on a static posting on a pedestrianised zone? Or on a road where vehicles cannot drive (pretty useless as roads go)? Or on a play street?
#12
Posted 16 July 2012 - 01:48 PM
I misread/made assumptions.
He was on a static posting on a pedestrianised zone? Or on a road where vehicles cannot drive (pretty useless as roads go)? Or on a play street?
If you read the post it's self explanatory
#13
Posted 16 July 2012 - 09:17 PM
It's quite simple.
That's down to the driver to prove they are covered in whatever respect. Yes you would normally contact the insurance company but if the company is closed and they (The driver) doesn't have the appropriate (ie business or carriage of goods) cover then the car comes in and it's down to the driver to appeal if they want.
No, no, no.
If a vehicle has a policy in force, you cannot seize it for lack of insurance, end of. Driving outwith the terms of a policy does not invalidate the insurance in respect of 3rd party liabilities, which is the requirement of s143. As pointed out, the RTA specifically does not allow insurers to disclaim 3rd party liability if terms of the policy aren't complied with. Even if the MIB or insurers tell the driver verbally that they're no longer covered when you ring them, you will find that this doesn't meet the requirements to formally cancel a policy (see small print for details). The insurer is on the hook for the liability until they meet their side of the contract.
You could stick them on for fraud instead (making false representation to obtain the cover), and your DPS would probably thank you if you did - they'd have no chance of winning the civil case for seizing the vehicle.
#14
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:20 AM
I misread/made assumptions.
He was on a static posting on a pedestrianised zone? Or on a road where vehicles cannot drive (pretty useless as roads go)? Or on a play street?
Nope. It's a road where only buses and Taxis may drive, cars can drive there in permitted times but lorries can deliver during other permitted times. Basically, Friday and Sat nights is a no no.
#15
Posted 17 July 2012 - 09:15 AM
No, no, no.
If a vehicle has a policy in force, you cannot seize it for lack of insurance, end of. Driving outwith the terms of a policy does not invalidate the insurance in respect of 3rd party liabilities, which is the requirement of s143. As pointed out, the RTA specifically does not allow insurers to disclaim 3rd party liability if terms of the policy aren't complied with. Even if the MIB or insurers tell the driver verbally that they're no longer covered when you ring them, you will find that this doesn't meet the requirements to formally cancel a policy (see small print for details). The insurer is on the hook for the liability until they meet their side of the contract.
You could stick them on for fraud instead (making false representation to obtain the cover), and your DPS would probably thank you if you did - they'd have no chance of winning the civil case for seizing the vehicle.
Agree with this. Lying about the use of a vehicle has been found to not invalidate third party cover, as such they still have insurance so it can not be seized. I did however think this was a specific offence under the RTA as opposed to fraud by false rep but I can't remember what section at the moment, so maybe I'm making that bit up.
#17
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:41 PM
It doesn't, (3rd party road risk claims). However, there are various other offences surrounding the carriage of passengers for hire & reward, plying for hire, public liability cover etc etc.So why does taxi Touting invalidate your insurance then?
#18
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:41 PM
It doesn't, (3rd party road risk claims). However, there are various other offences surrounding the carriage of passengers for hire & reward, plying for hire, public liability cover etc etc.
So why do our cabs unit seize them then?
#19
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:46 PM
You may successfully argue that you have enough for a S165 seizure as you only need reasonable suspicion that a vehicle is not insured. However, my force would not authorise a seizure under these circumstances without confirmation from the insurance company, presumably to help prevent payouts to those that turn out to be insured after all as it depends on the insurance company response.
Just one thing that I'd pick up on in that statement would be that "reasonable suspicion" is not enough for a s165 seizure. As an officer, you must have formed a "belief" that the driver has no insurance. Suspicion isn't good enough.
No idea. You'd have to ask them.So why do our cabs unit seize them then?
I've done a few "taxi" operations, and having spoken to RPU and the Hackney Carriage Office, "Touting" is not something that we could s165 for. They do have insurance, just the wrong kind.
It'd be like a private hire car picking up flaggers at the side of the road. The driver breaches the terms of his PH licence, the passengers would not be insured (if they were to be in an accident) but the car, technically, would be (3rd party risks).
#20
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:48 PM
Shouldn't officers who are experienced enough to be solo motorcyclists know this?! It may 'invalidate' insurance in that the company will cancel the policy but it is still valid at that time.
#21
Posted 17 July 2012 - 02:50 PM
Just one thing that I'd pick up on in that statement would be that "reasonable suspicion" is not enough for a s165 seizure. As an officer, you must have formed a "belief" that the driver has no insurance. Suspicion isn't good enough.
No idea. You'd have to ask them.
I've done a few "taxi" operations, and having spoken to RPU and the Hackney Carriage Office, "Touting" is not something that we could s165 for. They do have insurance, just the wrong kind.
It'd be like a private hire car picking up flaggers at the side of the road. The driver breaches the terms of his PH licence, the passengers would not be insured (if they were to be in an accident) but the car, technically, would be (3rd party risks).
However it's obviously not because that's why they are seized. I will have to do a bit of digging..
Shouldn't officers who are experienced enough to be solo motorcyclists know this?! It may 'invalidate' insurance in that the company will cancel the policy but it is still valid at that time.
Meow!!!
#22
Posted 17 July 2012 - 03:10 PM
I remember watching Traffic Cops, road wars or might even of been Energency Bikers where the officer stopped a women delivering party food I think it was. She was insured but didn't have buisness cover. The officer seized her car.
#23
Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:30 PM
Personally, I'd say the officer was wrong to seize in those circumstances. The requirements of s143 would be met, and therefore there would be no grounds for seizure under s165a.I remember watching Traffic Cops, road wars or might even of been Energency Bikers where the officer stopped a women delivering party food I think it was. She was insured but didn't have buisness cover. The officer seized her car.
I also think it's wrong to seize a vehicle if another (insured) driver can get there in a reasonable amount of time (say within the 30 mins it would take for recovery), seizure is meant to stop the offence continuing and not as a punishment. If someone who is insured can get there to drive the vehicle away, then the offence doesn't continue, job's a good-un.
Although, the above might depend a great deal on the attitude of the driver
#24
Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:42 PM
Personally, I'd say the officer was wrong to seize in those circumstances. The requirements of s143 would be met, and therefore there would be no grounds for seizure under s165a.
I also think it's wrong to seize a vehicle if another (insured) driver can get there in a reasonable amount of time (say within the 30 mins it would take for recovery), seizure is meant to stop the offence continuing and not as a punishment. If someone who is insured can get there to drive the vehicle away, then the offence doesn't continue, job's a good-un.
Although, the above might depend a great deal on the attitude of the driver
I also feel people misuse s165a. Like many powers, even where it IS available, doesn't mean it MUST be used. Especially in circumstances where people have not got insurance without intent ie. direct debit issue etc.
Those who flagrantly drive around with no insurance, unroadworthy vehicles, no licence then yea fine use the powers to tackle them. The rest, cut people a bit of slack is my ethos.
#25
Posted 17 July 2012 - 05:47 PM
The only problem with that, is how do you tell the genuine (problems with direct debit) from the (I cancelled my direct debit after I got the certificate)I also feel people misuse s165a. Like many powers, even where it IS available, doesn't mean it MUST be used. Especially in circumstances where people have not got insurance without intent ie. direct debit issue etc.
Those who flagrantly drive around with no insurance, unroadworthy vehicles, no licence then yea fine use the powers to tackle them. The rest, cut people a bit of slack is my ethos.
0 user(s) are browsing this forum
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
