PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

No Insurance after using cash and carry, What does fully comp mean.
LOVESFILM2
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 14:42
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,725



Over the weekend a good friend of mine borrowed his brothers people carrier to go the cash and carry as their family were having a forth coming wedding and stocking up on food and drink.
A was stopped by police and told that even though he had fully comp insurance and his brothers permission to drive his fully comp vehicle , he was not insured to carry goods bought from cash and carry.
The vehicle was impounded and he was told he would be reported for no insurance.
His brother paid £150 to get the vehicle back and now they wait to be prosecuted. They both have many years no claims and regulary use cash and carries as they have big families.
I dont believe this is right as it could be said we all do the same using supermarkets.
Any help on the best way to proceed to stop this madness, thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 14:42
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 14:59
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,910
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Being from a cash and carry is irrelevant, if it was for business use then it wouldn't be covered, if it was private use it would.

The police would need to justify having a reasonable suspicion before seizing the car, coming from a cash and carry is an issue as you need to be in a trade to have the card to buy from them (usually) so that will be a significant factor in whether the suspicion was reasonably held.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:06
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,376
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The thread title asks 'what is fully comp'?

That is 'fully comprehensive' insurance as opposed to 3rd party cover only. (That is the person insuring the vehicle can claim for damage on their own vehicle as opposed to only covering the damage caused to another vehicle)

But there's no relevance, probably. Fully comp policies sometimes include driving other vehicles - which might be the point they're getting at? I presume this was the basis the car was being driven under?

The core issue appears to be an assertion that the vehicle was being used for business purposes and needed such cover. (Most policies are personal use, social/domestic/pleasure, unless 'business use' is specifically requested)

I shop at a cash and carry for my own personal use (using a friend's account) but AIUI you need an account backed by a business, i.e. the general public cannot shop there. (Thus the suspicion on use perhaps)

But if the driver can show they did have insurance cover at the material time and use then no offence appears to have been committed.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:12


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baroudeur
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:35
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 385
Joined: 24 Sep 2014
Member No.: 73,212



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 16:06) *
The thread title asks 'what is fully comp'?

That is 'fully comprehensive' insurance as opposed to 3rd party cover only. (That is the person insuring the vehicle can claim for damage on their own vehicle as opposed to only covering the damage caused to another vehicle)

But there's no relevance, probably. Fully comp policies sometimes include driving other vehicles - which might be the point they're getting at? I presume this was the basis the car was being driven under?

The core issue appears to be an assertion that the vehicle was being used for business purposes and needed such cover. (Most policies are personal use, social/domestic/pleasure, unless 'business use' is specifically requested)

I shop at a cash and carry for my own personal use (using a friend's account) but AIUI you need an account backed by a business, i.e. the general public cannot shop there. (Thus the suspicion on use perhaps)

But if the driver can show they did have insurance cover at the material time and use then no offence appears to have been committed.


I have a Costco card issued as an additional member on my son-in-law's business name account. I only buy for personal use although products can be in bulk packs.

Do I need business cover on my car insurance? Surely not?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,376
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (baroudeur @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 16:35) *
Do I need business cover on my car insurance? Surely not?

Not for such personal use. I'm guessing this is more like Bookers.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LOVESFILM2
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:50
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,725



QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 16:06) *
The thread title asks 'what is fully comp'?

That is 'fully comprehensive' insurance as opposed to 3rd party cover only. (That is the person insuring the vehicle can claim for damage on their own vehicle as opposed to only covering the damage caused to another vehicle)

But there's no relevance, probably. Fully comp policies sometimes include driving other vehicles - which might be the point they're getting at? I presume this was the basis the car was being driven under?

The core issue appears to be an assertion that the vehicle was being used for business purposes and needed such cover. (Most policies are personal use, social/domestic/pleasure, unless 'business use' is specifically requested)

I shop at a cash and carry for my own personal use (using a friend's account) but AIUI you need an account backed by a business, i.e. the general public cannot shop there. (Thus the suspicion on use perhaps)

But if the driver can show they did have insurance cover at the material time and use then no offence appears to have been committed.


Yes, thank you it was the driving another vehicle which I meant.

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:59) *
Being from a cash and carry is irrelevant, if it was for business use then it wouldn't be covered, if it was private use it would.

The police would need to justify having a reasonable suspicion before seizing the car, coming from a cash and carry is an issue as you need to be in a trade to have the card to buy from them (usually) so that will be a significant factor in whether the suspicion was reasonably held.



Yes he has a trade card as comes from a very big Indian family and they find its easier to buy bulk but they are not traders. They both work the same big mail company.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:53
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,376
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



The policy definitely includes DoV? (It would only possibly be included on fully comp policies and it may include additional restrictions, such as under 25 drivers)

This post has been edited by Jlc: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:53


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LOVESFILM2
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,725



Thank you, Is there anything they can do now to complain how they have been treated and stop any further action.

QUOTE (Jlc @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 16:53) *
The policy definitely includes DoV? (It would only possibly be included on fully comp policies and it may include additional restrictions, such as under 25 drivers)

Both their insurance policies state they can drive another vehicle with insured owners consent. They have used each others cars many times. They are both well over 25

This post has been edited by LOVESFILM2: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 15:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 16:57
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,910
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I would suggest the best first step is a formal complaint to the local chief contsable stating the seizure was unlawful, as part of that they will decide whether to agree the driver was insured which would head off a prosecution and may trigger them to refund the towing fee.

Make sure you lay out all the facts in the complaint, so that the purchases were personal, not for a business, the fat they were from a cash and carry isn’t at all relevant and that the officer using that to decide it was business use was wholly unreasonable (that now reasonable person could have reasonably come to that conclusion).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:01
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,488
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LOVESFILM2
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:40
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,725



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:57) *
I would suggest the best first step is a formal complaint to the local chief contsable stating the seizure was unlawful, as part of that they will decide whether to agree the driver was insured which would head off a prosecution and may trigger them to refund the towing fee.

Make sure you lay out all the facts in the complaint, so that the purchases were personal, not for a business, the fat they were from a cash and carry isn’t at all relevant and that the officer using that to decide it was business use was wholly unreasonable (that now reasonable person could have reasonably come to that conclusion).


Thank you

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.



Thank you,

I am going to see them in morning and will ask then.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dacouc
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 17:46
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 374
Joined: 26 Feb 2013
Member No.: 60,232



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.


Or producing a downloaded copy on say a smart phone would also make the seizure unlawful
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:44
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Who carries around a certificate nowadays?

Don't the police check with the insurance company themselves?

They always seem to when stopping people on those Channel 5 car cop programs, when nicking wrong'uns in Lincolnshire!


With respect to the OP. It may support your case if you could supply the police with a receipt showing the goods bought were typical when bulk buying for wedding guests and wedding details (venue booking for ceremony/celebration etc).

This post has been edited by rosturra: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:55
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,376
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (rosturra @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 19:44) *
Don't the police check with the insurance company themselves?

I presume they did and the lack of business cover probably triggered the seizure...

QUOTE (rosturra @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 19:44) *
Who carries around a certificate nowadays?

I have mine tucked in my glove box. Indeed, I would definitely want it with me if DoV!


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 19:19
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,023
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.

Unless Im reading things wrongly surely the problem wasnt that the indurance cert was or wasnt produced but that the Cop decided that buying stuff from the Cash ' n Carry was for a business
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 19:46
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,275
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:19) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.

Unless Im reading things wrongly surely the problem wasnt that the indurance cert was or wasnt produced but that the Cop decided that buying stuff from the Cash ' n Carry was for a business

The point is that production of an insurance certificate is mentioned in the statute, so it's an important question.


--------------------


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LOVESFILM2
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:16
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,725



Just an update, spoke to him and he said he and his wife were stopped on way home. The officer asked him who owned vehicle and he explained borrowed from brother. The officer asked where he had come from and he told him the cash and carry, he asked him what he done for a living and he told him he worked for the big mail company. The officer asked him to wait and went away to check and on returning told him he was not insured, he then gave him his own vehicle details and the officer again went away and on return told him again he was not insured. The officer said they would be seizing the vehicle and gave him a notice that stated he should wait until he gets a reply of further action. I asked if there are any of the officers details on the notice and he says "no".
This happened Saturday. On monday he phoned his insurance and the women he spoke to asked him if the goods he bought were for private use and he replied "yes" and she confirmed he was insured to drive the vehicle. She then went on to ask him if he was the person that had phoned Saturday and he said "no". She then explained that the person who phoned Saturday was checking if the insurance he had was for commercial use only.
Talking to him just now gave me the clear impression that the officer assumed he was a trader/shop keeper instantly and had made his mind up just on seeing him and the vehicle with the cash and carry items. He states that at no time was he asked if he was a trader as he had already said where he works, the officer assumed it straight away.
I find it to be a total abuse of power to treat someone in this way. Its clear the officer checked both cars were insured but was only interested in the commercial .

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:46) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:19) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.

Unless Im reading things wrongly surely the problem wasnt that the indurance cert was or wasnt produced but that the Cop decided that buying stuff from the Cash ' n Carry was for a business

The point is that production of an insurance certificate is mentioned in the statute, so it's an important question.

No, it appears the officer went away and checked both vehicles , his brothers which he was driving and his own.

This post has been edited by LOVESFILM2: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StuartBu
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:19
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,023
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:46) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:19) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.

Unless Im reading things wrongly surely the problem wasnt that the indurance cert was or wasnt produced but that the Cop decided that buying stuff from the Cash ' n Carry was for a business

The point is that production of an insurance certificate is mentioned in the statute, so it's an important question.

Well thats two things the driver has a justifiable gripe about then!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
LOVESFILM2
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:19
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14
Joined: 15 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,725



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:19) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 18:01) *
Was your friend carrying his insurance certificate? If the insurance certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was unlawful.

Unless Im reading things wrongly surely the problem wasnt that the indurance cert was or wasnt produced but that the Cop decided that buying stuff from the Cash ' n Carry was for a business

Thats the clear impression I got talking to my friend just now, it may not be relevant but he was stopped in Barking and lives in Ilford. For me the officer instantly saw him as a shop keeper, which he is not.

This post has been edited by LOVESFILM2: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:22
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NewJudge
post Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:25
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,432
Joined: 29 Oct 2008
Member No.: 23,623



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Wed, 20 Jun 2018 - 20:46) *
The point is that production of an insurance certificate is mentioned in the statute, so it's an important question.


But is it quite that straightforward? S165A says this (about uninsured vehicles being liable to seizure):

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

©the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.


So if an insurance certificate was produced but which fails to mention cover for business use and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle was being used for business (and thus uninsured) does he not have grounds for seizure? The driver produced a certificate which the constable had grounds to believe did not provide cover so he failed under (b).


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 23rd July 2018 - 15:46
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.