Shame you did not have your Certificate to show them, you could have then used Pryor v Greater Manchester Police which is a very similar case to yours, even down to the Insurer miss informing the police about the Driving other Cars extension.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.html

I'm guessing the father is a motor trader and has covered the daughters car under the motor trade policy (I assume for business & pleasure use) and that she is either an employee of the garage or the car has been added as being a family members car which many Motor Trade Insurers offer where the trader has bona fide premises

Is the car owned / registered by the daughter or the business?

What's the make / model of the car?

What is the exact wording on your Admiral Certificate relating to the driving other cars extension.

Which Insurer does your father use for his motor trade Insurance

is it

Aviva

Allianz

RSA

Arista

What does your Certificate say?

What does your Certificate say?

My certificate says:

"The Policyholder may also drive with the consent of the owner a private motor car not belonging to him/her and not hired to him/her under a Hire Purchase Agreement, within our territorial limits, providing there is a valid insurance policy in force for that car.

All drivers must also be driving in accordance with the terms of a valid licence and must not be disqualified from driving.

The Policy does not cover:

Use for renting out or hiring, merchandise delivery or use for any purpose in connection with the Motor Trade. Use to secure the release of a motor vehicle, other than the vehicle identified above by its registration mark, which has been seized by, or on behalf of, any government or public authority

Use on the Nurburgring Nordschleife, or for racing, pace-making, competitions, rallies, track days, trials or speed tests either on a road, track, or at an off road 4x4 event

Is that the problem? Your wife's car has connections with the motor trade !

This seems a strange affair. An officious police officer and an insurance company clerk who could be misinformed. The whole point point of extended 3rd party cover is the use of another car (within reason-not a Porsche) as a temporary measure. If the other car has a valid insurance policy as required and the OP's insurance is valid: where is the confusion? The police officer has used his discretion and will not pursue the speeding offence, which I think buries that one, but I would be inclined to pursue this matter further. I would badger your insurance company and speak to their legal advisor to establish on precisely what grounds they have for not covering you under the terms of your policy. This is a crucial point, and if you are successful you can easily defend yourself against the charge of driving without insurance. Good luck and stick at it. Many fail because they run out of steam and give up. Keep us informed of the progress and outcome.

All the best. Concrete

I showed them my wifes policy because the policeman assumed it was a 'traders' policy.

I knew it was not as I have been under a traders policy before. Any employee can drive the car under a traders policy. This is not the case under this commercial policy.

I accepted nothing and argued my point, but he was not interested and just towed the car away.

I'm still waiting for the paperwork as the 'offence' happened on sunday (25th Jan)

The cover note excludes any use in connection with the motor trade - the "other car" involved is connected with the motor trade.

I would suggest you do the following.

Pay for the car to be retrieved from the pound as you need to a) get your car back b) keep the costs as low as possible

Get a letter / email from your father's motortrade business confirming you had permission from the company to use the car (Your Admiral policy requires you to have the owner of the car's permission to drive the car)

You then need to contact Admiral and ask to speak to someonen senior preferably in the underwriting department. I would avoid ringing between 11.45am and 2.15pm as they will have staff on lunch or about to go on lunch and in addition these are their busy times. Remain polite but firm.

Explain to them the importance of the matter as you have incured costs due to the incorrect seizure of the car and pending no insurance conviction.

Read out to them the wording of the CERTIFICATE of Insurance relating to driving other cars and remind them that at the time you were stopped you complied with each requirement. That the vehicle held "Valid Insurance" as it was covered by the MT policy which as they do not elabourate any further is a valid insurance as it covers the car. Remind them that the Certficate is a legal document confirming you are covered for third party and as such you were insured by the Admiral policy at the time of the stop.

If they labour the arguement about "valid insurance" remind them that Axa are an "Authorised Insurer" as such they have permission from the UK government to provide motor insurance which complies to the Road Traffic Act. As they're an "Authorised Insurer" they can and do issue valid certificates of Insurance under the motor trade policy. They are also able to upload to the Motor Insurance Database vehicles which are covered by their Motortrade policy that need to registered on the database. By any reasonable interpretation of "Valid Insurance" this is a valid motor insurance policy certainly a court of law would agree it's a valid policy.

If they try and argue that the car you were driving was a commercial car, ask them to provide an authoritive source to confirm what is a commercial car and what is a private car. When they cannot do this remind them that the general accepted method is to look at what the Log Book and Tax Disk describes the vehicle as and that in the case of the car it's described as private car on the tax disk and log book

If they try and say it's a commercial policy a) The Certificate & Policy do not elaborate what a valid policy is so this irrelevant b) It's a commercial policy that by virtue of the needs of a motor trader also provides cover for cars and is compliant with the Road Traffic Act.

If they tell you the policy has other wordings that preclude you from being covered a) There's nothing in their policy meaning you're not covered b) It's irrelevant as when it comes to whether or not your covered in the eyes of the law is what the Certificate contains.

Once they've agreed you're covered, you need to tell them that they need to provide a "Letter of Indemnity" confirming you were covered at the time of the accident. (A Letter of Indemnity is basically a letter on their headed paper confirming that at the time of the incident they would have indemnified you against claims made against you). I suggest you have the documents the police gave you to hand when calling as to provide the letter they normally require the date / time of the incident.

I would not at this stage raise that you want them to reimberse the costs of the seizure as it's likely to mean the staff will want to protect their employee from incurring costs so are less likely to help. Once they've agreed you're covered and to provide confirmation of this you can look to them for the costs.

Do not be afraid to refer them to this thread, as the posts from other posters and myself are correct in confirming that Admiral are in the wrong. If they view the thread they will see they're in the wrong and that you're determined to resolve the matter.

If you do not have any luck POLITELY ask them to arrange a more senior person to contact you to discuss this matter as you potentially will receive a conviction through no fault of your own but due to the mistake made between the police officer and their member of staff.

If the above does not work, there's a way you can contact the Ombudsman by phone and for the Ombudsman to take down a brief "Official Complaint". When the Ombudsman realises the importance / urgency of the matter and that Admiral have made a mistake for the Ombudsman to ring Admiral and recommend to a senior member of staff that they correct the mistake. If this is needed post back and I'll tell you how to do this.

Once you get the "Letter of Indemnity" from Admiral, post back up and we can tell you how to present this to the police to have the pending conviction thrown out. We can also then tell you how to get Admiral to pay the vehicle seizure costs.

Please ensure you post back to update the thread and once the matter's resolved you post the result. This will help anyone in the future who has a similar problem and googles it as google will throw up this page

Incidently, if you had your Admiral Certificate of Insurance with you and had produced this at the time of the stop. Then the seizure of your vehicle would not have been lawful as you would have produced a "Relevant Certificate". Had the police proceeded to seize the car you could have recovered the seizure costs from them as per the previous case I linked to eg Pryor v Greater Manchester Police

Note if you've initially tried to tell the Police officer that you were covered by the motortrade policy the above will probably not work. This is due to the Admiral policy probably having a clause excluding using cars in connection with Motor Trade Use so they may use this as an argument. If you were using the car in connection with the father or anyone elses motor trade then your Admiral policy is not likely to cover you

Edited by dacouch on 27/01/2015 at 21:15

Bear the following in mind

When dealing with Insurers frontline staff bear in mind many will guess the answers and come up with answers such as if the car has no mot it's automatically not covered.

If you get someone who is adamant they're correct you either need the confidence / knowledge to overturn their arguements. If you're having problems try thanking them for their time and then try ringing back a bit later.

The most important thing is to remain polite but firm, if you start arguing it puts their backs up and their less likely to try and help.

Remember that the law of the land requires an Insurer to issue a Certificate of Insurance. This is a legal document that confirms what and who is covered by the policy for the requirements of the Road Traffic Act. As such what is on the certificate is what you are covered for in relation to third party cover which is the minimum level of cover you need to not receive a no insurance conviction.

If the Certificate says you're covered and it has not been cancelled by you or your Insurer then you're covered. The Insurer and the Police cannot decide on an alternative definition of the words on the certificate or add words / exclusions to what is on Certificate.

As it's a legal document declaring who / what's covered, for obvious reasons whatever it says on it is covered.

Once you understand what an important document the Certificate is and the statute law that requires it's existance and stipulates the relevant laws applying to it. You realise how what a powerful document it is and how the person at Admiral made a mistake.

I would recommend you read my the thread a few times so you understand the posts that have been made by others and me. The better you understand your position the better you will be able to present your case.

The court case I linked to (Pryor) is also worth reading a couple of times as parts of it are similar to your case and it shows how if the certificate says you're covered then you're covered. The most relevant parts of Pryor to read are 14, 16 & 17 which are very similar to your case and quite simply put mean that what the wording on the certificate is you're covered for in te eyes of the law

I printed out and memorised all of dacouch's reponses, in case they tried to throw me a curve ball and/or wriggle their way out of it.

So I called Admiral customer services at 9:20 today and got through to a lovely lady.

I asked if there was anyone senior in underwriting I could speak to and explained why.

I was told that the underwriting department cant take calls so I explained the situation and that I was covered as per my certificate which is a legal document. She seemed unconvinced so I read them out and stated I met the criteria to be covered.

She then explained that the reason I was told it wasnt covered was due to it being a commercial policy so following the instruction from dacouch and after 10 minutes on hold I was told the underwriters agree I was indemnified and that I will have an email confirming this by 5pm today the very latest.

Yaaaaay! What a result. Thank you so much dacouch, God bless you!

He was not using the car in connection with the motortrade, I assume he was using the car for private use.

If he was using the car in connection with the motortrade, the type of MT policy the father has would cover any driver who is driving in on the motor traders business so he would use that as confirmation he's covered.

That would have to be argued in court - and up to the court to decide whether a car specifically insured under a motor trade policy, and therefore used in connection with the motor trade actually severs that connection when being used by a motor trader's son-in-law?

That's great news Razzy and I think you will get away with the speeding.

It pays to be polite when dealing with people.

Assuming they're sending you a "Letter of Indemnity" you need to take this down to the Police Station dealing with the matter and ideally speak to the senior officer. They will normally take a copy of the letter and pass it on for the pending conviction to be cancelled.

There's a strong chance they won't accept an email as these are easy to fake, I would suggest you ask Admiral to send you a hard copy on headed paper through the post. Ask them to ensure it's a "Letter of Indemnity" eg a letter confirming they would have paid any third party claims made against you at the time you were stopped.

Once you get the conviction sorted out, post back and we can help you recover the cost's of the seizure from Admiral.

Incidently the officer that stopped you will have a bee in his bonnet about you from now on so be careful when you're in his area.

Keep a copy of your certificate of Insurance with you or download an electronic copy to your phone. If you had been stopped and produced that at the time you were stopped the police would not have seized the car lawfully as per Pryor v Greater Manchester Police.

P.S I know this is mostly Admiral's fault, but it's nice to send an email thanking the lady who helped you out. It's a nice boost for them, they're more likely to help someone else in the future and the email is brought up when they have their appraisal. Just a quick thank you email for her help is good, don't go on to praise Admiral as you'll be making an "Official Complaint" about them to recover the seizure costs shortly. (An Official Complaint is a system in place from the Insurance regulators to make a complaint to an Insurer which they have to properly investigate)

I agree a loss of trade is very hard to substantiate and a claim for that amount is likely to put their backs up and also make them laugh.

By all means claim for the seizure costs and reasonable alternative transport costs.

Did you take the day off unpaid or as paid holiday?

You can attempt to claim for all reasonable losses you've experienced, however you have a duty to mitigate your losses. So questions would be asked as to why you did not take a taxi into work or even use public transport if this was suitable.

Your boss will not have lost £1000 as he would have had to pay you out of the takings along with any other staff and overheads.

If you can substantiate your own losses via providing accounts if they wish to see them then you have a chance of recovering them.

Incidently I was not aware dentists worked seven days a week.

Once you've had the conviction waived, post up and we can tell you how to write to Admiral to recover the seizure costs

Hello Razzy, it looks like you have to take your proof to court. In which case it may pay you get a decent solicitor who knows about magistrates court procedure. I had a similar thing with Northampton Police, despite me sending them proof against the charges they just kept stonewalling and sending me standard letters, not addressing the issue.

Could be the same with you. Thick staff in the back office who either don't understand or don't want to understand. I took my paperwork to court on the day, got there early and collared the legal clerk to the court. He agreed with me my case was sound. He took the paperwork, agreed it with the CPS solicitor, but I still had to go into court. A no case to answer was submitted and I was discharged. All a rigmarole but unfortunately this is our system. Get your paperwork put together, check it carefully for holes, and go and defend yourself. You can ask for costs, but unlikely to be awarded any.

Best of luck

Concrete