Police won't reimburse for wrongly impounded car

[CrappoMan]

After reading the Pryor v Greater Manchester Police Case, I think the most important phrase in that case is:

 

The police constables' belief, misled as they may have been by some person within Saga that the cover was only extended if the car actually being driven was itself insured by its owner, was flatly contradicted by the plain words of the certificate: the police constable's belief, no doubt honestly held, that the certificate did not mean what it said is neither here nor there.

 

That means that unless the certificate actually states that the third party vehicle must have its own insurance, then the insurer can't add that as a condition later, and the police can't use it as a reason to seize a vehicle.