Caught Driving With No Licence

[sploits]

Hello fellow Caggers,

 

After a bit of advice. My best friend got caught driving his car while not having a full UK driving licence. He holds a provisional and insurance but that was it. I believe the insurance is void anyway because he didn't have anybody sitting with him in the car. He was parked up in Tesco's when the police pulled up and accused him of driving without a licence. He held his hands up and said it was true. They then got the car towed away and left him in the middle of our town. He had to pay a release fee to get the car back the following day and has been waiting for a court date for the offence. All this happened in September/October time and still he has had nothing through. Is there a timescale for these things? Has he gotten away with it (not that I condone what he done)?

 

Any advice would greatly be appreciated.

[lamma]

six months, give it time.

[sploits]

Thank you lamma, your comment is greatly appreciated. I will pass the message on to my friend.

 

Thank you again

[My Real Name]

The police towed his car from private land? Do they have that authority?

[sploits]

I have no idea M R N. I think because he knew he was in the wrong he just let them get on with it. Then paid around £150 to the compound company to get the car back

[green_and_mean]

The police towed his car from private land? Do they have that authority?

 

Yes Tescos car park is a defined as a road under the RTA 1988

 

164 Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth

(1) Any of the following persons—

(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,

 

“road”, in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes,

[Al27]

I'm impressed he could drive alone on a provisional! I wouldn't feel capable of going out on my own without having passed my test!

[sameagle]

G & M,

 

Would you mind if I asked a question, please?

 

I own a car park - it's very small, and it probably could only hold six or seven vehicles - it's associated with the garage that I own.

 

It's totally separate from where I live, in fact, it's over the road, but anybody can drive onto it from the [public] road, there is no barrier, I own the land, and the garage, freehold.

 

As it seems that it's part of the road, by default, does this mean that I cannot bar the Police from entering it?

 

Regards

 

Sam

[green_and_mean]

G & M,

 

Would you mind if I asked a question, please?

 

I own a car park - it's very small, and it probably could only hold six or seven vehicles - it's associated with the garage that I own.

 

It's totally separate from where I live, in fact, it's over the road, but anybody can drive onto it from the [public] road, there is no barrier, I own the land, and the garage, freehold.

 

As it seems that it's part of the road, by default, does this mean that I cannot bar the Police from entering it?

 

Regards

 

Sam

 

I doubt it I'm no expert on the law but I'm sure the Police can enter any open space without permission, its only property ie 'indoors' that they cannot enter freely. If you are talking about motoring law it depends on the circumstances if an offence takes place as some offences require the vehicle to be on 'a road' others 'a road maintained at public expense'.

[My Real Name]

...

I'm not questioning the constable's authority to stop the vehicle in the carpark. I'm questioning the the police's authority to remove it.

[My Real Name]

I doubt it I'm no expert on the law but I'm sure the Police can enter any open space without permission,

As can anyone (except for Crown property etc. which would be a criminal offence).

 

They might still be trespassing, and the landowner / occupier could require them to leave, even to the extent of using force, if the police are not there lawfully.

 

(The police do, of course, have far more powers that enable them to be somewhere lawfully.)

 

its only property ie 'indoors' that they cannot enter freely.

The only difference between indoors and outdoors would be down to whether entry was forced - The police have powers to force entry under certain conditions.

[green_and_mean]

I'm not questioning the constable's authority to stop the vehicle in the carpark. I'm questioning the the police's authority to remove it.

 

(5) Where this subsection applies, the constable may—

(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;

© use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

 

 

(9) In this section—

(a) a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage;

(b) a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

© “counterpart” and “licence” have the same meanings as in section 164;

(d) “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

[green_and_mean]

The only difference between indoors and outdoors would be down to whether entry was forced - The police have powers to force entry under certain conditions.

 

Which is why I said 'freely' obviously with a warrant they can force entry. I still don't think they can legally enter a property even if the door is unlocked without good cause.

[PCSTAMPER]

Green and Mean's posts are accurate. As far as powers of entry are concerned, learn sec17 PACE '84. Also look at specified offences.

[sameagle]

Thank you for your useful replies.

 

Sam

[letshelp]

I believe the insurance is void anyway because he didn't have anybody sitting with him in the car. .

I don't think you are right regarding the insurance. Just because he has commited an offence does not really invalidate his insurance policy. Drink driving is also against the law but does not invalidate your insurance.

regards

[majik]

I don't think you are right regarding the insurance. Just because he has commited an offence does not really invalidate his insurance policy. Drink driving is also against the law but does not invalidate your insurance.

regards

 

Insurance would be "normally be void" as driver only had a provisional license and insurance would "normally" carry a conditional which is someone has to be with the driver who holds a full license etc.

[JimmySpangle]

Absolutely correct. It is a condition of insurance for a provisional license holders that they are accompanied by a qualified driver.

 

If he had a collsion the insureres would quite rightly refuse to pay out as he is not qualified to be in charge of the car, where as a supervising driver is.

[Mossycat]

I don't think you are right regarding the insurance. Just because he has commited an offence does not really invalidate his insurance policy. Drink driving is also against the law but does not invalidate your insurance.

regards

 

In drink drive cases the insurers will pay for any damage caused to property NOT owned by the driver, but they will NOT pay for any damage caused to the policyholders own vehicle. They are then legally entitled to recover their outlay from the policyholder if they so wish.

 

If you are not accompanied by a suitable person on a provisional licence then your insurance is invalid because you are committing an offence at the time of driving unaccompanied.

 

Mossy

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

In drink drive cases the insurers will pay for any damage caused to property NOT owned by the driver, but they will NOT pay for any damage caused to the policyholders own vehicle. They are then legally entitled to recover their outlay from the policyholder if they so wish.

 

If you are not accompanied by a suitable person on a provisional licence then your insurance is invalid because you are committing an offence at the time of driving unaccompanied.

 

Mossy

 

So are you saying that insurers could not pay for damage to the policyholders own vehicle if the driver was speeding at the time the damage was caused?

[Mossycat]

So are you saying that insurers could not pay for damage to the policyholders own vehicle if the driver was speeding at the time the damage was caused?

 

Technically YES they could because the policyholder was breaking the law at the time the accident occured, however in reality they don't.

 

When I first began working in motor claims in the early 1980's we would pay for any and all damage that a policyholder did if they were over the legal alcohol limit (including damage to their own car), but that all changed in about 1985/1986 and we stopped paying for any damage sustained to their own car and just paid out for thrid party claims (and in some cases we have then recovered those costs from the policyholder).

 

It's a question of social acceptance, as attitudes have changed and drink driving is no longer socially acceptable insurers have distanced themselves from it by refusing to assist a policyholder with their own repairs, however speeding does not have the same stigma (whilst I don't condone speeding it is something that happens a lot), that may not be the case however if the policyholder is engaged in a street race or is say doing 130MPH along the motorway etc. Each instance would be reviewed on its own merits and a decision to deal with or decline would be made accordingly

 

Mossy

Edited January 22, 2010 by Mossycat

[My Real Name]

...

Is this the RTA?

 

[Edit]

 

Found it.

 

If I read it right, then a constable can seize a vehicle from someone's driveway if, say, someone's unlicensed child had driven it in the previous 24 hours.

 

Wow.

Edited January 22, 2010 by My Real Name

[My Real Name]

Which is why I said 'freely' obviously with a warrant they can force entry. I still don't think they can legally enter a property even if the door is unlocked without good cause.

Green and Mean's posts are accurate. As far as powers of entry are concerned, learn sec17 PACE '84. Also look at specified offences.

Entering for the purpose of searching / arresting.

 

As a MOP, I can walk into any unlocked door, and not be charged with any criminal act (unless I damage something, or intimidate someone). A police officer also has that ability.

 

It's semantics and quibbling, I know.

[green_and_mean]

Is this the RTA?

 

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 added sections 165A and 165B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which give police the power to seize a motor vehicle being driven without a driving licence or insurance. The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005 as amended formally brought these powers into force on 6 July 2005.

[My Real Name]

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 added sections 165A and 165B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which give police the power to seize a motor vehicle being driven without a driving licence or insurance. The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005 as amended formally brought these powers into force on 6 July 2005.

Thank.

 

If I read it right, then a constable can seize a vehicle from someone's driveway if, say, someone's unlicensed child had driven it in the previous 24 hours.

 

Wow.

 

Is there any appeal process? Or can the owner / RK effectively be fined without any due process?