Jump to content


Bees_ness

Advice on siezed car by police

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2483 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Advice is truly needed on this dilema.

 

I was with my daughter and younger kids this evening

 

my daughter was driving my car I was sitting in the passengers seat.

 

We were stopped by the police - my daughter has a provisional lisence and was not insured to drive my car.

I have a full licence and fully comp insurance on my car

 

The police said because my daughter was driving the car the police would have to impound the car and we would have to pay £150 to get the car out.

 

Is this right even though the fully insured car owner was in the car and could have driven it home?

my daughter was charged to court and given 6 points on her provisional lisence.

 

Is this the law now that if an uninsured driver is driving a car - the car will be siezed even wtih the owner in the car?

 

Any info would be apprciated and the siad police man was quite nasty to us.

 

Thanks:sad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the learner driver must be insured to drive the car.


Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that was my error but was it right for the car to be impounded even though I was in the car and could have driven it away? Thanks for taking your time out to respond to my question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes sadly it was correct

 

the uninsured was driving the car.

 

the law changed about 18mts ago.

 

dx


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

spreadsheets 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The police have the authority to seize the car if the driver fails to produce an insurance certificate and they reasonably believe that he/she is uninsured.

 

The reason is ostensibly to prevent further uninsured driving rather than as an additional punishment

so "morally" they should consider allowing a suitably insured driver to take over instead of seizing it, but "legally" there is no such requirement.

 

Ultimately whether to seize it in given circumstances is a judgement call and a matter of discretion for the officer.

 

If it was a boy racer in an uninsured car who happened to have a friend with driving other cars cover in the passanger seat

the police would be derelict in their duty if they let the friend drive away as it would be blindingly obvious that they'd swap back as soon as they were out of sight.

 

A husband and wife who are suitably mortified at discovering that they'd had a mix-up renewing their policy might have more chance of avoiding a seizure

if it was obvious that the other one wouldn't drive until the error was corrected.

 

But ultimately it comes down to the officer's discretion

- you don't say why she was uninsured, but even if it was a genuine misunderstanding it sounds like the seizure was lawful

so you have no recourse but to pay to get the car back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason is ostensibly to prevent further uninsured driving rather than as an additional punishment

 

So I get my car impounded for no insurance, I get insurance and get it back from the pound and then cancel the insurance again.

 

Just like this stupid continuous insurance game, it serves no purpose.

 

The police have discretion, it is not laid down a car 'must' be seized. Some police like the power the number on their shoulder gives them as it boosts their otherwise inadequate ego.

 

No I have never been without insurance or caught for any motoring offence, but I'm still allowed to rant.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Conniff. The seizing of a vehicle in these circumstances was totally unneccessary as the car was fully insured with an available insured driver in the vehicle. As soon as the vehicle was parked and the provisional licence holder ceased driving, there was no problem with that vehicle at all and no reason to take it off the road.

 

Allowing the learner to drive was a mistake, but the police, as ever, love to overstep the mark.

 

Whilst the siezure may have been legal by the letter of the law (although I have my doubts on that. The law is supposed to be to take "uninsured" vehicles off the road), it was certainly an unnecessary abuse of power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with Conniff. What should of happened is the provisional driver should be prosecuted for driving without insurance and dad to be prosecuted for allowing an uninsured driver to drive the car. Seizure was un-necessary in this case.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst the siezure may have been legal by the letter of the law (although I have my doubts on that. The law is supposed to be to take "uninsured" vehicles off the road), it was certainly an unnecessary abuse of power.

The letter of the law is fairly clear

 

(1)Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied...

 

(3)The second condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence (ie an insurance certificate) that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 (ie without insurance),

(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...

 

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

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

Nothing there about only seizing it if there's no insured driver to take over. The seizure may not have been necessary (I'm inclined to agree that it wasn't, but it's a matter of opinion) but it was certainly lawful.

 

Incidentally the OP was lucky in the circumstances if he wasn't charged with permitting his daughter to drive without insurance - that would mean 6 points on his own licence as well as 6 on hers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was under the impression that if the driver was uninsured the vehicle had to be seized as that is the law? A hard lesson to be learnt and unfortunately I have to agree with it because if the uninsured driver had been involved in an incident while driving there would have been a number of issues involved especially for the insured driver of the other vehicle.

Perhaps in this case, the insured driver was not capable of driving which is why the police impounded the vehicle. If this is the case, the driver of the vehicle would not have had a competent driver in the vehicle with them and this may be another offence. The law has some strange quirks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion the officer should have checked the fathers insurance charged the daughter allowed the father to drive away, as the OP said he could have driven it home, I know this happens in our police area they unlicenced/ unisured drive is told that if a licenced/insured driver can get to the scene then they can take the car.


Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion the officer should have checked the fathers insurance charged the daughter allowed the father to drive away, as the OP said he could have driven it home, I know this happens in our police area they unlicenced/ unisured drive is told that if a licenced/insured driver can get to the scene then they can take the car.

 

Is it an offence for an insured driver to knowingly allow an uninsured driver to drive a motor vehicle and if so, could this invalidate the insurance as the insured is not complying with T & Cs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a quick point, why was the uninsured driver, driving?

 

Might be useful if we knew the answer to this.

 

It may be of interest to know that on MSE there is a similar thread to this where a daughter was driving her mother's car (with permission) without insurance on Christmas day and got stopped by police. However, on this occasion the mother was not present but apparently even that the police discovered that the daughter was uninsured, they did not seize the car!

 

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4359333

 

Unfortunately though, MSE have a particular member who seems to be more interested on engaging in arguments rather than giving out advice so the thread has gone off topic and become messy. Unlike CAG, there dosn't appear to be any policing going on!

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it an offence for an insured driver to knowingly allow an uninsured driver to drive a motor vehicle and if so, could this invalidate the insurance as the insured is not complying with T & Cs?

 

Yes.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect there is more than one ''argument starter'' on every public forum!


Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The word "may" gives the officer discretion in their action. Yours decided to impound the vehicle, others dont. Luck of the draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...