Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Advice on siezed car by police


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4133 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

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:

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)

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 don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

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.

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
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.

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.

 

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.

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.

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:

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?

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.

 

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...