Arrested for "no" license or insurance

[JR00]

Hello to all you motoring seagulls out there.

Coming to you in my time of need as I’m stuck with a problem.

Hoping that someone can help me with this issue as it’s bugged me a lot.

I’ve not had much luck in resolving this but the money it has cost me,

I don’t want to forget about it or leave it as it was.

I hope i'm posting this in the right place.

 

A few days before Xmas in 2011, I was stopped by the police for speeding.

No issue there as I was above the speed limit but not by much.

 

When I was stopped, I was told this was why I was stopped and the officer gave me a breath test, which I had passed.

I’d told the officer that I’d had a beer about 30 mins before that.

My last alcoholic drink before that was probably about two weeks beforehand.

 

Whilst that was happening, I started to have my car searched and I informed the officer I had a small amount of weed in my bag.

Stupid, I know and not justifying it but thought it best to just tell the officer as they were searching my car.

 

AT that point the officer was trying to accuse me of driving under the influence,

even after passing a breath test and proceeded to arrest me for the weed. (I’ll come back to this point in a bit)

 

Now, this is where my problem begins.

 

The officer placed me in the police car and asked for my details, which I had no issue providing.

 

Upon having my license checked, I was informed that it had been “revoked” and I was driving with no license.

Turned out I hadn’t sent back a form and my license to the DVLA for points, a form, which had supposedly been sent to me whilst I was on tour.

Still baffled about this form to this day, as I’ve never received it. Not the main issue though as I dealt with it after through the DVLA.

 

The problem then was that according to the officer, my car wasn’t insured as I had no license and it was impounded.

What the officer failed to notice, and then accept after was that it was insured in my mum’s name and I was a name driver, so there was no need to have it taken away.

 

The car and insurance is in her name as I have spent time away on tour and my mum occasionally drove it.

Done this before with other cars and never had a problem before.

 

Now, back to the accusation of driving under the influence.

 

Once I was back at the station and being booked in,

the charge was dropped almost instantly by the custody sergeant as he felt there were no grounds for the charge.

He felt there was nothing to indicate that.

I possibly helped my case by remaining calm and being respectful towards them at all times.

 

So at this point, I was facing a charge of driving without license and insurance with a court date set the following week.

 

The custody sergeant was extremely helpful and could clearly see what had happened.

He told me that I’d have to go to court for it but should not have any further issue over it.

I may end up with a fine, but that’s it. It turned out it was for not sending back my license to the DVLA.

 

Once I was released, I had to go pick up my impounded car that required my mum to be there as the papers where in her name and pay the £150 fee

 

The following week I went to court and just like the sergeant said, I received a fine but no penalty points or driving ban.

 

I have to be honest, I’m still confused as to why I received a fine but I can quite easily find that out.

Just happy to not have any endorsements or charges over it.

As far as I was aware, I was now able to drive again.

 

2 days after being in court, I was stopped again.

 

This time, I had the paperwork from the courts and everything else in case this happened.

Once again, my car was impounded but I was not arrested.

Funnily enough, I was stopped parking outside Acton police station lol

 

The officers decided that my paperwork was not sufficient, even though I had every possible driving document in my possession.

So that was another £150 to get my car back. Great mass for me lol

 

After that, I tried to get in contact with the relevant person to at least claim back my money as I felt it was due back to me, being insured and having a license.

I had no luck in a response, and to be honest, I didn’t send any letters recorded delivery, so it’s my word against their word.

 

What I was wondering is where do I stand?

 

I feel the first time my car was impounded it shouldn’t have been as it was in my mum’s name, along with the insurance.

 

The second time is also a situation where I felt that there was no reason to have my car impounded again.

Especially after producing all the relevant paperwork.

 

I’ve never had an issue with insurance before and aside from a few points, no license issues either.

My car and license is extremely important for my work when I work in the UK.

 

The other concern I have is because of the amount of time in which I’ve left it to claim.

Aside from being away on tour a lot, I’ve had some personal and family issues, which have needed to be dealt with.

 

Hoping someone out there from this awesome site can help me out :smile:

[JR00]

I also have a parking ticket related "bailiff" issue to go along with this

[dx100uk]

I think the first impound is correct.

because you had no licence that invalidates your cover under the insurance.

 

it is their 'duty of care etc' to take safe possession of the car till it can be claimed.

 

as for the second, I think you might be right

 

how you go about this I don't know, or even

as you say elapsed time plays a part here.

 

I have a feeling its 6yrs

 

dx

 

 

dx

[JR00]

Hey dx,

Thanks for the reply.

 

Glad i'm not going totally mad here and possibly have a case to claim back the money from the 2nd impound.

I'll try and add the bits i missed as i was quite angry whilst writting the initial post.

 

My only concern with the first one is that if had been found guilty of driving without license or insurance,

then i would have automatically been given points on my license and a huge fine at court.

Neither of which happened.

The custody sergeant said this could be the other alternative.

 

As far as the judge goes, all he saw was that i had a license and therefore, insurance too.

He called it an 'issue with the system at the DVLA', at which point i almost laughed in court. I obviously didn't lol

 

I'm guessing that as none of this happened and i wasn't charged for the offences, they should really have to refund me the impound fee.

Also, as the car was insured and registered, i'm guessing they could have left my car by the roadside.

 

Irrespective of what they had implied i had or hadn't done, the car was lawfully on the road, M.O.T'd and registered

 

The second time i was impounded angers me even more as once i got my car back, i never heard anything back from the police about a fine or any charge.

 

As for trying to claim it back, i really had no clue how to go about it but i'm hoping to at least get a response from them

 

Juan

[dx100uk]

they cant leave th car at the roadside sadly

they become responsible for it once you are arrested and taken away

 

others will help I might well be wrong

 

dx

[JR00]

Yeah, i see what you're saying about leaving the car at at the roadside.

I guess in that situation, i got slightly annoyed as i was less than 2 minutes from my mum's house and in the time they spent dealing with me, i could have had the car picked up. Totally see what you're saying with them having to take the car but if it was insured then i should be refunded after. Understand i'd have to initially pay the impound fee but without any charges against me, i'm not guilty of anything.

 

As you can see, i'm not totally sure where i stand on all of this. Thanks for the help, by the way

[Aretnap]

because you had no licence that invalidates your cover under the insurance.

Not necessarily. A few insurance policies do only apply if the driver holds a valid licence, but most in my experience say "provided the driver holds, or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a valid licence" or a similar form of words. The OP wasn't disqualified from holding a licence, he'd just had it revoked, so his insurance was likely still valid. This would fit with him not getting any points.

 

However the car can still be seized if the driver has no valid licence, regardless of the insurance situation.

 

@JR - if your licence was revoked because you didn't send it in for endorsement, that would mean you have to apply for a new one before you can drive again. No need to retake your test or anything, but you do have to send the relevant forms to the DVLA and pay £20 or whatever it is these days. Did you do this after the first seizure?

 

As for the seizure, the law allows the car to be seized if you fail to produce a valid licence or insurance certificate, and the copper reasonably believes that you were driving without a licence or insurance. He can use some discretion not to do this and allow your mum to come and pick it up if he wants to, but he doesn't have to, and the seizure would be legal even if there was another licences and insured person in the car who could take over driving there and then.

[dx100uk]

there we go - thanks aretnap, great info

 

dx

[raydetinu]

On the first instance, as you say it was insured, so you could of contacted your mum to come and pick the car up?

 

On the second time, as you say you had all the paperwork that proved you had a valid licence,

so suggest you write or go and see the Inspector in charge at the station you were taken to and make a claim for the return of your impound fee

 

. Again you mum should of came to pick car up!

[sgtbush]

the first instance is right, your driving the car when your licence is revolked, therefore your invalidating your insurance, you have no insurance.

 

the second instance, even tho you have gone to court and sorted out the 1st impounding,

you have still not applied for your licence from the original revolk,

ergo you are driving without a valid licence and therefore invalidating your insurance again

[Surfer01]

the first instance is right, your driving the car when your licence is revolked, therefore your invalidating your insurance, you have no insurance.

 

the second instance, even tho you have gone to court and sorted out the 1st impounding,

you have still not applied for your licence from the original revolk,

ergo you are driving without a valid licence and therefore invalidating your insurance again

That was the impression I got also so both instances are justified as I cannot see the DVLA validating a licence within 3 days. Can you clarify whether the DVLA issued a new licence within that time frame?

[Kiki1]

That was the impression I got also so both instances are justified as I cannot see the DVLA validating a licence within 3 days. Can you clarify whether the DVLA issued a new licence within that time frame?

 

Of course they did, the DVLA is infallible and always fully up to date don't you know.

[Raykay]

the first instance is right, your driving the car when your licence is revolked, therefore your invalidating your insurance, you have no insurance.

 

Not necessarily, as in post 7, it depends on the wording of the insurance certificate.

[JR00]

I understand about my insurance being invalidated in this case but i was just a name driver. The insurance policy was under my mums name so if it hadn't been insured, i don't think they would have returned my car in both cases

[JR00]

Thanks for the info.

 

My license was sorted out the day after the first impound.

 

We have a DVLA office near my house.

 

I understand why they arrested me and took the car but if the car was fully insured and taxed,

then surely i should be able to claim back the original impound fee?

 

What's annoying is that i showed the officer the insurance document on the first occasion i was stopped and it clearly showed i was just a name driver.

 

Even if i was only a name driver at the time and even if my insurance was invalidated, the car would have still had insurance.

 

I realise why they took the car as i was in control of the car at the time,

but the judge didn't give me any endorsements for driving with no license and on the second occasion,

i didn't receive anything other than the car being towed away.

 

Not sure if any of this helps my case

[JR00]

On the first instance, as you say it was insured, so you could of contacted your mum to come and pick the car up?

 

On the second time, as you say you had all the paperwork that proved you had a valid licence,

so suggest you write or go and see the Inspector in charge at the station you were taken to and make a claim for the return of your impound fee

 

. Again you mum should of came to pick car up!

 

Yeah, i tried that and they were having none of it. The second occasion i had no way of getting my car picked up but they never even charged me with anything. Just took the car.

Honestly, having to get my mum involved in it all was quite frustrating but then if i hadn't, i wouldn't have seen the car

[JR00]

Not necessarily. A few insurance policies do only apply if the driver holds a valid licence, but most in my experience say "provided the driver holds, or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a valid licence" or a similar form of words. The OP wasn't disqualified from holding a licence, he'd just had it revoked, so his insurance was likely still valid. This would fit with him not getting any points.

 

However the car can still be seized if the driver has no valid licence, regardless of the insurance situation.

 

@JR - if your licence was revoked because you didn't send it in for endorsement, that would mean you have to apply for a new one before you can drive again. No need to retake your test or anything, but you do have to send the relevant forms to the DVLA and pay £20 or whatever it is these days. Did you do this after the first seizure?

 

As for the seizure, the law allows the car to be seized if you fail to produce a valid licence or insurance certificate,

and the copper reasonably believes that you were driving without a licence or insurance.

 

He can use some discretion not to do this and allow your mum to come and pick it up if he wants to, but he doesn't have to,

and the seizure would be legal even if there was another licences and insured person in the car who could take over driving there and then.

 

Bit of cut and paste here as i meant to snd this reply to yourself.....

 

Thanks for the info.

My license was sorted out the day after the first impound.

We have a DVLA office near my house.

 

I understand why they arrested me and took the car but if the car was fully insured and taxed, then surely i should be able to claim back the original impound fee?

 

What's annoying is that i showed the officer the insurance document on the first occasion i was stopped and it clearly showed i was just a name driver.

 

Even if i was only a name driver at the time and even if my insurance was invalidated, the car would have still had insurance.

 

I realise why they took the car as i was in control of the car at the time,

but the judge didn't give me any endorsements for driving with no license and on the second occasion,

i didn't receive anything other than the car being towed away.

Not sure if any of this helps my case

[Raykay]

The requirement is that the person using the vehicle is insured to use the vehicle, not the vehicle.

 

If you're a named driver, and the certificate has the words 'holds,

or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a licence' (or similar),

and your licence was only revoked because of the missing points, the insurance would be valid.

[JR00]

The requirement is that the person using the vehicle is insured to use the vehicle, not the vehicle.

If you're a named driver, and the certificate has the words 'holds, or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a licence' (or similar), and your licence was only revoked because of the missing points, the insurance would be valid.

 

Thanks for the reply.

See, that's exactly what i thought.

 

I was never disqualified at the time and never have been either.

 

This is exactly the view that the judge took. I

 

guess i'm getting mixed up with the "person" being insured and the "car'.

 

The other issue i have, whether i can claim or not, i

s that i just can't seem to find any address or contact where i can at least, make my claim.

 

The police and DVLA have been as helpful as a kick in the nuts.

 

Not a moan at the police, just can't seem to get any further with this situation

[sgtbush]

im sorry but your missing the point,

 

your licence was revolked, or suspended.

 

that means your licence is invalid,

 

therefore invalidating the insurance as you must hold a current licence in the way your driving the car,

ie if its full then you have insurance or if you are a learner then you comply with the current regulations on learner drivers.

 

if your licennce is suspended you currently do not hold a valid licence

and the insurers do not insure drivers with invalid licences

[Raykay]

The OP's licence may have been revoked but that does not automatically invalidate the insurance.

 

On most insurance certificates there is 'holds, or has held and is not disqualified from holding, a valid licence' (or similar).

 

A revoked licence is not a disqualification so if that wording (or similar) is on the certificate, the insurance is valid.

[Kiki1]

Some answers may be found in the link below

 

http://www.licencebureau.co.uk/faqs-for-dvla-policy-change-on-revocation-of-driving-licences/