Jump to content


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2600 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

Hi,

 

I was stopped by the police on Saturday night and hit with driving with no business insurance and the car was seized.

 

I have had business insurance for the past 12 years

but having changed jobs it was no longer required,

 

however since then I have done a few shifts at the local Chinese takeaway,

 

Due to various reasons it never crossed my mind that I needed to update the insurance..... my fault, end of story.

 

However my concern is this,

I had been doing deliveries earlier in the evening,

but for the past hour before being stopped, I had actually only been working the counter,

as it was quiet I asked the owner if I could nip to the shop to get some milk ready for when I finished work,

 

as I came back out of the shop 2 police people were waiting for me,

it was then that one of them informed me of this situation,

he also said he had seen me entering the takeaway with a red bag (ie delivery bag) and this was his evidence.

 

As I was not using the vehicle for business at the time of the stop surely they had no right to seize the vehicle?

 

his remark about the "red bag" is questionable as every takeaway in the area if not the whole country uses these red bags,

 

I believe that he didn't really see me enter the shop after a delivery

and just used common knowledge to back up his claim.

 

He also entered the time of the offence of driving with no insurance as 22.30,

which is the time I was on private use,

 

seeing as the last time the vehicle was used for a delivery was 21:20,

and from this point on I swapped duties with another and became counter staff.

 

The long and short of it is can they stop me/caution me, and seize the car retrospectively?.

 

I am particularly concerned about the seizure as the car was not being used for business purposes at the time of the stop.

(By the way the reason for the stop they said was because somebody had informed them the day before that I was driving without business insurance,

but absolutely NOBODY is privy to that information.

 

Sorry to add so much detail but hopefully it will reduce the number of queries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say that they have enough suspicion that you were delivering at the time,

as you re entered the shop with an empty delivery hot food bag.

 

at the end of the day you will be reported for suspicion of the offence,

which is what you would of been cautioned for,

the car is automatically seized,

the police have no choice.

and you will have to put your side of the story to a judge

 

what you are looking for here is a legal loophole to get one over on the system,

you have admitted you were delivering without business insurance.

 

what would of happened if you had run someone over and killed them en-route to a customers house,

police called at accident and then found you out for no business insurance?

 

you would be paying a lot more than you are now.

 

i have the same sympathetic levels for people with no insurance as i do with people who drink drive...... none

 

sorry if that hurts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps re-reading the post would help you,

firstly I hold my hands up to the insurance deficiency, " my fault, end of story".

 

Secondly I am not looking "to get one over the system",

 

I am simply questioning how they can seize my vehicle and caution me with driving with no insurance at 22:30

when at that time I was no longer carrying out deliveries and was simply buying milk at a shop,

my fully comp insurance does entitle me that little luxury.

 

Finally if you are going to aim comments at people regarding (unwanted in any case) sympathy

I suggest you refrain from posting unconstructive advise in the first place,

I am looking for knowledgeable advise here not cynical comments over an already regrettable mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

at the end of the day you will be reported for on suspicion of the offence,

which is what you would of been cautioned for,

 

the car is automatically seized,

the police have no choice.

and you will have to put your side of the story to a judge..

 

. you will have to argue the point that the police officer did not see you with a red delivery bag as he claims and let the judge decide

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A

 

The police can seize the vehicle if they reasonably believe (not just suspect) that it "is or was" being used without insurance,

and you fail to produce an insurance certificate covering the use of the vehicle.

 

There's no requirement that they catch you in the act of driving without insurance,

a belief that you've done so in the recent past is likely to be sufficient.

 

So the fact that you were making a personal journey at the time of the stop doesn't necessarily make the seizure unlawful.

 

But did you produce your certificate?

 

If they demanded that you produced a certificate covering your use of the vehicle at 22:30,

and you did produce a valid certificate covering that particular journey,

arguably the seizure was unlawful regardless of what they believed you were doing,

or the fact that you were driving uninsured earlier in the evening.

 

It's a rather technical argument though, and if it comes out that you were doing business journeys earlier in the day you would be unlikely to get much sympathy from a court.

 

Similarly you could attempt to defend the no insurance charge by arguing that you were covered for that particular journey,

but it would be difficult to do without taking the stand, where you could be asked about what you were did doing earlier in the evening.

 

If you can afford it, it may be worth speaking to a solicitor (use a motoring specialist, not a common or garden solicitor) to see if you have a practical defence,

but I suspect it would be an uphill struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with sgtbush on this one.

 

You have admitted using the car for deliveries and its your word against the cops and the guy with the wig is probably going to side with the cops.

 

Another point is that Insurers like to be told of part time jobs etc... so that could be another problem, then the tax man.

 

Just my way of thinking though !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two policy options from my first quotes were

1) social and domestic, and

2) business

 

Now a third has been added to the list, namely social and domestic, including travel to their workplace.

 

A lot of people are unaware of this change, ignorance of which will get their vehicle seized and the ensuing fine for the release plus any court penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The two policy options from my first quotes were

1) social and domestic, and

2) business

 

Now a third has been added to the list, namely social and domestic, including travel to their workplace.

 

A lot of people are unaware of this change, ignorance of which will get their vehicle seized and the ensuing fine for the release plus any court penalty.

 

I have noticed many insurance companies becoming quite specific on this type of usage. Why on earth they think most of us wouldown a car and NOT want to actually use it to drive to work is beyond me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of people don't use a car to drive to work - pensioners, housewives, anyone who works from home, and indeed anyone who gets the train/bus to work (ie most people who work in London). The ratuonale for the distinction, I believe, is that people who commute to work are more likely to be driving at rush hour, which is when accidents are most likely to occur - but I've always found that in practice it makes little difference to my premium. Even adding business use this year cost me about the same as a pint of beer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ratuonale for the distinction, I believe, is that people who commute to work are more likely to be driving at rush hour, which is when accidents are most likely to occur - but I've always found that in practice it makes little difference to my premium. Even adding business use this year cost me about the same as a pint of beer.

 

Whilst there may not be too much of a hike in premium, anyone that fails to have the correct subsection within their policy are subject to the ANPR camera, police officers, and council operatives, with the real risk of vehicle stop/seizure/clamping/removal/impounding/daily charges/court fees.

 

To find one's insurance invalid, at worst following an RTA (which may not even be the owner's fault), through a simple oversight when applying, smacks of something sinister / profitable behind the additions.

 

The 'rationale' for the distinction, and the reason for posting in this thread, looks quite different from the other side of the fence.

Edited by MaisyMouse
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...