Police Keep Stopping Me When Drving

[Laura Cooke]

My grandsons girlfriend had a vehicle she was stopped in it for driving without a passed driver with her, we understand because of other issues she then became a banned driver they split up about a year ago and have had no contact from her since.

 

Grandsons mother had the ownership of the vehicle transferred to her, she took driving lessons and passed not long ago. On 4 separate occasions Police have stopped her when driving, and stated different things ranging from  "Your a banned driver" "You have no full licence" "Why are you not displaying your L plates" then today it was "You have no insurance"

 

When the car was stopped on the 3rd occasion they said the car had a marker on it so daughter-in-law said it needs taking off each time she has been stopped she has told them she has insurance, a full driving licence etc. She broke down crying today stating this is harassment, the Police over took her today and were at her home when she got back, they told her they are not from the area and the Police can stop her as many times as they like.

 

The local Police officer who has stopped her 3 times knows the situation and knows the previous registered keeper does not even live in the area he even congratulated my daughter in law on passing her test, what can she do to have this stopped.

[BankFodder]

I'm really not sure of the answer here – I'm sure somebody will come along who knows exactly what to do.

However, I would start raising it with DVLA. Call them and ask them about it and see what can be done. I suppose that although it may be an unusual situation, they have come across it before.

Secondly I would write a formal letter of complaint to the police administration of the area in which you live. You should make a detailed note of every time you get stopped including the colour numbers of the police officers.

I suggest that you hold off actually complaining about the police officers themselves. I think you need to avoid any impression that you are trying to get police officers into trouble. Instead you need to be complaining about the systems and make sure that they appreciate that you understand fully that the police officers who are stopping you are simply doing their job because of some error somewhere in a database

[Laura Cooke]

Thanks for reply much appreciated daughter in law been trying all afternoon to get through to DVLA without success she will try again Monday

[BazzaS]

Unlikely that DVLA will be able to assist.

 

Much more likely that there is an “intelligence marker” associated with the vehicle’s registration mark, either on the Police National Computer, or on “locally held intelligence” (held by the local police).

 

If it  happens in your local area it could be locally held or on PNC, but if it is happening in other Police Services areas too, it is on PNC.

 

Ask at your local police station to make an appointment with the Inspector.

I concur that the best approach is “here is the background, I’m not complaining about the individual officers, but it is:

a) wearing you down, and

b) not a good use of their time if the marker is no longer applicable”

 

Other than that : replace the car with a different one.

[Laura Cooke]

Appreciate the response I would be shocked if an Inspector agreed to a meeting the majority of dealings I have had with our Police they are arrogant and ignore any complaints or anything, I have witnessed so many poor failings within our force they never seem to accept any responsibility. 

 

I will drop the inspector a line it is wearing my daughter in law down she is losing all confidence and only passed her test a month ago she been assured twice now that a marker on the vehicle would be removed, the officers last night were pretty arrogant and upset my grandaughter too she asked when is it they are going to leave her Mum alone.

 

The officers said they do not need a reason to stop someone and they can do it when they please.

[king12345]

You could play the hard part by videoing the next encounter.

When they come up with rubbish about stopping her she should ask why they stopped her.

Any excuse they give, her answer should be: "I have not committed any offence, therefore I am not required to release my details, unless you can confirm what offence i have allegedly committed. I am making a video of this and i am entitled to do so as i am in my car and my car is in a public place"

They will start backtracking and trying to persuade her that she's obliged to disclose her details.

Don't give up.

She can push further by saying: "if you believe i have committed an offence, you should take me to the police station. I am not disclosing my details unless you tell me what offence i have allegedly committed"

Being on the police database is not an offence, so they will let her go.

Not a permanent solution but nonetheless a moral victory. 

Even better if the video is uploaded on YouTube and linked to their twitter account.

All of the above require balls of steel and very stable nerves.

[Laura Cooke]

She is quite a gutsy lady they are pushing her to the limit she told them in no uncertain terms to leave her alone I will pass the information on to her thanks for the support and advice

[BazzaS]

4 hours ago, king12345 said:

You could play the hard part by videoing the next encounter.

When they come up with rubbish about stopping her she should ask why they stopped her.

Any excuse they give, her answer should be: "I have not committed any offence, therefore I am not required to release my details, unless you can confirm what offence i have allegedly committed. I am making a video of this and i am entitled to do so as i am in my car and my car is in a public place"

They will start backtracking and trying to persuade her that she's obliged to disclose her details.

 

But, she is obliged to disclose her details if driving.

 

4 hours ago, king12345 said:

Don't give up.

She can push further by saying: "if you believe i have committed an offence, you should take me to the police station. I am not disclosing my details unless you tell me what offence i have allegedly committed"

Being on the police database is not an offence, so they will let her go.

Not a permanent solution but nonetheless a moral victory. 

Even better if the video is uploaded on YouTube and linked to their twitter account.

All of the above require balls of steel and very stable nerves.

 

Section 165 (1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the driver to provide their name and address, and doesn’t mandate that the driver has to have committed an offence before they are required to provide those details.

 

Saying “I have not committed any offence, therefore I am not required to release my details, unless you can confirm what offence i have allegedly committed” can just get the answer “we can require your details regardless, just by dint of you driving a motor vehicle, but the offence now is failing to provide name and address” or “if we can’t verify your name and address we’ll arrest you and take you to a police station until we can verify your identity”

 

It isn’t “balls of steel” and “stable nerves” needed to refuse to give name and address, it is stupidity. If you want to video it and put it on YouTube, it’ll be embarrassing: but it won’t be the police who are embarrassed.

Edited June 23, 2019 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Additionally:

”I’m not giving my name and address!”

 

”OK, I can see someone holds insurance for the car, but without your name and address I can’t determine that YOU are insured to drive it, so unless you can convince me you are insured to drive it, I’ll be seizing it under S165A of (RTA 1988)”

 

That’ll be a £200 release fee (& the inconvenience of the seizure) as well as any daily fees, and someone is then going to have to give their name and address (as part of proving insurance held) as part of the release process.

Great ‘moral victory’ that will be!

[renegadeimp]

Quote

But, she is obliged to disclose her details if driving.

Not on the spot.  She can be given a producer instead.   She doesnt have to say a single word without a solicitor present, and they cannot arrest her unless theres proof that she has committed a crime. They can detain for purposes of carrying out an investigation, such as insurance checks etc, but the old " am i being detained"  comes into play.  If they say yes,  then they MUST state exactly what  you are being detained for.


An easy way to sort all this, is when shes in the car,  just have an a4 plastic wallet with copies of your driving documents in it.  Not the real ones.  You are under no obligation to actually provide real documents on the spot,  and if the copies are true and accurate, they can easily check over the radio.

[unclebulgaria67]

Suggest Car owner sends in an official complaint in writing to local Chief Constable, with full details of what has happened. 

 

For the Police to continue maintaining a marker on their system to stop the car  whenever they want to cannot be correct, if the registered keeper has been changed on DVLA registration records.

[jotty]

Just make sure that she has insurance in her name. It’s not the fault of the Police after all we pay them to stop idiots driving around unlicensed and uninsured. They will be using ANPR most likely which is linked to the MIDAS database.

 

Check with the insurers that they have done this. 

[BazzaS]

2 hours ago, renegadeimp said:

Not on the spot.  She can be given a producer instead.   She doesnt have to say a single word without a solicitor present, and they cannot arrest her unless theres proof that she has committed a crime. They can detain for purposes of carrying out an investigation, such as insurance checks etc, but the old " am i being detained"  comes into play.  If they say yes,  then they MUST state exactly what  you are being detained for.

 

 

You can still be given a “producer” (HORT1).

 

The requirement (amended by a defence, see below) is to produce your documents at the roadside (RTA 1988, S 165(1)), with a defence if you don’t produce them at the roadside of S 165(4)

 

(1) Any of the following persons—

(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, 

.......

must, on being so required by a constable [ Or vehicle examiner], give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.

 

 

(2) Those documents are—

(a)the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

(b)in relation to a vehicle to which section 47 of this Act applies, a test certificate issued in respect of the vehicle as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, and

(c)in relation to a goods vehicle the use of which on a road without a plating certificate or goods vehicle test certificate is an offence under section 53(1) or (2) of this Act, any such certificate issued in respect of that vehicle or any trailer drawn by it

 

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence.

 

(4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under [subsection (3)]above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence . . . if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—

(a)within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or

(b)it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or

(c)it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,

 

So, the offence (of not producing the documents) is committed by not producing the documents, but there is a defence by producing them within 7 days. They CAN summons you for the offence, but don’t bother if you have produced within 7 days....

 

You’ll notice in S(1) that the requirement is for the driver to give

their name & address AND

name & address of the owner AND

produce the documents (at the roadside, but with the subsequent defence FOR THE DOCUMENTS of S(4) )

 

Spelling it out :S4 gives a defence for prosecution “only by reason of failure to produce documents”, not for failure to furnish the names and addresses.

 

that is the legal basis.

 

On a practical / real-world basis : how can they give the driver a producer if they don’t have the driver’s name & address to put on the HORT1?

 

The power to seize the vehicle if the driver can’t prove insurance was held was brought in precisely because people were driving uninsured and then saying “well, give me a producer”......

 

I agree with

”An easy way to sort all this, is when shes in the car,  just have an a4 plastic wallet with copies of your driving documents in it.  Not the real ones.  You are under no obligation to actually provide real documents on the spot,  and if the copies are true and accurate, they can easily check over the radio.”

 

It seems then that you aren’t advocating she doesn’t give her details:

It seems a nonsense to suggest both “I’m not giving my name and address” and “here’s copies of all my driving documents”!

 

If they want to arrest her if she fails to provide driver’s details, they can, until she provides those details.

The offence : not the ‘failing to produce documents’, but the ‘failure to provide details’.

 

In fact, if they haven’t ascertained her name and address, they can’t release her if they believe that offence has been committed (precisely because to release her they have to have her name & address to allow it to be dealt with later!)

 

If there is a significant delay in providing the details (& she then can’t prove they are correct), the delay may (in itself) provide reason to suspect they are false, and a reason for arrest (under the PACE code G guidance).

[dx100uk]

I thought horti's had now gone?

 

[BazzaS]

HORT1 used a lot less because of the:

Driver’s details being available through DVLA (and the licence counterpart having ‘gone’), 

MOT status being held / provable online, and MID online / “prove you have insurance or the car gets seized until you can prove insurance”.

 

I suspect the latter has had the greatest effect.

 

They can still be used. Here is a document from 2017 where they are being used (in association with a Vehicle Defect Rectification scheme)

https://www.gloucestershire.police.uk/media/2923/vdrs-v28.doc

Edited June 23, 2019 by BazzaS

[dx100uk]

that's mays sense.

 

dx

[jotty]

Depends how long it takes for the intel to be verified and updated as that will be why she is being stopped, the car is flagged as being driven at some stage by a banned driver. If she registers it in her name and insures it the the intel will self archive as it no longer current.

 

Simple really.

 

I wish the Police would stop more people if I’m honest as the number of uninsured and illegal drivers out there is bigger than ever.

[Manxman in exile]

I suppose this is a stupid question, but is the current owner definitely the Registered Keeper with the DVLA (and not still the grandson's former girlfriend)?  It's not clear how the grandson's mother had ownership transferred to her from the girlfriend.

 

I find it hard to believe that the police keep stopping her if they've been made aware of the situation, and it's sometimes the same police officers doing it who know the background.

 

There must be some reason for this to be happening.

[ericsbrother]

they had intelligence about the link between the parties who have owned the vehicle and you current keeper needs to get those links broken as far as the PNC goes.

A formal complaint to the CC and to the civil commissioner would be in order.

It could be that the grandson still hangs around with the same crowd ex GF hangs around with and the "other issues" are enough to make them thik that the current keeper may allow them access to the vehicle

[jotty]

Why a formal complaint, whats to complain about ?

[BazzaS]

The complaint is that the intelligence held (causing the stops) May no longer be fully accurate, and that while each officer’s actions aren’t in doubt:

a) the overall effect is to cause unwarranted distress, and

b) it isn’t a good use of officers’ time.

 

The complaint should be carefully phrased, avoiding “they shouldn’t be stopping the vehicle” but that what it would like to achieve is any intelligence held being up to date and accurate, so that they may not feel the need to do so / do so as often once they have up to date information.

 

Phrasing it as a positive : This will help avoid both

a) unwarranted distress for the driver, and

b) the officer’s time being used for “old intel”, as officers will still have the right to stop the vehicle but will be making any decision to do so on up to date information.

Edited June 24, 2019 by BazzaS

[jotty]

42 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

The complaint is that the intelligence held (causing the stops) May no longer be fully accurate, and that while each officer’s actions aren’t in doubt:

a) the overall effect is to cause unwarranted distress, and

b) it isn’t a good use of officers’ time.

 

The complaint should be carefully phrased, avoiding “they shouldn’t be stopping the vehicle” but that what it would like to achieve is any intelligence held being up to date and accurate, so that they may not feel the need to do so / do so as often once they have up to date information.

 

Phrasing it as a positive : This will help avoid both

a) unwarranted distress for the driver, and

b) the officer’s time being used for “old intel”, as officers will still have the right to stop the vehicle but will be making any decision to do so on up to date information.

And of course we don't know if the intel is wrong or out of date. So may be best for the op to get all the docs in order first and then consider a complaint. 

[BazzaS]

1 minute ago, jotty said:

And of course we don't know if the intel is wrong or out of date. So may be best for the op to get all the docs in order first and then consider a complaint. 

 

 

What "docs"?.

 

The OP doesn't know (for sure) what the intel states, and isn't likely to be able to get it.

All they know is the effect, and what they have been told when stopped, which is the basis on which the complaint should be made..

 

Are you suggesting the OP should try and get a copy of the intel, or what other 'docs' are you referring to.

Police intel doesn't have to be released in response to an SAR or FOI request.

[jotty]

10 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

 

 

What "docs"?.

 

The OP doesn't know (for sure) what the intel states, and isn't likely to be able to get it.

All they know is the effect, and what they have been told when stopped, which is the basis on which the complaint should be made..

 

Are you suggesting the OP should try and get a copy of the intel, or what other 'docs' are you referring to.

Police intel doesn't have to be released in response to an SAR or FOI request.

No the registration and insurance ones that would be the main reason why she is being stopped.

[BazzaS]

50 minutes ago, jotty said:

No the registration and insurance ones that would be the main reason why she is being stopped.

 

Yet:

On 21/06/2019 at 11:24, Laura Cooke said:

My grandsons girlfriend had a vehicle she was stopped in it for driving without a passed driver with her, we understand because of other issues she then became a banned driver they split up about a year ago and have had no contact from her since.

 

Grandsons mother had the ownership of the vehicle transferred to her

.............

 

When the car was stopped on the 3rd occasion they said the car had a marker on it so daughter-in-law said it needs taking off each time she has been stopped she has told them she has insurance, a full driving licence etc.

...........

 

 knows the previous registered keeper does not even live in the area he even congratulated my daughter in law on passing her test,

 

"Had ownership of vehicle transfered to her"

"has insurance"

"previous registered keeper" suggests OP has updated for the required docs.

As Manxman said, we need to be sure the transfer has gone through, but the question is : do they already have the updated v5c and certificate of insurance?. If the OP does (and it seems likely, from their first post, but is worth confirming), then there are no new docs to obtain. Once the OP confirms what docs they already have, and that they hold the updated details, then we can tell if they "need further docs" or not.

 

I suspect they already have them, but it'd be nice to be sure so we can focus on the correct next step: Docs not up to date, or out of date intel.

Edited June 24, 2019 by BazzaS