Taxing a car for sale with no insurance

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

No it doesn't!

"165 (1) (c) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage),"

"Use" includes a vehicle parked in the road. See Elliot v Grey and Plumbien v Vines.

The subsection you have quoted is merely a requirement on a person who:

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

Must provide that constable with the information the constable requests, if that person supplies the information there is no offence, if he fails to provide the information, the person is guilty of an offence except if in the 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,

Says nothing about towing/seizing a vehicle whether 'parked' 'used' or otherwise.

raskazz

Wig wrote: »

The subsection you have quoted is merely a requirement on a person who:
Must provide that constable with the information the constable requests, if that person supplies the information there is no offence, if he fails to provide the information, the person is guilty of an offence except if in the proceedings against him for the offence he shows that
Says nothing about towing/seizing a vehicle whether 'parked' 'used' or otherwise.

I quoted that subsection because you said that the Section required that the vehicle was being driven, which it does not.

Ah, on the point of seizure specifically see Section 152 here which amended the 1988 Act:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_14#pt5-pb2-l1g152

Which is worded "is or was being driven". So all the officer requires to seize a parked vehicle is the reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle had previously been driven in contravention of the requirements of the Act.

Wig

raskazz wrote: »

I quoted that subsection because you said that the Section required that the vehicle was being driven, which it does not.

Problem here is that the section you quoted has nothing to do with seizing a vehicle. When I said that, it was in response to you quoting "s.165 of the RTA" Although you were incorrect in that S.165 has nothing to do with siezing a vehicle, I wasn't going to be pedantic and correct you to S165A - which is about seizing a vehicle- I just assumed you meant S165A because that is the section which covers vehicle seizure, which is after all what we were talking about.

Ah, on the point of seizure specifically see Section 152 here which amended the 1988 Act:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2005/ukpga_20050015_en_14#pt5-pb2-l1g152

Which is worded "is or was being driven". So all the officer requires to seize a parked vehicle is the reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle had previously been driven in contravention of the requirements of the Act.

Now that we have the correct section, you will see that in order for a seizure to be carried out under subsection 5, one of 3 conditions must be met

(2) The first condition is that
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination,
(b) the person fails to produce them, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).


(3) The second condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.


(4) The third condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,
(b) the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

The first two conditions (the first being for a licence, the second being for insurance) require the constable to be on the scene with the driver in order to request the information.

The third condition is that of a driver who has failed to stop, in order for this condition to apply the vehicle must have been seen being driven (not merely parked) and a request made to stop. Even under this condition they only have 24 hours to find and seize the vehicle. Ergo, if they see it parked 36 hours later they cannot seize it.

None of these conditions could apply to an unattended parked vehicle (not satisfying the 3rd condition) which is what we were talking about. Once the driver (who is driving on his own insurance) comes back to the car, the officer will be able to ask the person to produce licence & insurance, reasonably an officer must make enquiries of the persons insurer over the phone, if the relevant confirmation is found the car cannot be seized.

BFG_2

Maybe I didn't speak loudly enough earlier, when I said....

!!!!!! stop bickering and get back on topic...or go to the Arms and start your own 'Local authorities are self-insured, no they're not, yes they are, you said, no I didn't' thread

Wig

I'm not talking about local authorities, and I am on topic, the OP was wondering about cancelling her insurance, I told her that she would still need insurance if it was kept in a public place, otherwise she would be liable to prosecution (not towing). And I am seeking to show the OP that some of the advice she recieved about a risk of the vehicle being towed was incorrect.

Please feel free to go to the arms yourself as you seem to be the one who needs to calm down a bit. :beer: