driving uninsured - help/advise

pompeyfaith

It makes know difference because if your name on v5 you the one who get left witb bills/fines

That is true, however I was just making a valid point.

No where on a V5 does it say owner it says Registered Keeper and to the DVLA that is all we are.

Title and ownership comes by way of a bill of sale and even if you buy privately a bill of sale must always be got even if it is hand written on the back of a fag packet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

None of this helps the OP of course.

So to the OP you need to keep receipts of all the costs that this situation has cost you including fines if you get any and claims those back from who ever made the mistake.

Going by what you said above that mistake was made by your bank as they cancelled the wrong DD and it has snowballed from that point.

So a formal complaint in writing send recorded delivery is in order here and if they do not respond with 8 weeks you have the FOS to fall on.

birkee

Please stop reacting to the "who owns the vehicle" nuts.

If I take my car into my garage, register it SORN, dismantle it, and sell it as parts.....what do you think the DVLA will do because of the way I've treated THEIR car?

NiallB

birkee wrote: »

Please stop reacting to the "who owns the vehicle" nuts.

If I take my car into my garage, register it SORN, dismantle it, and sell it as parts.....what do you think the DVLA will do because of the way I've treated THEIR car?

And it would be nice if the !!!!!!s could come round to mine and wash their car occasionally, it's lowering the tone of my street :rotfl:

atrixblue.-MFR-.

if the bank admitted it were a wrong cancellation under the direct debit garetee the bank are liable for any expenses incured by that direct debit being cancelled.

Wig

VAx2002

Have you got a link to the recent court case earlier referred to succesfully suing the police?

Maybe you can give the link to it on the bailii website

Might be of use to the OP.

thenudeone

Woody. wrote: »

That's wrong they shouldn't have charged you.

The Police DO NOT charge for the release of vehicles and do not make any money from the scheme.
The recovery companies charge the statutory fees for seizure and storage. They have no reason to waive the fees if the vehicle was correctly seized, i.e. with reasonable suspicion.
In the poorer areas of the country it was originally difficult to find recovery companies to do the job because they knew that they would be left with mostly unsaleable cars that had to be environmentally disposed of, with little chance of recovering the cost from the scallywag uninsured drivers.

pitkin2020

vax2002 wrote: »

I have never seen a policy that does not say : can not be used to secure release of a third parties vehicle that has been seized.
Seized is a legal term for "taking Back ownership" the Registration certificate is a contract that gives away ownership it "registers" your car to DVLA, they issue a registration certificate in which they then allow you to become the Keeper of DVLA property, if you break those rules they can seize it back and do what they like with it.
Read the registration certificate you are not the owner, you are the "registered Keeper" DVLA OWN the car as long as it is registered to them

That is the biggest load of tripe I have ever heard, the DVLA do no own the car but what they do own is the letters and numbers that appear on the registration plate, that it is. Of course if they decide to retract that registration plate you will be left with nothing more than a hunk of unusable metal that is likely to be crushed but that hunk of metal is still yours.

Wig

thenudeone wrote: »

The Police DO NOT charge for the release of vehicles and do not make any money from the scheme.
The recovery companies charge the statutory fees for seizure and storage. They have no reason to waive the fees if the vehicle was correctly seized, i.e. with reasonable suspicion.
In the poorer areas of the country it was originally difficult to find recovery companies to do the job because they knew that they would be left with mostly unsaleable cars that had to be environmentally disposed of, with little chance of recovering the cost from the scallywag uninsured drivers.

The criteria is not reasonable suspicion the officer has to BELEIVE you are uninsured. To do that there must be some evidence which goes beyond reasonable suspicion. I don't agree that some dodgy MID database is good enough.

OP how you getting on?

Woody._2

thenudeone wrote: »

The Police DO NOT charge for the release of vehicles and do not make any money from the scheme.
The recovery companies charge the statutory fees for seizure and storage. They have no reason to waive the fees if the vehicle was correctly seized, i.e. with reasonable suspicion.
In the poorer areas of the country it was originally difficult to find recovery companies to do the job because they knew that they would be left with mostly unsaleable cars that had to be environmentally disposed of, with little chance of recovering the cost from the scallywag uninsured drivers.

The police do take an admin fee from the garage.

In the case of the OP producing valid insurance for the time she was stopped the police should have stamped her 165 form 'no charge' and the matter of payment to the garage is sorted between the police and the garage.

As long as a scrap car is worth more than £150 the garage is not out of pocket. Garages are fighting to be on the police scheme no matter how poor the are is. How much do you think they make for RTC recoveries from the insurance compainies. Even more if they do LGV's.

thenudeone

Wig wrote: »

The criteria is not reasonable suspicion the officer has to BELEIVE you are uninsured. To do that there must be some evidence which goes beyond reasonable suspicion.

The officer does not have to believe it's uninsured, he just needs reasonable grounds for believing so:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A/2010-01-28

Road Traffic Act 1988
165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance
.....
(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