Help, no insurance!

The_Turner

Trebor16 wrote: »

[/FONT][/COLOR]

Indeed, and Kent Police have added their own policy to supplement this and laid down procedures. If you had read the document properly you woud have realised this.
l


The link merely shows that police forces have written policies to ensure that seizures are carried out properly.



What a stupid question. You really don't know the answer to that?



A policy designed to supplement the law and to ensure their officers do things properly. But you seem to have difficulty in taking that in.

Do show us all where in the RTA it states a supervisors authority is required, because quite simply it isn't.

The Kent policy does however suit your rather weak arguement.

Trebor16

The_Turner wrote: »

Do show us all where in the RTA it states a supervisors authority is required, because quite simply it isn't.

The Kent policy does however suit your rather weak arguement.

The trouble with dealing with idiots like you is they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience every time:D As I have said before, if you don't understand things properly then ask your mum to read it and explain it to you, preferably in words of one syllable

The_Turner

Yet again Trebor16 shows he does not understand the road traffic act. That's twice in the past month.

Rover_Driver

S.165A, Road Traffic Act 1988 gives the power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance.

s165A(5) gives the power to the constable (which in legal terms includes other ranks) to seize the vehicle if the conditions in sections (2) to (4) are met.

There is no requirement in the legislation for the authority of a supervisor.

Police forces may issue their own policy as to how the legislation is carried out, Kent appear to require the authority of a supervisor for a seizure under s.165A, other forces may have a different policy which does not.

If a Kent officer seized a vehicle without a supervisor's authority, it may be a discipline matter for him, but would have no bearing on the actual seizure as long as his actions complied with s.165A.

Trebor16

The_Turner wrote: »

Yet again Trebor16 shows he does not understand the road traffic act. That's twice in the past month.

Thanks for the further evidence (not that it was needed) of your inability to comprehend basic English.:D

kizkiz

thenudeone wrote: »

In that case, what document (if any) do the police issue to a driver who is involved in or is reporting an accident (which has to be done as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours), but does not have their driving documents with them (they are allowed 7 days to product documents)?

If no HO/RT1 is used, how does the officer in charge of investigating the accident get to know that the documents were produced, when they could be produced at a police station at the other end of the country?

And don't tell me that they can check the databases. The driver could be claiming cover on a trade or company policy or under the "driving other cars" cover of another policy, which would not show up on the database against the car in the accident.

HORT/1 are still issued if accompanied by a ticket or a CARB.
They are no longer issued as stand alone pieces of paper, which is what some suggested should have happened here. (Talknig Met here)

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

Why don't you do a Freedom of Information Act request to the Met Police and ask them those questions? I'm sure they can provide you the answers you seek far better than any member here.

Because I wasn't the one who said that HO/RT1s had been abolished in certain forces. I don't believe they have. They may be used very rarely but in certain circumstances they may still be necessary to manage the flow of information about documents being produced (although they are really just a memo item and they have no legal standing - but that's another argument;))

The_Turner

thenudeone wrote: »

Because I wasn't the one who said that HO/RT1s had been abolished in certain forces. I don't believe they have. They may be used very rarely but in certain circumstances they may still be necessary to manage the flow of information about documents being produced (although they are really just a memo item and they have no legal standing - but that's another argument;))

You're waisting your time with that one. Trebor doesn't understand the basics of the requirements to produce documents. He illustrated that in another thread.

fivetide

Rover_Driver wrote: »

S.165A, Road Traffic Act 1988 gives the power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance.

s165A(5) gives the power to the constable (which in legal terms includes other ranks) to seize the vehicle if the conditions in sections (2) to (4) are met.

There is no requirement in the legislation for the authority of a supervisor.

Police forces may issue their own policy as to how the legislation is carried out, Kent appear to require the authority of a supervisor for a seizure under s.165A, other forces may have a different policy which does not.

If a Kent officer seized a vehicle without a supervisor's authority, it may be a discipline matter for him, but would have no bearing on the actual seizure as long as his actions complied with s.165A.

So what we have established is... Kent Police on their own do not make up the policy for the UK and The Turner is quite right.

5t

Trebor16

The_Turner wrote: »

You're waisting your time with that one. Trebor doesn't understand the basics of the requirements to produce documents. He illustrated that in another thread.

"Waisting"??:D:D:D Now that is good.

What a short memory you have. How easily you forget your statement in that other thread, but just to remind you, here is what you said in post number 9 of the "Driving Licence Query" thread:-

"Although it is still an offence to fail to produce it to a police officer on demand. "

Remember that? Now, who is it who doesn't undestand the basics? It's not me.