Help, no insurance!

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

That makes a huge difference to whether the seizure was legal or not.

Basically, a legal seizure requires three conditions, all of which must be met in order for the seizure to be legal. One of the conditions is that the driver fails to produce a certificate of insurance at the time. You DID produce a certificate for the vehicle and, IMO, the fact that the registration mark of the vehicle has changed does not invalidate the insurance.

The OP was not driving the car at the time, her partner was and as I understand it did not produce an insurance certificate at the time he was stopped. The OP stated she went upstairs to check after being phoned by her partner and it weas then that she realised the insurance company had not been informed of the reg number change.

thenudeone

Trebor16 wrote: »

The OP was not driving the car at the time, her partner was and as I understand it did not produce an insurance certificate at the time he was stopped.

In post 113 the OP said:

alm721 wrote: »

I did try and give the police officer the insurance certificate

Perhaps she drove to meet her husband whilst the police officer was waiting for a recovery agent to arrive, and spoke to the police officer herself?

If so, then by that time the seizure had probably already occurred, which weakens her case, IMO.

alm721

Hi, yes I drove to 'the scene' with the insurance cert. TBH he was only 5 mins from home so I cou'dn't have been more than 10 mins after he rang me, and he said he rang me within a couple of mins of having been stopped as he couldn't remember the insurance companies name.
He did tell the officer I was bringing the certificate but I think they probably had called the recovery agent. TBH hubby says he thinks they called them before they'd even spokjen to him, as the recovery agent was there within 20 mins of him being stopped and it had just gone midnight.

mikey72

Maybe those press reports on the officers getting kickbacks from the recovery companies were right? (Or for reasons of liable, maybe wrong)
Didn't one actually operate a recovery company. With no conflict of interest.

Trebor16

mikey72 wrote: »

Maybe those press reports on the officers getting kickbacks from the recovery companies were right? (Or for reasons of liable, maybe wrong)
Didn't one actually operate a recovery company. With no conflict of interest.

I remember back in the 70's in London that some officers in the traffic control were calling out certain garages and were getting a "reward" for their trouble. It became known as the "golden hook". It was uncovered when other contracters complained about not getting any call outs. When the met introduced their computerised despatch system the call out was done based on the geographical location of where the tow was required and the system would flash up the details of the nearest agent, so it put a stop to that.

I've no idea if such a system is used across the country nowadays, but it wouldn't surprise me.

mikey72

Trebor16 wrote: »

I remember back in the 70's in London that some officers in the traffic control were calling out certain garages and were getting a "reward" for their trouble. It became known as the "golden hook". It was uncovered when other contracters complained about not getting any call outs. When the met introduced their computerised despatch system the call out was done based on the geographical location of where the tow was required and the system would flash up the details of the nearest agent, so it put a stop to that.

I've no idea if such a system is used across the country nowadays, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Or just some areas would be more "towable" than others.

cyclonebri1

This 1 gets darker and darker:eek::eek:, oooer

alm721

Bit of an update. I wrote to both the police and the insurance company. Not heard from the police but the insurance company have sent me a letter cleasrly stating that we were insured when we were stopped. I'll forward this to the police and assume this will nowm stop them prosecuting my hubby. I've also asked for the money back, so we'll see. Thanks everyone

kizkiz

thenudeone wrote: »

The key part of the case which hardly got a mention in the report (because it was never in dispute) was that the certificate that was produced at the roadside was a valid certificate showing evidence of an insurance policy covering the driver.
I'm surprised that the police tried to fight this particular case. The ruling has just clarified what was already pretty clear from the RTA itself, i.e. that a seizure cannot be legal if a valid certificate was produced at the time.
.

The bit that puzzled me was that they rang his insurance company at the roadside and were informed that the policy was not valid

Obviously that driver should get no points and all his fees back etc as he was insured.
I'm just a little puzzled as to how the drivers own insurance company telling the police his policy was not valid made it an illegal seizure according to that judge
What am i missing?

kizkiz

alm721 wrote: »

Bit of an update. I wrote to both the police and the insurance company. Not heard from the police but the insurance company have sent me a letter cleasrly stating that we were insured when we were stopped. I'll forward this to the police and assume this will nowm stop them prosecuting my hubby. I've also asked for the money back, so we'll see. Thanks everyone

You have nothing to worry about now then, good news :beer:
Hopefully the traffic CJU just drop the case now and don't cause any further hassle.


To reply to someone above about kickbacks for towing companies.
Each borough in the met has one contractor who comes for all seizures.
No officer in the street could influence who collects the vehicle and the tow company would have no benefit from offering them any money, as they would get called regardless