Help, no insurance!

thenudeone

kizkiz wrote: »

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

The seizure needs all three of these things to be true:
1) police request production of insurance cert.
2) no cert. is produced AND
3) police officer has reasonable grounds to believe it is uninsured.
(summarised from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A)

Since, in that case, a valid certificate was produced, and it was eventually proved to be valid, point 2 doesn't apply. The other points are now irrelevant, because ALL THREE points need to be present.

So - It doesn't matter how strongly a police officer believes a vehicle to be uninsured, or how much information he has to back that belief up; if a valid certificate is produced (even if it may not appear valid at the time) then a seizure is not legal.

The_Turner

What if a certificate is produced and the insurance company confirm the policy is no longer in force?

vaio

assuming the company are correct then it would be a lawful seizure, if it subsequently turns out the certificate & policy were valid then the seizure would not be lawful

Trebor16

thenudeone wrote: »

So - It doesn't matter how strongly a police officer believes a vehicle to be uninsured, or how much information he has to back that belief up; if a valid certificate is produced (even if it may not appear valid at the time) then a seizure is not legal.

If a certificate is produced and then the insurance company tell police that the policy is not valid then it is not a valid certificate.

vaio

Yep, that certainly would apply in cases like where a policy has been cancelled but the policy holder has unlawfully retained the certificate but equally, if the insurance company made a mistake and it was valid (as in the OPs case) then the policy & certificate are valid, no offence has been committed and any seizure is unlawful.

kizkiz

I can see what is being said, but still seems a bit odd.
A bit like someone being arrested for something and found not guilty sueing for unlawful arrest. (i know, they won't have produced a certificate of innocence at the time.lol)

What's the point of including reasonable suspicion in the wording of law if no constable is allowed to use it, just incase they have been given duff info?
Should the driver not have been sueing saga? It was their fault after all. lol

vaio

Nah, I'd have thought that if a policemen chooses to seize my car despite me saying it's insured and producing a valid certificate because some insurance call centre operator gives him duff info then that's his problem.

The reasonable suspicion bit will protect him against any criminal consequences but he, or rather the force, would still be liable for the civil consequences

alm721

Just to update folks. Hubby got a call today to say that we would be getting a refund of the £150 we paid to get the van back and that he would not be prosecuted. They are also looking into our complaint and will get back to us on that. Just wanted to say thanks and let people know the outcome.
Cheers:j

mikey72

You should be claiming for los of use of the van, your time, his time, and everything else you can put in for.

alm721

Hadn't thought of that. I might think about it. TBH the van was seized early hours of a Saturday morning and we had it back by about 11.30 in the morning. So it didn't cause a problem for work as such. Just a massive amount of stress and cashing about in the morning.
Thanks