Help, no insurance!

thenudeone

kizkiz wrote: »

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

I think Parliament wanted to make sure that if average innocent joe public insures his car then as long as he keeps his certificate with him he'll never have to be out of pocket for a car seizure because of an insurance company's administrative mistake or police officer's mistaken belief.

It's different to being arrested for an offence that it turns out that you didn't commit, because in those circumstances the police officer believes that your arrest is necessary to investigate the alleged offence. If your car is seized, however, it's not because it's necessary to investigate an offence. The recovery and storage fees are effectively part of the punishment for driving uninsured, so it's not unreasonable to say that if you are proved to be innocent, you don't have to pay those costs.

Seems fair enough to me.