We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ask MID
Options
Comments
-
What im trying to get across to you but you seem a little slow is that the car CAN be seized if left on the highway without insurance, I concede that your insurance may suffice whilst you are driving but when you leave the car then its not covered under your policy.
It is a legal requirement that the registered keeper insures the vehicle at all times.Be Alert..........Britain needs lerts.0 -
If you think otherwise, which law are you going to use?
Why did you waste time by not answering this question? I know for a fact that it cannot be lawfully seized under 165A. So which other law will you use to seize a vehicle purely because it is standing on a highway with no insurance? Please explain your answer so we don't waste more time with me asking you to explain in yet another post.0 -
All the police need is reasonable grounds and if they have been told by an insurance company that a person is not insured that would constitute reasonable grounds, regardless of whether or not a person is in possession of a certificate.
Please stop presenting your opinions as if they were fact.
You are wrong.
You clearly haven't read
1) the relevant section of the legislation
2) my summary in post 57
3) the stated case quoted in my earlier post.
I'm sorry for cluttering the forum with quotes from legislation but you clearly haven't bothered to look at it so here it is:
Road Traffic Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance
(2) [cut - relates to producing driving licence]
(3)The second condition is that—
(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 [Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.],
(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.
(4) [cut - driver failing to stop for police]
(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a)seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it
please note the highlighted word "and".
It's not EITHER no certificate produced OR police believe no insurance exists.
Its BOTH no certificate produced AND police believe no insurance exists
So if evidence of a valid policy is produced - a seizure cannot legally occur.We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth0 -
thenudeone wrote: »Please stop presenting your opinions as if they were fact.
You are wrong.
You clearly haven't read
1) the relevant section of the legislation
2) my summary in post 57
3) the stated case quoted in my earlier post.
I'm sorry for cluttering the forum with quotes from legislation but you clearly haven't bothered to look at it so here it is:
Road Traffic Act 1988 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insuranceplease note the highlighted word "and".
(2) [cut - relates to producing driving licence]
(3)The second condition is that—
(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 [Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.],
(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.
(4) [cut - driver failing to stop for police]
(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a)seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it
It's not EITHER no certificate produced OR police believe no insurance exists.
Its BOTH no certificate produced AND police believe no insurance exists
So if evidence of a valid policy is produced - a seizure cannot legally occur.
I'm not quoting my opinions as fact, merely summarising what section 165A states, that a vehicle can be seized if there are reasonable grounds.
Sadly you are getting hung up on the key word here which is valid. If a person produces a certificate which is not valid then they have not produced evidence of insurance.
Given that certificates can be printed at home nowadays I would be surprised if any police officer would accept them as a valid certificate without veryifying their authenticity with MID and the insurance company. If the insurance company tell an officer that there is no policy for that vehicle then they can seize it as they have reasonable grounds.
One other point. Your stated case of Pryor v Greater Manchester Police was originally heard in the county court as the owner of the car seized brought a civil action for wrongful inteference with goods. When it eventually reached the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) the issue was still the claim for inteference with goods. I'm sure you are fully aware that criminal and civil law are two different aspects of the law. A decision in the civil court is not going to have much impact on police dealing with criminal law."You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
Pryor v Greater Manchester Police was originally heard in the county court as the owner of the car seized brought a civil action for wrongful inteference with goods. When it eventually reached the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) the issue was still the claim for inteference with goods. I'm sure you are fully aware that criminal and civil law are two different aspects of the law. A decision in the civil court is not going to have much impact on police dealing with criminal law.
What he is saying is that if the certificate was valid then the seizure was unlawful, if it was unlawful then a civil case for costs will succeed, if the seizure was lawful, the civil case would not succeed.0 -
Pryor v GMP did not change section 165A in any way, it merely overturned the judgement in two lower courts in relation to the civil claim for wrongful inteference with goods brought by Pryor."You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
I'm not quoting my opinions as fact, merely summarising what section 165A states, that a vehicle can be seized if there are reasonable grounds.
I've already proved conclusively that that is not the case. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining how the english language works.Sadly you are getting hung up on the key word here which is valid. If a person produces a certificate which is not valid then they have not produced evidence of insurance.
I've never claimed that they have.Given that certificates can be printed at home nowadays I would be surprised if any police officer would accept them as a valid certificate without veryifying their authenticity with MID and the insurance company. If the insurance company tell an officer that there is no policy for that vehicle then they can seize it as they have reasonable grounds.
No they can't.
The law is very clear and I have already provided the link, which you seem incapable of following, reading, or understanding:
The Motor Vehicles (Electronic Communication of Certificates of Insurance) Order 2010
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1117/article/6/made
...the person is to be treated for the purposes of this section as producing the relevant certificate of insurance if—
(a)using electronic equipment provided by him or made available to him by the constable or examiner, he provides the constable or examiner with electronic access to a copy of the certificate, or
(b)he produces a legible printed copy of the certificate.
The police officer's opinion about the validity or otherwise of a home-printed certificate is not relevant. The law is clear. They are valid. Get used to it.
This discussion is over.We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth0 -
thenudeone wrote: »I've already proved conclusively that that is not the case. I'm not going to waste any more time explaining how the english language works.
If you think repeating the same thing over and over again and refusing to listen to valid points is conclusive proof then you need to rethink your strategy.thenudeone wrote:No they can't.
The law is very clear and I have already provided the link, which you seem incapable of following, reading, or understanding:
The Motor Vehicles (Electronic Communication of Certificates of Insurance) Order 2010
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1117/article/6/made...the person is to be treated for the purposes of this section as producing the relevant certificate of insurance if—The police officer's opinion about the validity or otherwise of a home-printed certificate is not relevant. The law is clear. They are valid. Get used to it.
(a)using electronic equipment provided by him or made available to him by the constable or examiner, he provides the constable or examiner with electronic access to a copy of the certificate, or
(b)he produces a legible printed copy of the certificate.
This discussion is over.
It's amusing how you have chosen to ignore where I said "without verifying their authenticity with MID and the insurance company" in order to repeat a point you have been repeating ad nauseum. You also ignore the very real circumstances of where a insurance certificate could easily be knocked up on a home computer and then presented as authentic. The fact remains that on being presented with an insurance certificate a police officer would be perfectly entitled to verify the certificate is valid by checking with the MID and the insurance company.
You seem incapable of accepting that a certificate that is produced at the roadside can be invalid if the policy has been cancelled, either by the policyholder or the insurer. In that case you do not have evidence of insurance if the police have been informed by the insurer that there is not a valid policy in place. In those circumstances a vehicle could be lawfully seized.
You really do seem to be having difficulty in grasping this basic point. I suspect the arrogance you are showing when stating that the discussion is over is preventing you from seeing things clearly and rationally."You should know not to believe everything in media & polls by now !"
John539 2-12-14 Post 150300 -
I suspect the arrogance you are showing when stating that the discussion is over is preventing you from seeing things clearly and rationally.
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Trebor16's English Dictionary, 2012 edition
"Arrogance" - The use of verified sources of information (such as Acts of Parliament) to support an argument.We need the earth for food, water, and shelter.
The earth needs us for nothing.
The earth does not belong to us.
We belong to the Earth0 -
The problem can arise when the driver does have insurance, produces a valid certificate, and MID/insurance company get it wrong, as in the earlier post:
http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=173850
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards