Police Seized Motorbike by breaking into shed

System

Yes because all motor vehicles need insurance when on the public highway. The pavement is classed as part of the public highway. Ditto MOT, VED & driving licence

Nilrem

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Do you need insurance to push an off road motorcycle along the pavement?. I am not suggesting the fined person was only pushing it, just interested in the legalities.

I suspect it's quite likely the case.
IIRC there are all sorts of quirks with the law when it comes to cars on the "public" highway, so I wouldn't be surprised if a motorcycle needed insurance/tax to be pushed on the public roads.

Loganfire

vax2002 wrote: »

Legal, the police ?
They can and will do what they want.

don't talk out of your rear

thenudeone

Norman_Castle wrote: »

Do you need insurance to push an off road motorcycle along the pavement?. I am not suggesting the fined person was only pushing it, just interested in the legalities.

You need insurance to "use" a motor vehicle in a public place. The law doesn't mention "driving" or "riding":
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/143

There is a lot of case law about what "using" means. It can include leaving an unattended car on the road.

In once case, an unattended broken down vehicle caused an accident. The driver immediately before the breakdown was classed as "using" the car.
This thread has some discussion on the subject http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?

So - wheeling a motorbike along probably classes as "using". Whether it's registered with DVLA is irrelevant. it's still a motor vehicle.
t=3222264&page=2

vaio

Deneb wrote: »

You're going to have to spell it out for them:


(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may

(a)seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

(b)enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;

(c)use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6)Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it”

(a)in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;

(b)in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section.

But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

(7)If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.

"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

Even assuming they had the right to seize I'd be interested in hearing what circumstances made it impractical to give the warning required under s6

Ie knock on the house door and ask rather than taking a crow bar to the garage door

Wig

It would appear they do have the power to do as they did, he would have had to wheel it in through the front or back door inside the house in order to stop it from being seized.

However they should have demanded evidence that he was insured/licenced and if he failed to to produce then told him that it was being seized.

Arguably they should have done this by knocking on the front door, politely warning the occupier of the impending seizure if evidence cannot be produced, and then requested the shed be unlocked so that a seizure can take place.

If they did knock, and he did not answer then their action was reasonable. However should still have demanded evidence when he presented himself.

mikey72

I'm still interested in how they actually took it away.