Lost licence :(

pseudopensioner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Third party cover only.

Wouldn't the Third party cover though make that a possibility?

Sgt_Pepper_2

pseudopensioner wrote: »

Wouldn't the Third party cover though make that a possibility?

If the op is under 25 its doubtful if will have that cover.

TrickyWicky

Still dodging the question then Sgt Pepper? - Answering it with something completely irrelevant...

Yes the op would be able to appeal. Not just appeal but they'd have to completely quash any conviction and remove points / reinstate the ops licence because no offence was actually committed.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Other than thinking he was insured, is there any evidence to show the op was?

pseudopensioner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Other than thinking he was insured, is there any evidence to show the op was?

I was just posing the question. It would be for the OP to to peruse his insurance document to determine whether the terms confirmed that he was or was not insured.

thenudeone

TrickyWicky wrote: »

It's an interesting potential scenario being tugged by the police. You can argue that you are insured to drive the car

If you genuinely do have DOC cover under your policy then you don't need to argue it. You're insured. Fact.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

they could argue the car is not insured as its not on the MID

They would be wrong. The law on seizure doesn't even mention the MID. The law on insurance says that the driver must have a policy which covers them to drive. That could be a policy on the vehicle itself, DOC cover, a trade policy, a company policy, or whatever, as long as the the driver is covered, the driver is not committing any offences.

TrickyWicky wrote: »

and thus seize it even though its the DVLA who enforce this new draconian piece of legislation in theory.

The keeper / owner might have committed the offence of failure to insure a taxed car, but that in itself does not provide a power of seizure if it's stopped and being driven by someone who has their own insurance.

If you tell them that you have policy on your own car registration ABC 123A which covers you to drive, and they don't bother checking that vehicle on MID, there's a good case for saying that they didn't have the "reasonable grounds" required for a seizure. Is it reasonable to seize property when a 30-second radio check can check whether the explanation the driver has given is correct?

In any case, if you have the relevant certificate with you, they can't legally seize the vehicle (although they may do anyway) because the relevant conditions http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A haven't been met. This has been confirmed by recent case law http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&EntryID=17385

So - if you're using DOC cover, keep your certificate with you.

Sgt_Pepper_2

pseudopensioner wrote: »

I was just posing the question. It would be for the OP to to peruse his insurance document to determine whether the terms confirmed that he was or was not insured.

I think the fact he hasn't posted back is a clue he's not.

Notmyrealname

thenudeone wrote: »

If you genuinely do have DOC cover under your policy then you don't need to argue it. You're insured. Fact.

Unless like many policies DOC requires the vehicle to be insured in its own right, which it wasn't.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Unless like many policies DOC requires the vehicle to be insured in its own right, which it wasn't.

The legal expert is back.:whistle:

pseudopensioner

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

I think the fact he hasn't posted back is a clue he's not.

Well, he/she may post back in time. I asked the question thinking that information gleaned may be beneficial to other drivers in a similar situation.

Most people are law abiding drivers and are likely to believe and accept if/when told by the police that they've comitted an offence that the police are correct and will question no further, but, that belief isn't necessarily correct, as illustrated in the earlier post by TrickyWicky.