police impounded sons car

Sgt_Pepper_2

cidergirl wrote: »

yes i know he was stupid
we took for mot on tow truck bob as it was a 15 mile journey not risking that

Here........

Throbbe

phill99 wrote: »

I started to read e post but without punctuation couldn't make head nor tale of it.

If you're going to call people on their grammar, you really need to proofread your own post before hitting the submit reply button.

thenudeone

The police did their job properly and got another uninsured car off the road.

43k_in_43m wrote: »

Depending on the value of the car it may well be worth letting it be destroyed

The recovery and daily storage fees will still have to be paid even if the car is not collected. The recovery guys are used to this and will take it to court and to baliffs if necessary, because the law is on their side, and they are out of pocket.

If you've no intention of collecting it, you should contact them and see if you can come to an amicable arrangement to cease the daily fees (perhaps in exchange for the car?).

Or else sell it to a dealer for a fiver give them a receipt and the V5, and get the dealer to pick it up (insured under a motor trade policy) to stop any more fees racking up.

rdwarr

I have not read any of the posts in this thread but thought I'd add a pointless and unhelpful comment anyway...

forgotmyname

So have they declared the GF's car SORN or scrapped it yet?

As above that needs attending to before another bit of bad luck drops through the letterbox.
Not sure if its too late to sign the car over and avoid the daily costs?

Worth asking.

When she does get insurance she needs to declare the camcelled policy and your sons 6 points for no insurance otherwise another policy when get cancelled when the paperwork catches up. And they will probably see that as deliberate attempot at fraud by not declaring it.
How will she get her car back when she cannot get insurance either?

Has your son passed his test long? He may have to retake his test??

hartcjhart

Op my sympathies,the beserk bizzies have taken your sons car just cos he had a little ride around,how dare they!!!



























or should it be, tough, dimshoite son should not have driven the car at all without tax and insurance,if you want to whinge at anyone it is not the police it is at him

Mr_Thrifty

Is she saying that the police seized a vehicle that was on the back of a tow truck, going on its way to be MOT'd, because the vehicle didn't have any insurance?

Or is she saying that the son was going to get insurance on Monday, but drove his car before then and the police caught him?

If the former, I don't understand. If the latter, then what does he expect.

Joe_Horner

One small question, leaving aside for a minute that your sone was a bloody idiot for driving without insurance (even round a car park).

You say that your son wasn't there when the police arrived. They have no immediate power of seizure for a vehicle simply being on on the highway (under continuoous insurance regs), only for those being used.

If they were already in the process of seizing it (ie: paperwork started or truck on the way) when he returned to it then it's possible that the seizure was unlawful, even if he admitted driving after he returned - unless they'd had evidence of the uninsured driving before that (such as CCTV or complaints because he was haring round like a loon) and he admitted it was him driving.

Before many on here start on the "he got what he deserved" - I'm not questioning that for a second but, as a society, we need the police of all people to follow the rules scrupulously. Personally I'd rather see a dozen uninsured drivers get off than see one traffic unit get away with bending the (fairly straightforward) rules to suit themselves. Once that becomes accepted police behaviour we've all got problems!

hartcjhart

Joe_Horner wrote: »

One small question, leaving aside for a minute that your sone was a bloody idiot for driving without insurance (even round a car park).

You say that your son wasn't there when the police arrived. They have no immediate power of seizure for a vehicle simply being on on the highway (under continuoous insurance regs), only for those being used.

If they were already in the process of seizing it (ie: paperwork started or truck on the way) when he returned to it then it's possible that the seizure was unlawful, even if he admitted driving after he returned - unless they'd had evidence of the uninsured driving before that (such as CCTV or complaints because he was haring round like a loon) and he admitted it was him driving.

Before many on here start on the "he got what he deserved" - I'm not questioning that for a second but, as a society, we need the police of all people to follow the rules scrupulously. Personally I'd rather see a dozen uninsured drivers get off than see one traffic unit get away with bending the (fairly straightforward) rules to suit themselves. Once that becomes accepted police behaviour we've all got problems!

I take it you mean untill one of them hits your car/injures or kills a relative

hartcjhart

hartcjhart wrote: »

I take it you mean untill one of them hits your car/injures or kills a relative

forgot to add, they can sieze a vehicle if it has no tax or insurance if kept on a public highway