police impounded sons car

soolin

hartcjhart wrote: »

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

I also thought that was the case, but the experts are over on the PePipoo forum and if the OP is brave enough to log back in and read these responses I strongly suggest she posts there- after tidying up the post a bit so that people can actually see what is going on

http://www.pepipoo.com/

Oldfatgrumpy

Would the nature of the car park in which the car was driven (i.e public/private/or whatever), and from where it was presumably seized, have any bearing on whether insurance was actually required?

hartcjhart

8. Power to seize a vehicle

8.1. Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows a constable to seize a vehicle only if certain conditions are satisfied.

8.2. Driving unlicensed

8.2.1. The first condition is that the constable is in uniform and that under Section 164 the constable has required a person to produce his/her licence and its counterpart for examination. The person has failed to produce his/her licence and its counterpart and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the motor vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of Section 87(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

8.3. Driving uninsured

8.3.1. The second condition is that the constable in uniform has required a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of Section 143 and the person has failed to produce such evidence and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

8.4. Driver fails to stop

8.4.1. The third condition is that the constable has required a person driving a motor vehicle to stop. The person has failed to stop or to stop the vehicle long enough for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as they consider appropriate and that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of Section 87 Sub Section 1 or Section 143.

9. Seizure warning

9.1. 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 RTA that they will seize it:

• In a section 87(1) RTA case, if the person does not produce his/her licence and counterpart immediately;
• In a section 143 RTA case, if the person does not provide them immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section. (NB - Drivers who decide to arrange insurance at the roadside following the decision to seize their vehicle, are still liable to have the vehicle seized because they did not produce immediate evidence that they were insured).

9.2. The constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for them to do so.

9.3. 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, they 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.

9.4. Where any of the above conditions are satisfied, a constable may:

• Seize the vehicle and remove it;
• Enter any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be; N.B. “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house;
• Use reasonable force, if necessary.

Sgt_Pepper_2

thenudeone wrote: »

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



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.

No they won't. The owner can sign away rights to the car and not face any fees.

cidergirl

soolin wrote: »

Thank you for clarifying that.

I knew there was something needed to collect an impounded car over and above normal 'drive any car' type insurance but I wasn't sure what.

I'm really unclear from the OP what the current status is though apart from neither son nor gf nor car currently being insured. OP is the car taxed and MOT'd?

yes car has 12 months mot and i now have tax aswell

Joe_Horner

hartcjhart wrote: »

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

No they can't. DVLA can (through their agents) after due warning - the vehicle may have valid insurance which is not showing on the database for some reason - but the Police haven't been granted that power.

The powers you quoted apply specifically to driving a vehicle without insurance. Even the ability to seize within 24 hours is only appicable in very specific circumstances - if a driver has failed to stop or has driven away after stopping. Neither of those apply in this case and it seems likely that they didn't have grounds for suspecting driving without insurance unless (until?) he admitted it. If they had already started seizure then they were likely acting beyond their powers. It would need a good motoring lawyer to advise in this case.

As for your highlight and reply to my last post, yes - even then. I don't expect you to believe me for one second but that's how it is. To me, misuse of power by the state is infinitely worse than losing compensation.

cidergirl

luckwudaveit wrote: »

I wonder what OP edited in the post, 3 minutes after submitting it?

yes i changed the spelling and added a few commas is that a cri9me too ??

cidergirl

hartcjhart wrote: »

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

this is exactly it and the comment about injuring killing etc those sort of idiots would not even be asking questions on here a a good law abiding person as myself so please stop critiesising me ,i have been a member on here for many years and have never even had a speeding fine x

lovinituk

Throbbe wrote: »

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

To be fair, the poster you quoted called the OP on their punctuation rather than their grammar

lovinituk

cidergirl wrote: »

yes i changed the spelling and added a few commas is that a cri9me too ??

Could you add a few more commas, some full stops and some paragraphs too? Then more people might be able to help.