police impounded sons car

atrixblue.-MFR-.

cidergirl wrote: »

like i said round the car park not on the road he had gone in house when he was told police were by his car

i do not know why i bothered even asking for advice on here
people just want to b nasty about spelling and commas :eek:

calm yourself and think about it.

you son goes out in car in car park knowing no insurance.

you son comes back in and a few mins later theres a knock saying coppers looking at your car, obviously he was either spotted by them or he was infact reported by a neighbour as they thought he was driving in a anti social mannor.

above applies, the police has good reason to remove the vehicle, especially as the bonnet would have been hot with the heat of the engine.

sorry your son made a big mistake and no point in chastizing the police for doing their JOB.

your issue is with the insurers.

your son has 6 points and extra premium costs.

your all out of pocket for storage fee's.

strong hard word with son is on the cards.

George_Michael

like i said round the car park not on the road

But as already mentioned by a few posters, unless it was totally closed off by a gate or barrier and was therefore inaccessible to the general public, the car park is no different to the road as regards the requirements for insurance and tax.

forgotmyname

I think reading between the lines,

Most assume he drove it to the MOT, he didnt get a tow truck.

The residents parking is not private property so the car should not have been parked there with no tax and insurance either,

The carpark was not private property, So the car was impounded correctly.

Insurance cancelling? Well that does seem a mixed bag.

I guess thats down to the terms and conditions of the policy.

Joe_Horner

hartcjhart wrote: »

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.


the important part,if someone has reported the son for driving then it would apply,

obviously without ALL the details we cannot fully state yes/no it was siezed correctly in accordance to the RTA

Unless the OP's son admitted (or there was other evidence) that he was the one who had been driving it they'd be hard pressed to make that stick. "A person" logically has to mean someone they have reasonable grounds to believe was the driver. Otherwise they could ignore the driver completely as he waves the insurance at them, take the passenger ("a person") 20 yards down the road and ask them to produce insurance. Thereby seizing any car they felt like, insured or not, when "a person" failed to produce.

That's clearly nonsense, so either they should have either had reports (as I suggested) of him hooning it around or they needed him to admit to being the driver before asking if he was insured and certainly before starting to seize it!

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way at all condoning what he did and I'm anything but a plod-basher. But, as with many things in law, it's a matter of the lesser of 2 evils:

Do we allow the police to side-step procedure and the law, and in the process cause problems and cost for an innocent girlfriend who, by the account given, wasn't there or in any way part of the incident and was attempting to get things straight as the law required?

Or do we allow someone who's done something inexcusable "get away with" it bearing in mind that they've (a) by now had the fright of their life over it (b) got a clearly sensible parent who is absolutely not condoning or excusing their son's actions (and will probably give him hell once it's sorted out) and (c) didn't actually kill any nuns, pregnant babies or mothers with polar bears this time?

I agree totally that there isn't full enough information to know whether the police did act outside their legal powers but there appears to be a chance they did and, for me, that deserves looking at even if it does mean the boy avoids official sanctions if it turns out that procedure was abused.

cidergirl

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Unless the OP's son admitted (or there was other evidence) that he was the one who had been driving it they'd be hard pressed to make that stick. "A person" logically has to mean someone they have reasonable grounds to believe was the driver. Otherwise they could ignore the driver completely as he waves the insurance at them, take the passenger ("a person") 20 yards down the road and ask them to produce insurance. Thereby seizing any car they felt like, insured or not, when "a person" failed to produce.

That's clearly nonsense, so either they should have either had reports (as I suggested) of him hooning it around or they needed him to admit to being the driver before asking if he was insured and certainly before starting to seize it!

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in no way at all condoning what he did and I'm anything but a plod-basher. But, as with many things in law, it's a matter of the lesser of 2 evils:

Do we allow the police to side-step procedure and the law, and in the process cause problems and cost for an innocent girlfriend who, by the account given, wasn't there or in any way part of the incident and was attempting to get things straight as the law required?

Or do we allow someone who's done something inexcusable "get away with" it bearing in mind that they've (a) by now had the fright of their life over it (b) got a clearly sensible parent who is absolutely not condoning or excusing their son's actions (and will probably give him hell once it's sorted out) and (c) didn't actually kill any nuns, pregnant babies or mothers with polar bears this time?

I agree totally that there isn't full enough information to know whether the police did act outside their legal powers but there appears to be a chance they did and, for me, that deserves looking at even if it does mean the boy avoids official sanctions if it turns out that procedure was abused.

one person who actually understands exactly how it is

just need the advice how to get car out of the pound , even the pound place think the police are being awkward with us

photome

Lots of comments ref the OP spelling etc totally unnecesarry.

Driving without insurance , car should be crushed IMO, but how do the ploice know he was driving, did they see him, has he admitted it?

Sgt_Pepper_2

cidergirl wrote: »

one person who actually understands exactly how it is

just need the advice how to get car out of the pound , even the pound place think the police are being awkward with us

Try getting some insurance.

Happychappy

Where was your son driving the uninsured car in the first place when he noticed the rattle before he decided to take it onto a car park to find if the rattle was still there ? Don't suppose the police followed him onto the car park and he disappeared off?

Love these mysteries, normally it was my beloved darling son was taking my dying great great grandmother twice removed to hospital because the ambulance didn't turn up......it was the only time he has ever been out in the car......oh well alls well that ends

im-lost

Seems to be so many complete and utter !!!!!!
trolling this forum lately.

im-lost

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

Try getting some insurance.

They had insurance. Yet a bent copper decided to meddle
and have it cancelled where there was no grounds to have
it cancelled..

Yet, you would know this, if you read the thread before commenting