Car impounded for no insurance, was told by insurance company that we were insured

Rover_Driver

They are sections added to RTA1988 and give police additional powers where they have reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle is being driven without a licence or insurance.

They made no changes as far as the HO/RT1 procedure for producing documents within 7 days is concerned, which can still be used if the circumstances are more suitable, as in ginnersinner's post.

TrickyWicky

Notmyrealname wrote: »

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 added sections 165A and 165B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which give police the power to seize a motor vehicle being driven without a driving licence or insurance.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005 as amended formally brought these powers into force on 6 July 2005.


This was done due to the massive numbers of uninsured drivers who got a HORT and then were allowed to continue on their way still uninsured which was just absurd.

You surely cannot be completely unaware of it given the massive advertising campaigns and exposure on Traffic Cop type programmes there have been?

But what chance in the law allows a police officer to suspend a licence? - Thats what we're wanting to know.

Aretnap

The amended Road Traffic Act says that a constable may seize a vehicle for no insurance provided all the following conditions are satisfied

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143, (ie his insurance certificate)
(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

So assuming the partner did not present his insurance certificate, the question of whether the constable was entitled to seize the vehicle hinges on whether he had reasonable grounds to believe that it was being driven without insurance. Any fule kno that the MID is not a live database and that it can take hours or even days for a newly insured car to appear on it, and so IMO (but only IMO) the fact that a car does not appear on the MID is not in and of itself reasonable grounds for believing that it is not insured. If the driver insists that the vehicle is insured usual police procedure seems to be to attempt to contact the insurance company to confirm this, but you do hear occasional stories of coppers whose attitude is "you gotta be on the MID, innit."

The bit about his licence being suspended at the roadside makes no sense. The DVLA can revoke licences in certain situations, such as when they're not surrendered for endorsement, on medical grounds or under the new drivers act, but not on a whim or on mere suspicion that the driver has committed an offence. A court can disqualify you from holding a licence after you have been convicted of an offence. Neither a constable nor a desk sergeant has the power to do either. He might confiscate it if he suspects it to be fake or stolen, but if the partner still has it, that's obviously not what's happened.

Sgt_Pepper_2

TrickyWicky wrote: »

But what chance in the law allows a police officer to suspend a licence? - Thats what we're wanting to know.

None, they can't.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

OP your posts just keep geting more and more confusing everytime you post.

answer these please:

did the police officer take his driving license from him and not give it back? (photo license).

or did the officer, take his driving licese, then hand it back saying that if he fails to surrender his license for the points to be added it will be revoked/suspended untill he does.

like has been said, the police CANNOT suspend his license they have ZERO powers to do so, only the DVLA can issue and revoke licenses an the courts can disqualify you.

this seems more and more wierd as you go on, are you insured or not why ask if you need to take out a policy again? if you already have one running?..

prowla

Nobody carries their insurance certificate around with them, do they?
Indeed in these days of electronic documentation, a person may not even have a copy of it.
The insurance company accepting means the insurance is in place.
The police not bothering to check it is pretty shabby really.

xxkitcatsxx

Hoping to get the licence reinstated on tues. The issue with mistaken identity has been resolved today and they've informed him that the dvla 'should' reinstate it but may want to keep it suspended until he goes to court. All because the officer wouldn't call the insurers!

Will he have to go to court do you think? We will have the documents through in a few days to prove he had insurance at the time he was pulled over.

Sgt_Pepper_2

prowla wrote: »

The police not bothering to check it is pretty shabby really.

All depends on the time of the stop.

xxkitcatsxx

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

OP your posts just keep geting more and more confusing everytime you post.

answer these please:

did the police officer take his driving license from him and not give it back? (photo license).

or did the officer, take his driving licese, then hand it back saying that if he fails to surrender his license for the points to be added it will be revoked/suspended untill he does.

like has been said, the police CANNOT suspend his license they have ZERO powers to do so, only the DVLA can issue and revoke licenses an the courts can disqualify you.

this seems more and more wierd as you go on, are you insured or not why ask if you need to take out a policy again? if you already have one running?..

They suspended it on the dvla database due to believing he was this criminal which has now been sorted but still unsure whether we'll get that reinstated before any court case they decide to throw against him. There was no physical handling of licences. All that was taken was the licence number and suspended on the database.

I'm thinking it was automatic on the case of the dvla to suspend the licence as they believed he was this other man. Hopefully it will be straightforward on tues to getting it reinstated as this was proven to be a mistake on the police's part.

xxkitcatsxx

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

All depends on the time of the stop.

It was 2pm on Friday!