Getting Car Out Of Police Compound

Herzlos

paddedjohn wrote: »

How is the pound allowed to say that your insurance must be the original when it's perfectably acceptable to print a copy off and use it to tax the car at any post office?

Because they deem the risk of faked insurance docs to be higher (though I'd have assumed they'd check with the insurer), on account of the car already being impounded for not being insured?

brat

paddedjohn wrote: »

How is the pound allowed to say that your insurance must be the original when it's perfectably acceptable to print a copy off and use it to tax the car at any post office?

In our force, the person must bring the requested documents to a nominated police station for validation. That form is then faxed to the 'pound' which in our case are recovery garages around the county. If there is any doubt about the validity of the insurance, the counter staff usually either contact the insurer via MIB or get one of the RPU officers to do it.

sho_me_da_money

Well just a minor update.

Operation Wolverine is separate to an actual police station whose representative has confirmed that no documentation will be required as they act differently to the Police. They will simply need the policy number and the telephone number of the Insurer who they will contact and confirm cover with at the meeting.

I was going to sign up and pay for the Insurance in the next few hours but I've decided to let it ride out till the last minute (later this evening before the company closes). Sure we run the risk of his information not appearing on the MID, a process that normally takes between 24-48 hours, but that won't matter as they'll be speaking to the insurer directly anyway.

Mischa8

sho_me_da_money wrote: »

Point taken!

I need to be hard but its so difficult to see him go through these types of situations. The thing that worries me the most is he is young and dumb (in some respects) and has no job. I worry that the influence of the wrong crowd and him now being pushed into a corner of desperation (re: finances), could resort into him looking down illegal avenues. Something we (as a family) want to avoid at all costs.

Re your brother. I had a similar situation with my own brother a few years back. Which eventually got sorted with lots of understanding etc.

I'd say for your brother, if he hasn't done so already he really needs to find what he wants/needs to do with his life. College may be a good start. Doesn't have to be anything academically challenging either.

and ITA with you helping your brother out, what family would let them be fed to the wolves?! Rather help out family member then see them getting desparate like you wrote.

good luck with your brother! Hope this gets sorted out for him.

sho_me_da_money

Mischa8 wrote: »

Re your brother. I had a similar situation with my own brother a few years back. Which eventually got sorted with lots of understanding etc.

I'd say for your brother, if he hasn't done so already he really needs to find what he wants/needs to do with his life. College may be a good start. Doesn't have to be anything academically challenging either.

and ITA with you helping your brother out, what family would let them be fed to the wolves?! Rather help out family member then see them getting desparate like you wrote.

good luck with your brother! Hope this gets sorted out for him.

Thanks for your kind words.

forgotmyname

Not cutting corners, Sounds like its straight FRAUD.

And he is still trying. What about the post about your mums insurance?

I think there is another sting in the tail coming when they contact the insurance to verify its legal. Ahh its to release a car from the pound and he has a pending conviction for driving without insurance.

No we are cancelling the policy with immediate effect, Plese destroy the certificate of insurance for us.

brat

On the subject of police powers to seize, it is worth remembering that we only have powers to seize vehicles that we believe are used uninsured or driven by an unlicensed person. If we only suspect uninsure/unlicensed, then we mustn't seize it.

The court interpretation of 'believe' is 'to be almost certain'. That requires more suspicion than merely a 'no show' on the Midas database.

The reason I say this is that if the circumstance ever arose where you knew you were insured/licensed, and the police had a level of suspicion that you may not be, and were considering the seizure of your vehicle, respectfully ask them to explain what raises their level of suspicion to belief. You might be able to encourage the officer to accept that his suspicion does not actually amount to belief, and the matter could be resolved by way of production of your documents at a police station.

sho_me_da_money

forgotmyname wrote: »

Not cutting corners, Sounds like its straight FRAUD.

And he is still trying. What about the post about your mums insurance?

I think there is another sting in the tail coming when they contact the insurance to verify its legal. Ahh its to release a car from the pound and he has a pending conviction for driving without insurance.

No we are cancelling the policy with immediate effect, Plese destroy the certificate of insurance for us.

Errrrr no.

How do they know we are going to cancel? In this current situation, we need cover no matter what. From the insurance companys perspective, I am buying insurance because I need it, not to play detective and think I am buying it for the sole purpose of releasing the vehicle from a compound.

Insurance - "Oh he is going to get his vehicle out? He did not declare his points (the ones he doesn't have on his license nor has any details of at this time). We are also going to assume he is going to cancel the policy as soon as his car is released, even though, he needs ongoing insurance to drive legally".

Insurance - "Please cancel this policy with immediate effect based of our non-factual assumption".

Sure. That is going to go down well when I report this to the ombudsman and recover all costs.

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing illegal about this.

Also the mum thing is a non-issue. We are not going down this illegal route.

sho_me_da_money

brat wrote: »

On the subject of police powers to seize, it is worth remembering that we only have powers to seize vehicles that we believe are used uninsured or driven by an unlicensed person. If we only suspect uninsure/unlicensed, then we mustn't seize it.

The court interpretation of 'believe' is 'to be almost certain'. That requires more suspicion than merely a 'no show' on the Midas database.

The reason I say this is that if the circumstance ever arose where you knew you were insured/licensed, and the police had a level of suspicion that you may not be, and were considering the seizure of your vehicle, respectfully ask them to explain what raises their level of suspicion to belief. You might be able to encourage the officer to accept that his suspicion does not actually amount to belief, and the matter could be resolved by way of production of your documents at a police station.

Thank you for this. Very helpful information.

forgotmyname

Will expect the next post to be they released the car with no fee and no charges and gave us £1,000,000 compensation and allowed to drive uninsured whenever I like because its not my fault its society.

Blah Blah Blah.