Drive any car - swift insurance.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

As in earlier posts, a vehicle cannot automatically be seized for not having insurance, or it cannot be established - there are conditions attached - sections 165A (6) (b), (9) (b) and s.165 (2) (a), Road Traffic Act 1988 refer.

If those conditions are not met, the vehicle cannot be seized .

YES IT CAN

IF evidence of adequate insurance cover cannot be established at the road side.

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

In the other thread:



There is no power of seizure under the continuous insurance rules, so the only way that your assertion here could happen is if they decided that the certificate you present (showing cover) doesn't in fact give cover.




I'm sorry, I wasn't expecting to have to play semantics. when i made the first post.

Of course they can carry out extra checks - in fact, they probably already have by checking the MIB database before even pulling you over.

But they CANNOT use the information gained from those checks to seize a car where the driver shows them a certificate which, on face value, shows that he's insured.

That's what the law says and that's what the Courts have confirmed (have you actually read the judgement that thenudeone linked to?)

You may not agree here, but I would rather have a million uninsured drivers loose on the road than allow the police to change what the law quite clearly says to suit their own purposes!

THAT is the most absurd comment I have ever heard from a supposed law abiding motorist. You are most certainly correct, I DON'T AGREE

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

THAT is the most absurd comment I have ever heard from a supposed law abiding motorist. You are most certainly correct, I DON'T AGREE

The Police have powers to do exactly what Parliament has authorised them to do and NO more than that.

DO you REALLY think uninsured driving is serious enough to allow the police to make it up as they go along?

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

YES IT CAN

IF evidence of adequate insurance cover cannot be established at the road side.

Only if the conditions in sections 165A (6) (b), (9) (b) and s.165 (2) (a), Road Traffic Act 1988 are met.

If those conditions are not met, there is no power to seize the vehicle.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

Only if the conditions in sections 165A (6) (b), (9) (b) and s.165 (2) (a), Road Traffic Act 1988 are met.

If those conditions are not met, there is no power to seize the vehicle.

If you mean that the police establish that there is adequate cover in place, then I would agree.

Paperbird

"But they CANNOT use the information gained from those checks to seize a car where the driver shows them a certificate which, on face value, shows that he's insured"

If the car shows as not insured police will check with the company that issued the cert and if they say it was cancelled due to say none payment then the police would take the car off the road.

Wig

Paperbird wrote: »

"But they CANNOT use the information gained from those checks to seize a car where the driver shows them a certificate which, on face value, shows that he's insured"

If the car shows as not insured police will check with the company that issued the cert and if they say it was cancelled due to say none payment then the police would take the car off the road.

If a certificate was shown and they subsequently seized it, the seizure would be unlawful and the police would be liable for all costs. Yes, the cops may not know the law and may very well seize it and there would be nothing you could do except insist on getting a senior officer on the radio....but if they did seize it, it would be unlawful.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

If you mean that the police establish that there is adequate cover in place, then I would agree.

No, even if the police establish that there is not adequate cover in place, if those conditions are not met, there is no power to seize the vehicle.

Tilt

Wig wrote: »

If a certificate was shown and they subsequently seized it, the seizure would be unlawful and the police would be liable for all costs. Yes, the cops may not know the law and may very well seize it and there would be nothing you could do except insist on getting a senior officer on the radio....but if they did seize it, it would be unlawful.

<SIGH!>

Only if it turned out that the insurance was valid. If there was doubt, the police will usually check with the insurance company. They will not allow a car to continue being driven unless they establish that it (and the driver) is insured.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

No, even if the police establish that there is not adequate cover in place, if those conditions are not met, there is no power to seize the vehicle.

Then I don't agree. The police do have the power to seize a vehicle which is being driven without adequate insurance cover. It is a strict liability offence and the police will not allow a vehicle to continue to be driven without establishing that minimum insurance is in place otherwise they may be allowing further offence(s) to be committed. Unless you have forgotten, it is illegal to use or keep a motor vehicle on a public road without at least third part insurance.