Drive any car - swift insurance.

Rover_Driver

The offence of using a motor vehicle without insurance is contrary to s.143 Road Traffic Act 1988. The power to seize a vehicle is s.165A of the same act, but it has conditions attached, if those conditions are not met, there is no power to seize the vehicle, even if an offence under s.143 is committed.

Tilt

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.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

<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.

<SIGH!>

No!

If a stopped driver produces a certificate which says, on its face, that the driver is insured to drive that vehicle at that time and the police seize the vehicle anyway then the seizure is illegal regardless of what other information or suspicions they had and also regardless if those other suspicions turned out to be correct. because the certificate MUST be taken on its face value as providing cover if it says it does. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS and that is what the case linked bt thenudeone confirmed.

I would strongly suggest that three High Court Judges sitting in appeal understand the law far better than you (or the Police) do and that is the decision they made. Neither you nor the Police can over-rule that decision, so if they seize once a certificate is produced it is an illegal seizure.

That does NOT mean that they can't tip up and charge the driver for driving without insurance later, but it DOES mean that they can't seize the car once a certificate is shown which, taken on face value, provides cover. Not even if they phone the insurers and the insurers say it's invalid!!!!

Wig

Tilt wrote: »

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.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance

Forget
www.gov.uk

Use
http://www.legislation.gov.uk
instead

And if you use
http://www.bailii.org
aswell you'll be even better placed.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

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.

https://www.gov.uk/vehicle-insurance/driving-without-insurance

What legislation, other than s.165A Road Traffic Act 1988 (which has conditions), gives police powers to seize vehicles driven without insurance?

Tilt

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No!

If a stopped driver produces a certificate which says, on its face, that the driver is insured to drive that vehicle at that time and the police seize the vehicle anyway then the seizure would be illegal regardless of what other information or suspicions they had and also regardless if those other suspicions turned out to be correct. because the certificate MUST be taken on its face value as providing cover if it says it does. THAT IS WHAT THE LAW SAYS and that is what the case linked bt thenudeone confirmed.

I would strongly suggest that three High Court Judges sitting in appeal understand the law far better than you (or the Police) do and that is the decision they made. Neither you nor the Police can over-rule that decision, so if they seize once a certificate is produced it is an illegal seizure.

That does NOT mean that they can't tip up and charge the driver for driving without insurance later, but it DOES mean that they can't seize the car once a certificate is shown giving cover.

Rubbish. And after your earlier comment about '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' I don't think you are a very credible contributor on a motoring forum.

I don't believe the police try and 'change the law to suit their own purposes' at all. As far as I am concerned, their job is to prevent offences being committed and by seizing a car that has no evidence of insurance, is doing just that.

Now you can continue spouting your opinions all you want, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence as far as i'm concerned and you will not change my view on that. At least then you can be assured that i will not join the millions of uninsured drivers who bump up the premiums for the rest of us and the more the police catch, the better.

Thankyou and good night.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

What legislation, other than s.165A Road Traffic Act 1988 (which has conditions), gives police powers to seize vehicles driven without insurance?

Jesus! Why don't you pop down you local police station, ask to speak to a senior traffic officer and ask them.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Jesus! Why don't you pop down you local police station, ask to speak to a senior traffic officer and ask them.

You keep saying they can, so please can you quote the legislation you are relying on?

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Now you can continue spouting your opinions all you want, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence as far as i'm concerned and you will not change my view on that. At least then you can be assured that i will not join the millions of uninsured drivers who bump up the premiums for the rest of us and the more the police catch, the better.

Thankyou and good night.

It's not opinions, it's legislation. Post 34 explains the situation exactly. No one is disputing that insurance is a strict liability offence, it's the power to seize vehicles - which is a different section of the Road Traffic Act - which matters.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

Rubbish. And after your earlier comment about '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' I don't think you are a very credible contributor on a motoring forum.

I don't believe the police try and 'change the law to suit their own purposes' at all. As far as I am concerned, their job is to prevent offences being committed and by seizing a car that has no evidence of insurance, is doing just that.

Now you can continue spouting your opinions all you want, driving without insurance is a strict liability offence as far as i'm concerned and you will not change my view on that. At least then you can be assured that i will not join the millions of uninsured drivers who bump up the premiums for the rest of us and the more the police catch, the better.

Thankyou and good night.

Tilt, with all due respect, these are not my opinions. they are the opinions of Lord Justice Ward, Lord Justice Stanley Burnton and Lady Justice Black. Their opinion is set out in full here:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/749.html

in the official report of the Court of Appeal proceedings in Pryor v Greater Mancester Police [2011] EWCA Civ 749

Not only did the Court find that the Police have no power to seize a vehicle once a certificate is shown, even if they are relying on other information, in the words of Lord Justice Ward it is "Plain as a pikestaff" that this is the case.

As for my "million uninsured drivers" comment, please quote in full if you're going to criticise it:

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!

Lord Justice Ward agrees with me that the law is clear (in fact, "as clear as a pikestaff") that, once a certificate apparently showing cover is presented, the Police have no authority to rely on other information (even direct information from the insurer) to seize the vehicle.

So, if they do seize it then they are changing what the law quite clearly (as a pikestaff, remember) says.

Please, before criticising my comment again, explain to me why uninsured driving (or any other offence for that matter) is so serious that the Police should be allowed to ignore what the Law clearly says and do their own thing in tackling it?