Drive any car - swift insurance.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

You can quote all the acts and legislation under the sun but as far as i'm concerned, the police DO and should have the power to seize vehicles which are not insured and quite rightly so unless the driver can prove he is in fact insured.

Police DO and should have the power to seize vehicles which are not insured, but they can only act within the legislation. Depending on the circumstances, if the legislation gives the power to seize the car - they can seize it, if the legislation doesn't - they can't.

Joe_Horner

Tilt wrote: »

You can quote all the acts and legislation under the sun but as far as i'm concerned, the police DO and should have the power to seize vehicles which are not insured and quite rightly so unless the driver can prove he is in fact insured.

(your bold)

That (the bold part) is the only part of your position that I take issue with, Tilt. I'm more than happy for the Police to seize vehicles which aren't insured, and I'm even happy for them to do it purely on suspicion if the Law allows them to.

But the law, as it stands, does not give them that power. The law says, and it's been confirmed by the courts, that a presented certificate must be taken on face value for seizure purposes. A stopped driver doesn't need to "prove" anything, only "produce evidence" and the law says that a certificate which appears to give cover IS evidence. If the certificate, taken on face value, appears to grant cover, then seizure on the spot isn't allowed but prosecution later if it turns out to be invalid is.

Until Parliament ammends the law, I'm far more concerned with the Police assuming powers that they haven't been given than I am by the risk of uninsured drivers (or any other criinals for that matter).

Meanwhile, in the cases you seem to be worried about, with chancers cancelling policies but not returning the certificates, there are additional offences under S.147 and S.173 of the RTA allowing, respectively:

a Level 3 (£1000) fine, and:

a "statutory maximum" fine or 2 years imprisonment on top of the penalty for being uninsured if they've presented a certificate they know to be invalid.

So all those people you're concerned about who'll start deliberately cancelling policies once they have the certificate are taking a chance on £5k fine + 6 points for no insuramce PLUS a £1k fine for failing to surrender, PLUS £5k / 2 years imprisonment for presenting a false document.

A far better way to deal with the risk would be to hand out, and make sure the press publicise, a few sentences like that (using existing powers) rather than allowing the Police to extend their powers without legal authority!

Wig

dacouch wrote: »

It's not the FSA who would sort it out.

FOS - just looked it up.

Tilt

Wig wrote: »

Tilt,
You keep raising the issue of uninsured drivers hitting you or us like it is a big deal. I don't see that it is a big deal, because ultimately, there is no such thing as an uninsured driver. I have been hit by an uninsured, we recovered all our costs, so what is the problem?

You may say that it raises our premiums, I don't believe that if all the uninsured were magically removed from our roads that our premiums would be reduced, I think the companies would just take more profit. But even so, this aspect of having uninsureds already affects all of us so it makes no difference whether we get hit or not.

Why do you tie in your outrage with being hit? Why do you think we would change our minds if we got hit?

No-one here is condoning driving uninsured. But it is a fact of life, and if they get caught without a certificate with reasonable suspicion, then of course, they should get their car seized. But the liberty of an honest man to my mind is sacred, and the proper place to have any suspicions sorted out (where there was evidence produced) is in court not at the road side. Where no evidence is produced, that suspicion has to be reasonable, which to my mind, does not include relying solely on MIDb.

No doubt you recovered your costs via the MIB. And who do you think funds them? I'll tell you; Us insured drivers do.

To everyone else who is questioning the powers of the police, here is the exact wording of section 165A;

Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1)Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2)The first condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination,

(b)the person fails to produce them, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).

(3)The second condition is that—

(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,

(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.

(4)The third condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,

(b)the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

I've highlighted (in bold) the bit which relates to insurance. Kindly note that to satisfy the condition for seizure, the police office (in uniform) requires the driver to provide evidence that he/she isn't driving in contravention of section 143 (Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks)

Also kindly note that a further condition is that 'the person fails to provide such evidence' and then finally 'the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven'.

Now as I see it, the legislation states 'EVIDENCE' meaning that may not include just a producing a certificate of insurance. As I see it, it means evidence that the driver is insured or secured against third-party risks. A certificate of insurance MAY NOT on it's own be sufficient evidence and if the police are not satisfied (i.e. the vehicle details do not relate to the certificate) then under section 165A providing they have 'reasonable grounds' to believe the driver is uninsured, then they have the power then to seize the vehicle.

It is clear (to me anyway) that if you know you are driving a vehicle which does not appear on the MIB data base, then it's a good idea to obtain a cover note for said vehicle from your own insurance (which shouldn't be a problem if you have a DOC policy) as this would be evidence of cover.

The only vague bit as I see it is what are 'reasonable grounds'. I assume that it means after exhausting all avenues of enquiries (i.e. checking with the insurance company).

So there you have it, there are sufficient powers within this legislation that give the police the right to seize a vehicle which they believe to be driven without insurance (providing the above conditions have been met of course).

Just to be absolutely sure, here is a link to the relevant act;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A

Thank you, much love and good night.

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Now as I see it, the legislation states 'EVIDENCE' meaning that may not include just a producing a certificate of insurance. As I see it, it means evidence that the driver is insured or secured against third-party risks. A certificate of insurance MAY NOT on it's own be sufficient evidence and if the police are not satisfied (i.e. the vehicle details do not relate to the certificate) then under section 165A providing they have 'reasonable grounds' to believe the driver is uninsured, then they have the power then to seize the vehicle.

s.165A, (9) Makes reference to the evidence being a document or other evidence within s.165 (2) (a), which in turn refers to a certificate of insurance. Which is why there is a problem with un-insured drivers who produce a certificate of insurance.

Tilt

Rover_Driver wrote: »

s.165A, (9) Makes reference to the evidence being a document or other evidence within s.165 (2) (a), which in turn refers to a certificate of insurance. Which is why there is a problem with un-insured drivers who produce a certificate of insurance.

Yes it states 'RELEVANT certificate of insurance' meaning that it has to be relevant to the car being driven. For example, an DOC certificate may not necessarily be relevant to the car being driven. It also mentions 'or such other evidence' as per below;

the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Yes it states 'RELEVANT certificate of insurance' meaning that it has to be relevant to the car being driven.

Agreed, a certificate of insurance would have to show that it covers the driver to drive the vehicle in question, to be relevant.

thenudeone

Tilt wrote: »

Now as I see it, the legislation states 'EVIDENCE' meaning that may not include just a producing a certificate of insurance. As I see it, it means evidence that the driver is insured or secured against third-party risks. A certificate of insurance MAY NOT on it's own be sufficient evidence and if the police are not satisfied

Once again you are picking and choosing bits of the law to suit your own beliefs.

If you read the whole of section 165A you get to this bit:

(9)In this section—
(a).. [n/a]
(b)a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

section 165(2)(a) states:

(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

The "such other evidence" is not a general open comment. The sentence goes on to clarify that it only refers to evidence prescribed by regulations. The regulations referred to include
The Motor Vehicles (Electronic Communication of Certificates of Insurance) Order 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1117/contents/made
which allows someone to produce a legible electronic copy of the certificate (eg: on a smartphone or laptop) or a home-printed copy of a electronic certificate as if it were a certificate provided by the insurer.
A record of a telephone call with an insurer is not "such other evidence" because that has not been prescribed by any regulation.

So there we have it.
S165A allows police to seize a vehicle if the driver fails to provide evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143
S165A 9) b) states that a relevant certificate of insurance ON ITS OWN is evidence under s165A
An electronic or self-printed certificate is classed as evidence.
165(2)(a) states that a relevant certificate of insurance is one which satisfies S143
S143 states that there must be "in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy..." and does not state that such a policy must specifically identify or relate to the vehicle being driven.

Tilt

thenudeone wrote: »

Once again you are picking and choosing bits of the law to suit your own beliefs.

If you read the whole of section 165A you get to this bit:

(9)In this section—
(a).. [n/a]
(b)a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

section 165(2)(a) states:

(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

The "such other evidence" is not a general open comment. The sentence goes on to clarify that it only refers to evidence prescribed by regulations. The regulations referred to include
The Motor Vehicles (Electronic Communication of Certificates of Insurance) Order 2010 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/1117/contents/made
which allows someone to produce a legible electronic copy of the certificate (eg: on a smartphone or laptop) or a home-printed copy of a electronic certificate as if it were a certificate provided by the insurer.
A record of a telephone call with an insurer is not "such other evidence" because that has not been prescribed by any regulation.

So there we have it.
S165A allows police to seize a vehicle if the driver fails to provide evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143
S165A 9) b) states that a relevant certificate of insurance ON ITS OWN is evidence under s165A
An electronic or self-printed certificate is classed as evidence.
165(2)(a) states that a relevant certificate of insurance is one which satisfies S143
S143 states that there must be "in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy..." and does not state that such a policy must specifically identify or relate to the vehicle being driven.

I think you ought to take a look in the mirror. Do you know what the word 'RELEVANT' means?

Definition; relevant 'bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand'

Don't know about you but that clearly suggests that a 'relevant' insurance certificate must be 'connected with the matter in hand' meaning that it must show that it proves that the driver is not in contravention of section 143 by relating to the car being driven (when it does not appear on the MIB data base).

I'm sure we will get there in the end.:D

Rover_Driver

Tilt wrote: »

Don't know about you but that clearly suggests that a 'relevant' insurance certificate must be 'connected with the matter in hand' meaning that it must show that it proves that the driver is not in contravention of section 143 by relating to the car being driven (when it does not appear on the MIB data base).
I'm sure we will get there in the end.:D

It has nothing to do with the MIB database, if the certicate shows that the insurance covers the driver to drive that vehicle, it is a relevant certificate and so complies with s.165 (2)(a).