car seizures by police for no insurance

Tilt

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Thanks..clearly flawed legislation and one wonders how it ever got passed.

The idea is to rid the roads of uninsured drivers (like the OP) and no doubt at the same time allowing the insurance co's to make a few more bob to boot!

cajef

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Thanks..clearly flawed legislation and one wonders how it ever got passed.

What is flawed about it, I take it you have never been involved in accident with an uninsured driver, the more uninsured vehicles taken of the road the better.

C_Mababejive

cajef wrote: »

What is flawed about it, I take it you have never been involved in accident with an uninsured driver, the more uninsured vehicles taken of the road the better.

The answer is to punish the wrongdoer for the offence by fine or imprisonment ,driving ban or other penalty. There is no justification to steal and destroy property save for this flawed legislation.

By the same argument we should..

chop hands off shoplifters

hack the penis off rapists

Demolish the homes of those who dont have insurance,engage in criminal activity and/or anti social disorder

Smash the tv's of people who dont have a licence

Put down dogs in the days when one should have had a dog licence

Demolish pubs and off licences for selling alcohol to underage drinkers

Aretnap

Joe_Horner wrote: »

For invalidating third party liability, requiring a car to be "driven according to the law" would mean they didn't pay out for anyone who was speeding, drunk, driving recklessly, had a cracked windscreen or a blown lightbulb, dirty number plates and so on (all of which are "not in accordance with legal requirements").

In fact, anyone who is at fault in an accident is, almost by definition, guilty of careless driving, whether or not he actually ends up being charged with it. So someone who really did drive according to the law would almost never have to make a claim, unless his car got nicked, or he was hit by an uninsured driver. The whole point of insurance is that it covers you (or at least your "victims") when you don't drive legally.

Joe_Horner

Aretnap wrote: »

In fact, anyone who is at fault in an accident is, almost by definition, guilty of careless driving, whether or not he actually ends up being charged with it. So someone who really did drive according to the law would almost never have to make a claim, unless his car got nicked, or he was hit by an uninsured driver. The whole point of insurance is that it covers you (or at least your "victims") when you don't drive legally.

Much better put than I did! Worth adding that the two examples you gave of a "law abiding claim" wouldn't come under the legally required cover anyway.

Now sit back and wait for the "what about this / that / the other" scenarios involving cars appearing at 100mph from side streets, uninsured blind drivers whos guide dogs don't make then stop in time and all those other things you see every single day out on the roads

Herzlos

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The answer is to punish the wrongdoer for the offence by fine or imprisonment ,driving ban or other penalty. There is no justification to steal and destroy property save for this flawed legislation.

Confiscation of property would certainly come under those, either as 'fine' or 'other penalty'. It's not as if they don't make it well known that no insurance = losing the car.

Herzlos

thenudeone wrote: »

I have already given the link to the Order, and someone else has kindly already posted the wording, but since you have difficulty with it, here it is again:

5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, if, before a relevant motor vehicle is disposed of by an authorised person, a person—
(a)satisfies the authorised person that he is the registered keeper or the owner of that vehicle;
(b)pays to the authorised person such a charge in respect of its seizure and retention as is provided for in regulation 6; and
(c)produces at a police station specified in the seizure notice a valid certificate of insurance covering his use of that vehicle and a valid licence authorising him to drive the vehicle,

It DOES NOT DOES NOT DOES NOT state that the policy must specifically identify the vehicle being recovered.

It doesn't have to, (a) states someone must prove they are the registered keeper and (c) states they must have valid insurance covering their use of the car. As far as I understand it, DOC cover usually stipulates that the other car can't be owned the the policy holder, so in most cases the DOC wouldn't allow the car to be removed.

The only actual solutions are to (a) Just insure the car properly or (b) let them scrap the car.

You could try arguing with the police about releasing a car that's still technically uninsured, but I'm sure they've encountered any scam you can come up with.

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It's a condition of the law, not your policy.

Which Act and section then please?

Everything I've said has been backed up by a link, reference or wording of an Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument.

Tell me which Act and which Section I as the driver would be prosecuted for breaking. (not the keeper - we all know that the keeper is committing an offence if a taxed vehicle doesn't have a policy)

Just saying "the law" is meaningless and doesn't prove anything.

Put up or shut up.

cajef

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The answer is to punish the wrongdoer for the offence by fine or imprisonment ,driving ban or other penalty. There is no justification to steal and destroy property save for this flawed legislation.

The other penalty being having the vehicle removed and scrapped if you knowingly drive without insurance, of course there is justification it hits the idiots where is hurts and it is not stealing, suggest you look up the definition in the dictionary.

Previous to this legislation the offenders just stuck two fingers up and carried on driving the vehicle and some are banned already but does that bother them, do you really think they were bothered about a fine, no doubt if they were imprisoned you would scream that was unjustified for such an offence.

As for the rest of your post we can all make irrelevant and pointless comparisons like that about most subjects, but most stick to the point of the thread which is about uninsured vehicles.

rev_henry

C_Mababejive wrote: »

The answer is to punish the wrongdoer for the offence by fine or imprisonment ,driving ban or other penalty. There is no justification to steal and destroy property save for this flawed legislation.

By the same argument we should..

chop hands off shoplifters

hack the penis off rapists

Demolish the homes of those who dont have insurance,engage in criminal activity and/or anti social disorder

Smash the tv's of people who dont have a licence

Put down dogs in the days when one should have had a dog licence

Demolish pubs and off licences for selling alcohol to underage drinkers

Its not being stolen or destroyed, merely confiscated until they can prove they have insurance. And seeing as how they shouldn't be using it unless they do have insurance it makes no difference to them aside from the £150 storage fee. Only if they do not bother to get insurance is it destroyed or 'stolen'. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with confiscating cars from people who don't bother with insurance, do you like sorting out accidents with uninsured drivers or something?

Your TV licence example is poor, TV Licensing are a private company, the police are the police.