car seizures by police for no insurance

Wig

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

No, because that vehicle isn't legal to drive on the road, end of story!!

Why not?

For the hundreth time, POLICE DO NOT ENFORCE CIE, CIE IS AS NEAR AS DAMMIT A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN YOU AND THE DVLA. And CIE requires a 21 day notice period before a seizure can be done by DVLA and ONLY by DVLA

WHY ARE YOU LOT ALWAYS RELATING CIE legislation to 165A legislation?


:wall: you can't see the wood for the trees.

[Deleted User]

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Yes. If you can afford a big wide screen TV, then you can afford your licence.

And if you don't legally need a licence?

Joe_Horner

dacouch wrote: »

Ombudsman and FSA rules

Thanks for that, dacouch, another couple of references to store away in what's left of my grey cells :beer:

thenudeone

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

No, because that vehicle isn't legal to drive on the road, end of story!!

Except that it is.

And you have still failed (despite several requests) to produce a single reference to a piece of legislation to back up your view.

brat

A person 'driving' another vehicle on a road on his own DOV cover will be insured for the use of that car as long as the policy doesn't otherwise prevent it.

It's that simple, and there are no police powers to seize a vehicle (under 165A) if the driver is covered to drive it.

Police seizures are all about the tighter aspect of 'driving' the vehicle rather than the wider aspect of its 'use'.

CIE will ensure that more vehicles used under DOV cover will now be insured by the keeper, even if the DOV cover doesn't require it.

arcon5

Should we let TV inspectors steal your wide screen telly and trash it just because you dont have a licence?

The difference is your TV is unlikely to cause harm or possibly death to others.

Wig

arcon5 wrote: »

The difference is your TV is unlikely to cause harm or possibly death to others.

Neither is a lack of insurance likely to do so.

rev_henry

Wig wrote: »

Neither is a lack of insurance likely to do so.

No, but its likely to cause increased difficulty to the aggrieved if such a thing does occur. Though having said that I would have thought the uninsured would drive in a poorer manner to law abiding motorists because they don't care...

dacouch

Read this thread and one of the posters reminded me of a poster on this thread...

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=98064

Jamie_Carter

dacouch wrote: »

Lol are you going to try and convince me now that the Financial Services Authority aka FSA don't regulate Insurance Companies.

Don't tell me, your broker told you it, so it must be true.

P.S Who are the Financial Standards Authority?

That is taken direct from their website.