car seizures by police for no insurance

Wig

I don't think you would get away with the set up in the last paragraph. If it came to court.

Sgt_Pepper_2

!!!!!! has this got to do with motoring now?

Time this thread was locked.

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

As in post 172 by Wig.

There is no connection between the continuous insurance requirement, and the requirement for insurance for the use of a motor vehicle.

DVLA deal with continuous insurance offences by checking their register of vehicles against the MIB database of insurance. And it is the registered keeper that commits that offence.

Police deal with offences involving the use of motor vehicles without insurance. And it is the driver/user that commits that offence.

They are completely un-related matters and and neither DVLA nor the police report their dealings to each other.

They still won't release the car

Jamie_Carter

Aretnap wrote: »

Of course, in both of those situations the other driver would be clearly at fault, so you could claim off his insurance - no need to make a claim on your own. Except on Planet Jamie you wouldn't be able to, because he was driving illegally, and so therefore his insurance wouldn't have covered him. :wall:

That's not actually what I said.

Jamie_Carter

Aretnap wrote: »

Anyone who doesn't watch live broadcasts. If you have a big wide screen TV which you use to watch DVDs, play Playstation and watch iPlayer/catch up TV then you don't need a licence.

Only if the TV isn't capable of receiving TV (receiver removed). In which case it would be a monitor, and not a TV.

Jamie_Carter

Wig wrote: »

Jamie Carter is the troll, here, and I have had enough of educating him. So I will stop now.

You aren't educating anyone, in fact quite the opposite.

You may think you are clever, coming up with different ways to recover a car from the compound (which is what this thread is about). But the fact is that they won't release it unless the vehicle is insured.

Jamie_Carter

Sgt_Pepper wrote: »

!!!!!! has this got to do with motoring now?

Time this thread was locked.

Very true.

Most of this thread has had nothing to do with the original subject.

almillar

Only if the TV isn't capable of receiving TV (receiver removed). In which case it would be a monitor, and not a TV.

Wrong. Unplug from the aerial or satellite dish, then it doesn't receive any live broadcasts. Which has nothing to do with the child who posted the original question...

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

They still won't release the car

If the person has valid insurance cover for their use of the vehicle, it can be released to them. It is the registered keeper who would be liable for any CIE penalty. They may, or may not be the same person.

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

But the fact is that they won't release it unless the vehicle is insured.

It is the use of the vehicle that is required, not the vehicle itself.

The offence for which a vehicle can be seized is contrary to s.143 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which requires users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third party risks.

Nothing about the vehicle itself, only the use of the vehicle.

It is the same requirement to allow a seized vehicle to be released - s.5, The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005.

And again, nothing about the vehicle itself, only the use of the vehicle.


The offence of keeping a vehicle that does not meet the insurance requirements - s.144A Road Traffic Act 1988, is dealt with as an administrative matter by DVLA.

There is no connectiion between the using offence and the keeping offence.