just stoped by police driving borrowed car with no insurance .what will happen

miduck

Tilt wrote: »

<SIGH!> Then perhaps in this case, it was going to take longer than 30 mins?

I don't know what it is about you but you seem to enjoy slating other members and being argumentative more than you do giving actual and useful advice on here. I don't think I am the only one to have noticed this. You must be a right ball of fun in a pub!! :beer:

But hey ho, what ever floats your boat.

I do not frequent this board, but I would say that the person the above applies to is yourself. You have repeatedly given incorrect information, and if anyone tries to correct you, you shout them down. I would suggest you take a look at yourself before criticising others.

Tilt

miduck wrote: »

I do not frequent this board, but I would say that the person the above applies to is yourself. You have repeatedly given incorrect information, and if anyone tries to correct you, you shout them down. I would suggest you take a look at yourself before criticising others.

Any chance you giving a few examples? :think:

Rolandtheroadie

Tilt wrote: »

Any chance you giving a few examples? :think:

Just this thread? or in others as well?:D

Tilt

scotsman4th wrote: »

Just this thread? or in others as well?:D

Any but this one to start with!

prowla

phill99 wrote: »

I certainly don't have superior knowledge which is why I won't make a comment. But it's clear that some people don't have superior knowledge but believe they do. They offer their two cents worth whether it's appropriate or not.

None of us are in full possession of the facts of the case and none if us are legal experts on this area of the law. And worse than that people end up arguing about 'what ifs' and get the subject completely off track.

With this being a money saving forum, I've never understood why people seek legal advice on here. There re other sites that do that far more effectively.

This is a discussion, and your contribution is just part of that too; it is no more or less valid than any of the other posts that have been made.

Tilt

An hour passes and Miduck still hasn't found one...

brat

Tilt wrote: »

miduck wrote: »

I do not frequent this board, but I would say that the person the above applies to is yourself. You have repeatedly given incorrect information, and if anyone tries to correct you, you shout them down. I would suggest you take a look at yourself before criticising others.

Any chance you giving a few examples? :think:

Tilt wrote: »

An hour passes and Miduck still hasn't found one...

Perhaps Miduck is busy elsewhere, because your incorrect info and advice is actually really easy to find.

Here are a few examples from this thread alone;-

Tilt wrote: »

As thenudeone says, the police should [STRIKE]of[/STRIKE] have seized the car under the circumstances.

Incorrect. Their decision not to seize was entirely correct and appropriate for the circumstances.

Tilt wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that they have simply told you to leave the car where it is and get your mom to collect it.It simply doesn't work like that

Yes it can, and does.

Tilt wrote: »

...the insurance status of the driver collecting it will need to be checked after they have pulled a driver of a car with no insurance.

Wrong.

Tilt wrote: »

Also, as you told them that your mom gave you permission to drive, it is likely that she will also face prosecution.

Possible, rather than likely.

Tilt wrote: »

If this is true (which i am struggling to believe it is), get yourself a solicitor at the first opportunity. There maybe a loophole to exploit as this is definitely improper procedure.

Wrong! It is not improper procedure, and there is no loophole to exploit.

Tilt wrote: »

That may of been the case 'LONG AGO' but things are done differently now since the introduction of ANPR and continuous tax/insurance rules.

It was the introduction of Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act that allowed police to seize vehicles, nothing to do with ANPR or continuous insurance rules.

Tilt wrote: »

It is fairly obvious that the main reason for the car not being seized was because it was Christmas day and recovery facilities were not readily available.

As sarge has said, recovery facilitiies are contracted to respond within a period of time (45 minutes for us). They will be available 24/365.

Tilt wrote: »

Obviously not the right message to send out to other uninsured drivers though is it? 'At least we know our car is less likely to get seized on Christmas day'.

Incorrect. The police always consider whether to seize or not, whatever day of the year.

Tilt wrote: »

Even 'beat cars' have radios where a traffic car can be summoned. As would be the case if they were dealing with a drink driver.

Only if they were short of a breath kit. Most beat cars have a kit with them. Any beat bobby can deal with a drink driver.

Tilt wrote: »

Well that's good news for uninsured drivers then isn't it? Just make sure the offence is committed on a bank holiday then your car is un-likely to be seized thus at least saving you a shed load of money!

Not true, as has been said many times.

Tilt wrote: »

it would depend on how long it would take a recovery truck to arrive (which no doubt the officers in this case would [STRIKE]of [/STRIKE] have been aware of). For example, there may of been a serious RTC in the same area at the time.

All police recovery agents have several units available, and a range of different units. There is also a rota of garages for each area, so, if one garage couldn't cope for whatever reason, another could be contacted. They are required to comply with the contracted time frame for attendance.

So many incorrect answers and advice, I wonder where Tilt gets his expertise from?

Tilt wrote: »

I've seen it... ...on one of the 'Police Action Camera' type TV shows.

:rotfl:

Sgt_Pepper_2

Thank you brat.

But no doubt he will argue it.

hethmar

I dont follow this? The OP says the police stopped her and she had no insurance. And she asks if she needs to tell her mother, the owner of said vehicle?

Surely the police wouldnt have allowed her to drive the car after stopping her and so, who collected the car - who else is covered to drive it? It doesnt make sense.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Perhaps Miduck is busy elsewhere, because your incorrect info and advice is actually really easy to find.

Here are a few examples from this thread alone;-

Incorrect. Their decision not to seize was entirely correct and appropriate for the circumstances.

Says who?

Yes it can, and does.

Says who? So you reckon the police would say "Now park the car there and be a good girl and don't drive it again. Instead get mommy to come and get it". Err, i don't think so!

Wrong.

Is it? So when you go get you car from the pound, you don't need any docs?


Possible, rather than likely.

Hmm, so not entirely wrong on that one then!

Wrong! It is not improper procedure, and there is no loophole to exploit.

Again says who? In any event, that is why I suggested that the OP speaks to a solicitor.


It was the introduction of Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act that allowed police to seize vehicles, nothing to do with ANPR or continuous insurance rules.

Really? Who can it work effectively without ANPR? And, don't you need the car to be continuously insured to prevent seizure?

As sarge has said, recovery facilitiies are contracted to respond within a period of time (45 minutes for us). They will be available 24/365.

And as I said to Sarge, I was not arguing with this one... just throwing up a possible reason why they didn't seize the car which they said they could of done.

Incorrect. The police always consider whether to seize or not, whatever day of the year.

So perhaps you can tell us why the police did not seize the car when the OP by her own admission was not insured?

Only if they were short of a breath kit. Most beat cars have a kit with them. Any beat bobby can deal with a drink driver.

Which is what I said?

Not true, as has been said many times.

Actually my comment was being a tad on the sarcastic side as I was struggling to believe the OPs account.

All police recovery agents have several units available, and a range of different units. There is also a rota of garages for each area, so, if one garage couldn't cope for whatever reason, another could be contacted. They are required to comply with the contracted time frame for attendance.

So what exactly was wrong in what I said here?

So many incorrect answers and advice, I wonder where Tilt gets his expertise from?
:rotfl:

Hmm, can't actually see any proof that is the case. Pretty weak attempt from a member of Sgt Pepper's fan club.

Nice try though.