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

greyteam1959

Flippin 'eck........I think you lot should all give it a rest now & go for a nice long walk to calm down !!!
:D

Tilt

But Brat my good fellow, it dosn't say that the police will allow the uninsured driver to park the car and leave it where it is, then wander off to fetch mommy to come and collect it does it? Don't see how this means i'm incorrect.

Do you honestly buy the OP's version of events? She openly admits that she knew she wasn't insured which no doubt the police discovered and then we are lead to believe that the police decided to not seize the vehicle to save her the 'extra financial burden'! Come on!

It certainly dosn't work like that on Road Wars!

brat

Tilt wrote: »

But Brat my good fellow, it dosn't say that the police will allow the uninsured driver to park the car and leave it where it is, then wander off to fetch mommy to come and collect it does it? Don't see how this means i'm incorrect.

It does, because you said "It simply dosn't [sic] work like that"

It can work like that, and it does.

Do you honestly buy the OP's version of events? She openly admits that she knew she wasn't insured which no doubt the police discovered and then we are lead to believe that the police decided to not seize the vehicle to save her the 'extra financial burden'! Come on!

What bit do you not believe?

It certainly dosn't work like that on Road Wars!

We're currently being filmed for a series for a Ch5 show called Interceptors (I think). My Inspector previewed the first two episodes last week, and he said it's edited to the degree that you almost don't recognise the incidents. You also behave slightly differently when a camera is poking its nose in everywhere.

So please don't derive your understanding of road traffic law from Road Wars. It's entertainment, designed to fill the gap between the ads.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

It does, because you said "It simply dosn't [sic] work like that"

It can work like that, and it does. Sorry, we will have to disagree then



What bit do you not believe? All of it. Or maybe the OP had a very low cut top and short skirt on then.


We're currently being filmed for a series for a Ch5 show called Interceptors (I think). My Inspector previewed the first two episodes last week, and he said it's edited to the degree that you almost don't recognise the incidents. You also behave slightly differently when a camera is poking its nose in everywhere.

So please don't derive your understanding of road traffic law from Road Wars. It's entertainment, designed to fill the gap between the ads.

I don't. I get it from Police Camera Action as well remember?

brat

Tilt wrote:

brat wrote:

It does, because you said "It simply dosn't [sic] work like that"

It can work like that, and it does.

Sorry, we will have to disagree then

You're not disagreeing with just me, you're disagreeing with the law and the advice given to officers by each force via ACPO.

The law says we "may" seize vehicles. It is therefore discretionary.

The advice on our discretionary powers of seizure state that "Consideration must be given to the human rights implications of seizing a vehicle and the duty of care that may arise to persons left without alternative transport facilities."

Richie-from-the-Boro

sarahh66 Last Activity: Yesterday 12:25 AM - is no longer commenting, but is reading the thread dialy.

The O/P :

- was caught
- admitted no insurance [MID]
- [blamed her mother] admitted to her mothers Aiding and Abetting
- the O/P may have forgotten to tell the group they checked there and then the mothers complicity in MID terms
- the mothers collusion to defraud her insurance company and assist her daughter driving uninsured was admitted
- the mother had her insurance and driving status cleared [MID] instantly
- the mother may be old / infirm / disabled and would have had her mobility as well as her money compromised by 'towing'

A trap was laid, and it is laid, almost 100% of the time per this incident type. The crew concerned were 'quiet' enough by an hour or so to lay and conclude the trap. If (1) drink had been involved, or the luxury of the (2) spare hour had not been available the 'road wars' scenario of seizing the car would have gone forward as the first option.

- the O/P did not fall into the trap .. ..

The crew at that point were cleared to use digression, if they chose to give the mother a financial break, and leave the remainder of the outcomes to the inevitable yet to take place interview and signed statement from the mother and the resulting criminal proceedings they were clear to do so.

I did not, as can be seen by [#29] my use of the italic font in my """You were caught this time""" comment in an earlier thread, believe for one moment it was the first and only time. Its usually the case that the O'P, regardless of her protestations, has been driving that car uninsured on a daily basis, or at least for the 12 months since she lost her job and cancelled her insurance and lost the use of her own vehicle, and on this occasion was rightly caught.

NOTE01 : The mother agreeing to collusion to defraud her insurance company [AIB] and assist her daughter driving uninsured may change over time. When the reality of both the fines and the mothers insurance risk and associated annual costs rises by 200-500% the mother may wish to 'wriggle' and change her statement. This is especially the case if the car was a 'Motability' issued vehicle, or the Tax Disk displayed DLAHRM or other exemption. Equally the daughter may bite into her own bullet and admit TWOC to protect her mother. Either way the address [es], names, and registration number now have a marker and can expect a stop~and~check frequently, even if the car and its reg are changed.

NOTE02 : Now give the 42 [ish] year old kid a break, she was well caught, and deserved to be, but with a bit of luck she'll grind her way through the painful results and she her family and close friends will learn from it and never ever be tempted to drive uninsured .. ever .. .. ever !

Tilt

brat wrote: »

You're not disagreeing with just me, you're disagreeing with the law and the advice given to officers by each force via ACPO.

The law says we "may" seize vehicles. It is therefore discretionary.

The advice on our discretionary powers of seizure state that "Consideration must be given to the human rights implications of seizing a vehicle and the duty of care that may arise to persons left without alternative transport facilities."

Jesus! What I am saying that I do not believe that under the circumstances that the OP has posted that the police, would of given her the leeway that she is saying. As you are saying that you are a police officer, are you seriously asking me to agree that you (for example) would of not seized the vehicle? If not, why not? The Op was found to have no insurance apparently.

Yes, of course I realise there is discretion involved but seriously do I think that it would of worked like it did in the OP's case? Definitely not! If it did, how does the officer at the scene satisfy him/herself that the OP will not simply drive the car away after he has left?

Is it not the police officer's duty to ensure that further offences are not committed?

Calm_Down

Sarah,

It is difficult to answer your questions fully as different police areas do have slightly different ways of dealing with no insurance, however........

In many police areas the standard penalty for driving without insurance is an endorsable fixed penalty ticket which is a £200 fine and 6 points on your licence . In some areas this is issued 'on the spot' but in others may be sent out in the post at a later date. (This can only be done if you have less than 6pts on your licence already)
Alternatively the officer could report you and you would receive a summons to appear at court. This would definitely be done if you already have 6pts or more as you would face a disqisqualification under totting up. The penalty at court would be similar to the £200 and 6 pts. You will NOT go to prison!!!

You should tell your mother, the police may speak to her. If she says she allowed you to drive, she commits the offence of permitting no insurance. Officers MAY look to prosecute her as well. This depends on the individual officer and there are no hard and fast rules as to whether this will or will not happen. (The penalty would be similar).

To clarify a couple of other points -

The police do NOT need any 'reason' to stop you.

Her car MAY have been seized under section 165 of the Road Traffic Act. (The fact it wasn't is fortunate for both of you.).

Hope this helps.

Clioterus

I owned a van a couple of years ago and used to lend it out to friends and family firmly believing they were insured by being fully comp on their own insurance. My dad was stopped during a vosa spot check on commercial vehicles in a layby after they did the fuel checks he was approached by a police officer and asked his name and was subsequently told that he was not covered to drive the vehicle as I was the only named driver! My dad argued the toss that he was covered as he was fully comp on his own car, the officer said they see it all the time and he wouldn't be covered to drive a commercial vehicle.
The police officer then stated the vehicle would be impounded! My dad asked if there was a senior officer present and thankfully there was a sergeant who after my dad asked agreed that as I was covered to drive the vehicle it could be parked in the layby until I could pick it up. My dad told him that it would hit me hard financially and we both genuinely thought we were covered, he received six points and a £375 fine thankfully I never heard anything.I truly believe it should be printed on Your policy that you are not covered to drive a van and it should be in big print not hidden away in the terms and conditions.

sarahh66

thankyou all for answering.
i am going to tell my mum tomorrow what happened.
i regret what i have done and it was the only time (not that that makes any difference)
i notice a few people think i am not giving the full story..i don,t understand why??...
here is what happened again
i was driving car in a housing estate to drop my daughter off
police stopped me
asked if they could have a word
gave me a breath test . i was not driving fast or wobbly or anything so i guess the test is just routine..i do not drink or take drugs (or smoke) except medication for depression. the medication does not affect driving in any way.
police asked if i was insured , i said no.
they took details such as my address and mums details.
they told me i will receive a summons for court /fine about end of january
they said they could take car if they want which will cost me extra etc..they said can they trust me not to redrive car .
they then asked me if i wanted a lift home. i said yes and was given one.

i think police might have stopped me as i was dropping daughter off in a area where they have had trouble with a drug taker/seller and maybe they keep an eye on the area.
i have just got up the courage to answer again today as the negative replys really upsets me.
i am annoyed with myself and wish i had not done it.
thankyou again for all replys.