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

Oli.s

I can assure you there is no 'loop hole' just because they didnt seize the car, there is no legal requirement to seize the car, just a power to seize it if desired.

They likley made the judgement on the likleyhood of you sneaking back around the block and driving it away based on the way you presented yourself to them, and decided you would do as instructed.

What they have told you is perfectly correct in that it would cost you (your mum) a significant amount of money if they had of siezed the car, which would have been circa £120 for the tow away, plus circe £15-£20 per day storage, your mum would have had to go to a police station, with her insurance documents, licence etc to obtain a release note and then go to the garage (in working hours) to collect the car and pay the bill.

They most likley didnt want to be stuck waiting with your car for whilst they got hold of a recovery truck company on xmas day to come and tow it away when they were likley to be busy with other stuff that was more pressing.

Your looking at min 6 points, and a fine, if they involve your mother 6 would also be looking at 6 points and a fine.

There is also no requirement for them to have a reason to stop you, they dont have to suspect you have done anything, its not like america.

Muscle750

Are you on this planet firstly if she had an accident big or small with no insurance she would be deep water end of.
If she had maimed or even worse who would they seek compensation of
End of the day there are many uninsured drivers on our roads which is getting worse with now so many Polish and Bulgarian plated cars on the roads which aren't traceable
She maybe the best driver ever but accidents happen and I've worked in the car accident repair business 30 years to prove it and we got so much work on now its getting stupid

Altarf

Muscle750 wrote: »

which is getting worse with now so many Polish and Bulgarian plated cars on the roads which aren't traceable

Thanks. I now know what I need to know about you.

Muscle750

Which is enlighten me I'm all ears?

prowla

Poppy9 wrote: »

How does driving uninsured kill your daughters?

She wasn't drunk or under the influence of drugs, she is not a banned driver so the chances of an accident were the same as an insured driver.

So, a woman in her 40s hasn't driven for over a year, and chose to go out late at night in somebody else's car.

phill99

This forum is brilliant. 100 barrack room lawyers arguing over a topic on which they know very little with facts that they are mostly making up.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

As thenudeone says, the police should of seized the car under the circumstances.

The police can and should be discretionary regarding the seizure of vehicles. The primary purpose of seizure is to prevent continuation of its uninsured use. It is not a punishment. We must also consider the rights of the owner and insured user of the vehicle. If there is no likelihood that it is going to continue to be driven uninsured, we should give serious consideration to not seizing it.

arcon5

phill99 wrote: »

This forum is brilliant. 100 barrack room lawyers arguing over a topic on which they know very little with facts that they are mostly making up.

Maybe you could share your superior knowledge with us all?

Or at least point out the legal bits that are incorrect? (especially since there is very little legal information in this thread)

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Muscle750 wrote: »

More to the point what if you've of ploughed into someone and killed them you would have more to worry about than a few points and a falling out with your mother

A statement that makes little sense.

Do you mean that not being a named driver on their mother's insurance makes them a more dangerous driver than if they were? If so, I would like to see the evidence for this assertion.

Do you mean that if they killed someone, irrespective of the insurance position, then they would have a bigger problem than being stopped for have no insurance? If so, then that is stating the bleedin obvious.

Do you mean that if they had killed someone whilst driving with no insurance then they would have greater problems than someone who killed someone whilst driving with insurance? It may just be me, but I think the issue of having killed someone would pretty much eclipse any other problem, insurance or no insurance.

Or do you really mean, I hate uninsured drivers?

Off the top of my head, I believe there are stats that say that uninsured drivers are 9 times more likely to be involved in a collision than insured drivers.
There are of course many subsets of uninsured drivers, but those who wish to misuse the stat won't consider that for a moment.

yvonne13_2

sarahh66 wrote: »

my mum has a eye infection so her eyes are watering non stop.
i was scared to let my daughter walk home alone as she lives in a block of flats , she is 22 and single and there is a few drug taking males living nearby.
i worry.
i have asked her to give up her flat and move back home but she quite likes living alone.

Sorry but why didn't she get a taxi home?