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

starrybee

yvonne13 wrote: »

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

Yeah, when I first heard this story I assumed the child was about 6 or something.

A 22 year old shouldn't need mummy coming to the rescue?

yvonne13_2

starrybee wrote: »

Yeah, when I first heard this story I assumed the child was about 6 or something.

A 22 year old shouldn't need mummy coming to the rescue?

I assumed the child was 6 too hence the lack of judgement picking up the child without insurance late at night.

Sorry but at 22 they need to be responsible adults e.g having enough money to get home.

Sgt_Pepper_2

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.

Since you are claiming to be our resident expert on police policy and procedures have you considered this?

The op may have been stopped by a beat car.
So places have a policy where only traffic can seize
Due to it being a public holiday one may not have been available.
Some forces now have a policy where everyone is reported and tickets or summons are sent out later.

All that is current.

dacouch

Muscle750 wrote: »

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

They would seek compensation from her mothers car Insurers who would be obliged to pay if she was "Identified". If she was not identified eg she did a runner they would claim off the MIB who pay claims for uninsured drivers (Funded by levy of circa £30 on each motor policy) although there's a chance they would divert it back to the mother's insurers as well.

Whoever paid out would then go after the OP to reimberse them

sarahg1969

Muscle750 wrote: »

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

In this case, the mother's insurers. If there were no insurance at all, the MIB would compensate an injured party. An injured person would be compensated in exactly the same way as if there were proper insurance cover in place.

mattyprice4004

Jesus, I really don't understand why people drive uninsured.

What if you'd have hit another car? The inconvenience you would have caused other people, as they'd have to chase the 3rd party insurer or the MIB?

Think of others before yourself, how ridiculously selfish. I hope they throw the book at you and give you a fine that'll really make you think.

phill99

arcon5 wrote: »

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)

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.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

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.

Precisely. But how can they possibly know that the OP will not continue to drive after they have left? 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.

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'.

Sgt_Pepper_2

Tilt wrote: »

Precisely. But how can they possibly know that the OP will not continue to drive after they have left? 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.

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'.

Recovery is readily available 24/7 365 days a year.

miduck

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.

I have checked with a Traffic Officer this morning and he agrees that seizure is still not used in all cases, a judgment is made as to the risk of the uninsured driver removing the car and action taken accordingly.

If you want any more details please let me know - he's just finishing his hot chocolate!