Car impounded - advice needed

Aretnap

The police are entitled to seize the car if they reasonably believe that the person driving it is not insured, and he fails to produce a certificate to show that he is insured. That's the bottom line I'm afraid. Your opinion on whether or not they should have seized it doesn't change the fact that they were entitled to do it if they saw fit.

It's a discretionary power and sometimes if there's an insured driver (eg your wife) available to take over driving they'll let her take over rather than seizing it, but they don't have to do that, and they're certainly not going to do it if she's been drinking.

Inch_High_2

worstluckever wrote: »

No spare key, but that's irrelevant, what's to stop me getting back in it when out the pound? What's to stop a drink driver downing half a bottle of whiskey before he gets back in his car after being released? My argument is the car is insured so could have been left on the roadside I'd already been done for no insurance I accept that. I'd understand if they took it away with no insurance at all. It's like someone knocking at your door to say you've no TV licence then take your cooker away, there's no reason other than to make someone 150 quid!

No, it's like them taking your telly for no TV licence not your cooker.

You took the gamble now man up and deal with the consequences.

worstluckever

AdrianC wrote: »

The difference is that somebody who is hit and injured by a drink driver will get compensation from that driver's insurance.
If you'd hit and injured somebody, there would have been no payment at all, since you were driving whilst uninsured.

In addition, a drink-driver would have been at the police station, so unable to collect the vehicle. You were free to walk home and get the spare key to recover the vehicle, continuing to drive uninsured.

So your saying you'd rather have drink drivers on the road than uninsured ones? I think if the car has insurance they can't take it but if I were to get back in it or if the car has moved within the next 24 hrs they would have the right to size the car for disposal, that would be a better way, or a simple clamp for 24 hrs at a smaller charge would be far better idea, what do you think?

tykesi

What we think is irrelevant. They have the power to seize it, they exercised that power.

Of course you're going to be aggrieved that they did so as you are the one inconvenienced by them taking the car.

worstluckever

Inch_High wrote: »

No, it's like them taking your telly for no TV licence not your cooker.

You took the gamble now man up and deal with the consequences.

But that's the point, they don't take your TV away you just get fined and your TV stays for you to still view. As I said in my original post I accept the charge for driving with no insurance and will pay the fine and take the points for that. I will also pay the charge to get the car out. I'm just puzzled as to why they take an insured car away, to me it's just a double whammy and inconvenience fine. If they think I'm gonna get back in it straight away they could just clamp it for 24hrs at a smaller charge. Your obviously on the cops side or are a cop cos your no help to anyone.

AdrianC

worstluckever wrote: »

So your saying you'd rather have drink drivers on the road than uninsured ones?

Did you even read the bit you just quoted?

worstluckever

tykesi wrote: »

What we think is irrelevant. They have the power to seize it, they exercised that power.

Of course you're going to be aggrieved that they did so as you are the one inconvenienced by them taking the car.

Your absolutely right they do have the power and enjoy excersising that power at the inconvenience of tax paying, hard working people. They're only interested in making money to keep themselves in a job which is OK. If you remember the police were in line to have job cuts then they induced riots round the country to make everyone think we need them in 2010. All that got swept under the carpet since and cuts for them forgotten about. That's what it's really about.

AdrianC

worstluckever wrote: »

at the inconvenience of tax paying, hard working people.

Did you miss a "law-abiding" from that? Oh, wait. Of course you didn't.

societys_child

worstluckever wrote: »

Your absolutely right they do have the power and enjoy excersising that power at the inconvenience of tax paying, hard working people. They're only interested in making money to keep themselves in a job which is OK. If you remember the police were in line to have job cuts then they induced riots round the country to make everyone think we need them in 2010. All that got swept under the carpet since and cuts for them forgotten about. That's what it's really about.

Surely you meant to say:

"Your absolutely right they do have the power and enjoy exercising that power at the inconvenience of tax paying, hard working, uninsured people". . . . the rest is just waffle and nothing to do with this discussion

kizkiz

worstluckever wrote: »

. They're only interested in making money to keep themselves in a job which is OK. If you remember the police were in line to have job cuts then they induced riots round the country to make everyone think we need them in 2010. .

Oh dear.
With that sort of opinion there's really no point bothering to explain any further to you is there?
I can only suggest that you put your tinfoil hat on in case the thought police get to you