Car impounded - advice needed

worstluckever

They should be doing your misses for using the vehicle without insurance too. [/QUOTE]

No your wrong cos she's insured, it's her car, but he could have done her for permitting me to use it but you could argue she'd had a drink and her decision making not 100%

worstluckever

topdaddy wrote: »

You are the criminal. Popo did nothing wrong. You and your doris could have got a cab for a tenner and none of this would have happened.
Wouldnt be the first person rightfully punished to complain about it though.

Not complaining about being punished, I'm complaining about the car being taken away even tho it had insurance. It could have been left, but no one seems to be able to understand or help so I give up on here now so you'll all be glad. Go find someone else to rubber neck at and put your unhelpful oar in.

worstluckever

kizkiz wrote: »

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

You used to listen to Talk Sport when Tommy from Glasgow used to be on Mike Graham's show, I can tell.

AdrianC

worstluckever wrote: »

AdrianC wrote:

Strange definition of "all".

Yes 'all' points and fine. As I said I'm not happy with insured car taken away.

Like I say - strange definition of "all". "I'm happy with it all, except the bit I'm not happy with."

Look, the £150 to get the car de-impounded is a drop in the ocean of the costs you're going to be facing over the next 5-6 years...

worstluckever wrote: »

but you could argue she'd had a drink and her decision making not 100%

Do you think that'd stand up in court? Just for this particular case, or for any and every offence?
"Yes, I'm very sorry, yeronner, but I was !!!!ed and not thinking straight."
That'd be the prison overcrowding sorted.

Quentin

worstluckever wrote: »

Not complaining about being punished, I'm complaining about the car being taken away even tho it had insurance. It could have been left, but no one seems to be able to understand or help so I give up on here now so you'll all be glad. Go find someone else to rubber neck at and put your unhelpful oar in.

It's irrelevant that you say the car " had insurance".

In fact there was no insurance cover for the car.
Had you damaged it the insurer would have rejected the claim.

Had you damaged someone's property the insurer would have pursued you to reimburse them any payments they had to make.

Had you injured someone you could be facing bankruptcy as well as all the other trouble you now in

rdr

societys_child wrote: »

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

Not to mention lazy, it was 1 mile home - 20 minutes stroll, perfectly possible to walk home. Wife doesn't seem too bright either - drive somewhere, drink and no plan to get home safely and legally.
There really are people out there with driving licences who you wouldn't trust to do you photocopying.

AdrianC

rdr wrote: »

Not to mention lazy, it was 1 mile home - 20 minutes stroll

<wipes tear of laughter away> I missed that bit... Priceless.

Aretnap

AdrianC wrote: »

Do you think that'd stand up in court? Just for this particular case, or for any and every offence?
"Yes, I'm very sorry, yeronner, but I was !!!!ed and not thinking straight."
That'd be the prison overcrowding sorted.

Voluntary intoxication is not generally a defence to crimes of basic intent (most offences, where recklessness is sufficient to form the mens rea), and certainly not to strict liability offences (most motoring offences, where no mens rea is required at all). However it can be a defence to certain crimes such as murder or GBH with intent if your drunkenness prevents you from forming the specific intent to kill/cause GBH. Not that that would help the wife of course.

ado

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.

Don't let a few facts get in the way of your blinkered anti police attitude.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/29/police-numbers-fall-by-3488-officers

A further 3,488 police officer jobs have disappeared over the past year as the home secretary Theresa May's 20% cut to the police budget have continued to bite.

The latest batch of Home Office police workforce statistics show that total officer numbers in England and Wales fell in the 12 months to September by 2.6%, or 3,488, to 128,351 or their full-time equivalents.

Officer numbers are now 15,995 below their historic peak of 144,353 in September 2009 – eight months before the election of the current government. The total police workforce appears to have fallen by just over 30,000 during the same period.

And on the subject of uninsured drivers...http://stayinsured.askmid.com/seized.html

More than one million cars have been taken off the road since police were granted powers to seize uninsured vehicles in 2005. Topping the 'most seized' list over the last three years is the Ford Transit, but some of the more eye-catching vehicles seized include tractors, horse boxes and camper vans.

MIB's Ashton West continues: "We're on the side of honest motorists, who pick up a £400 million tab for uninsured driving. Seizing uninsured vehicles sends a clear message to those breaking the law.

"Having your car seized is an expensive, inconvenient and embarrassing experience, and rightly so. If it's your vehicle it's your responsibility to make sure it's insured correctly."

Police do have discretion whether to seize a vehicle or not but the power sometimes is linked to the driver's attitude and I suspect that in your case you probably failed the attitude test by being argumentative and talking your way into getting the car seized.

topdaddy_2

worstluckever wrote: »

Not complaining about being punished, I'm complaining about the car being taken away even tho it had insurance. It could have been left, but no one seems to be able to understand or help so I give up on here now so you'll all be glad. Go find someone else to rubber neck at and put your unhelpful oar in.

Not going the way you and your alchy wife want , eh crim? Shame that.