car insured 3 months but not on mid!

spacey2012

Iceweasel wrote: »

I have to agree with spacey here - if a policeman, rightly or wrongly, decides to seize your car - all you can do is let him/her seize it and then argue your case in court later.

And I've met polizei who know that and abuse the situation.

Hence why I carry all my docs with me - but even that is no guarantee.

Unfortunately our police service spend 95% of their time dealing with the 5% of the population who are chancers. After a time they see everyone as a chancer, and think they are the norm.:(

Same as teachers - they get told so many lies by pupils they eventually disbelieve all pupils. Then it's time to stop teaching/policing.

Agree 100% what the rules say and what happens are rarely connected.
far better to avoid the situation and make the insurance company put the car on MID, even if the OP has to go to the Ombudsman to get it done.

Joe_Horner

spacey2012 wrote: »

Do you mean illegal ?
What you are quoting is Legislation not case law.

No, I mean unlawful. To reach the level of an illegal act the officer would almost certainly have to be fully aware that he had no power to seize but go ahead anyway - I'm not suggesting for one moment that happens.

As for what I was "quoting", I didn't quote anything - if I had, I would have enclosed it in quotes and provided links to where the quote came from. Something like this:

A constable only has a power to seize an uninsured vehicle (Road Traffic Act 1988, S.165A (3)) when:

RTA wrote:

(3)The second condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,

(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A

That's the legislation bit.

The case law bit was linked in an earlier post, so I won't bother linking it again. But the gist of it (note, this is not a "quote") is that those conditions apply in order. So, if the "evidence" (note the quotes there) is produced then the reasonable suspicion bit never arises.

That's not my opinion, it's a factual matter of case law

In spaceys world, if they say they are seizing your car, you have two choices, the second one ends in handcuffs and a charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer in execution of their duty and a free bed for the night.

No, you have a third choice of explaining (politely) that they have no power to, asking them to note that you've told them in their little book, then having them produce that book to show they were correctly advised when you're suing the arrse off the force for the seizure

But, in practice, the vast majority of police out there are well aware that if a certificate is produced then they take the details and let you go. If it, later, turns out that those details were invalid you're in a lot more trouble than just driving without insurance.

Inch_High_2

spacey2012 wrote: »

Do you mean illegal ?
What you are quoting is Legislation not case law.


In spaceys world, if they say they are seizing your car, you have two choices, the second one ends in handcuffs and a charge of wilfully obstructing a police officer in execution of their duty and a free bed for the night.

Wrong again.

The officer would not be acting lawfully so you would not be charged.

We are in the real world not yours.

spacey2012

if we are to discuss, I think the test is a "valid" certificate.
Now how do you think and officer at roadside validates your certificate.

A : by calling the said company on a telephone
B: by taking your word for it.

And for a bonus point what do you think happens if said officer is unable to verify this certificate.

Iceweasel

Two points occur to me here:

1. How does one actually prevent a police officer from doing something that is unlawful / or they don't have the power to do?

I mean right there at the time. Especially traffic ones who think they know everything, and wouldn't let on even if they were unsure.

2. Does every insurance company have a 24 hour hot-line for the use of suspicious police officers?

I reckon they are only available 8 hours a day, 5 days a week - if you're lucky and even then you'll have to listen to endless choices.

dacouch

Iceweasel wrote: »

Two points occur to me here:

1. How does one actually prevent a police officer from doing something that is unlawful / or they don't have the power to do?

I mean right there at the time. Especially traffic ones who think they know everything, and wouldn't let on even if they were unsure.

2. Does every insurance company have a 24 hour hot-line for the use of suspicious police officers?

I reckon they are only available 8 hours a day, 5 days a week - if you're lucky and even then you'll have to listen to endless choices.

The vast majority of Insurers have a direct telephone number for traffic officers to ring the Insurers and speak to staff who are more experienced than the normal. These tend to be open about ten hours a day

Inch_High_2

spacey2012 wrote: »

if we are to discuss, I think the test is a "valid" certificate.
Now how do you think and officer at roadside validates your certificate.

A : by calling the said company on a telephone
B: by taking your word for it.

And for a bonus point what do you think happens if said officer is unable to verify this certificate.

So you're now suggesting they all breach force policy and the rta.

You sir are an idiot.

spacey2012

dacouch wrote: »

The vast majority of Insurers have a direct telephone number for traffic officers to ring the Insurers and speak to staff who are more experienced than the normal. These tend to be open about ten hours a day

Outside this, they are unable to validate your valid certificate.
The car will usually be seized until you can.

To be honest what other system would you prefer, let insured drivers flash a phone screen grab and drive away.

To be honest I favour the seize it and prove it later method.
Having had a child be a victim of someone who should not have been driving, I would support anything that spares any parent that knock on the door.

thenudeone

spacey2012 wrote: »

If they were to let you go and you drive another hundred yards and kill a full family and it turns out it was a fake after all.
The traffic cop has just lost his pension.

What rubbish.

Losing his pension? What for? For failing to exceed his legal authority?

If the car can't legally be seized, it will be a brave copper who decides to seize it anyway, with the internet giving everyone immediate access to the relevant legislation and with solicitors offering to sue the police on a no win no fee basis.

Seasoned coppers know that, unfortunately, guilty people get away with things all the time, but most of them realise that that doesn't justify them getting disciplined for exceeding their authority in order to get a "result".

dacouch

spacey2012 wrote: »

Outside this, they are unable to validate your valid certificate.
The car will usually be seized until you can.

To be honest what other system would you prefer, let insured drivers flash a phone screen grab and drive away.

To be honest I favour the seize it and prove it later method.
Having had a child be a victim of someone who should not have been driving, I would support anything that spares any parent that knock on the door.

If they can't validate the certificate they should give a seven day wonder unless they have very good reasons to suspect the certificate is not valid.

That's how the law was drawn up to protect all involved.