Car seized MID showing no insurance but was insured

thenudeone

ChumLee wrote: »

He still shouldn't be charged on this occasion, but we need the op to report back on that.

The law does not require the MID to be 100% accurate all the time, but as long as the officer believes the driver is uninsured (which can include using information from the MID), AND no certificate is produced at the time, a seizure is legal.

Proving later that the vehicle and driver were actually insured does not mean that the seizure was illegal or that the fees will be refunded.

It's up to the officer to demonstrate why they believed the vehicle was uninsured. The law on seizure doesn't even mention the MID, but that's obviously one important piece of information.
During office hours it would be expected that a claim that insurance is in place could be checked with a telephone call, as part of the process of the officer forming their belief that it is uninsured, but there isn't a rigid rule.

Provided the officer can justify their belief that it was uninsured, and no certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was legal and the Police have acted within the rights given to them by Parliament, so I can't see them refunding the recovery costs.

Expired policy information is not automatically made available to Police, so that can't form part of the process.

If the OP had a copy of the certificate (on paper or an electronic copy on a smartphone) and produced it at the time, then it would not be possible to legally seize the vehicle.

Being prosecuted for no insurance is a completely separate matter. The OP should contact the Police ASAP providing evidence of insurance, to try to stop the prosecution proceeding. The OP should have been offered 7 days to produce the certificate of insurance at a police station of their choice - has this been done?

JJ_Egan

I always keep a copy in the boot just in case .

ChumLee

thenudeone wrote: »

The law does not require the MID to be 100% accurate all the time, but as long as the officer believes the driver is uninsured (which can include using information from the MID), AND no certificate is produced at the time, a seizure is legal.

Proving later that the vehicle and driver were actually insured does not mean that the seizure was illegal or that the fees will be refunded.

It's up to the officer to demonstrate why they believed the vehicle was uninsured. The law on seizure doesn't even mention the MID, but that's obviously one important piece of information.
During office hours it would be expected that a claim that insurance is in place could be checked with a telephone call, as part of the process of the officer forming their belief that it is uninsured, but there isn't a rigid rule.

Provided the officer can justify their belief that it was uninsured, and no certificate was produced at the time, the seizure was legal and the Police have acted within the rights given to them by Parliament, so I can't see them refunding the recovery costs.

Expired policy information is not automatically made available to Police, so that can't form part of the process.

If the OP had a copy of the certificate (on paper or an electronic copy on a smartphone) and produced it at the time, then it would not be possible to legally seize the vehicle.

Being prosecuted for no insurance is a completely separate matter. The OP should contact the Police ASAP providing evidence of insurance, to try to stop the prosecution proceeding. The OP should have been offered 7 days to produce the certificate of insurance at a police station of their choice - has this been done?

If he was insured at the time of the seizure then he won't be charged. Out of interest have you ever read any of the force policies regarding seizure and payment?

thenudeone

ChumLee wrote: »

If he was insured at the time of the seizure then he won't be charged. Out of interest have you ever read any of the force policies regarding seizure and payment?

If the driver was insured then he won't be charged with the offence; but if the seizure was lawful (which is a different question to whether the driver was insured) then the driver / owner will still have to pay the recovery costs.

There is no scope in law for the police to refund costs when a lawful seizure has taken place (although it happens occasionally).

For example, Surrey's website states categoriocally:

By law, the registered keeper or owner has the responsibility to pay for the vehicle to be recovered and any associated storage costs. Fees are set in law and cannot be varied.

http://www.surrey.police.uk/About-Us/Our-policies-and-procedures/InfoItemId/347#sthash.iLo3jDZQ.dpuf

.. and some forces have historically resisted legal action against them even when "it was “plain as a pikestaff” " (according to the judge) that they did not have the legal authority to seize the vehicle [Pryor v Greater Manchester Police 2011] (although this case was about unlawful interference and not just the refund of fees)
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

ChumLee

thenudeone wrote: »

If the driver was insured then he won't be charged with the offence; but if the seizure was lawful (which is a different question to whether the driver was insured) then the driver / owner will still have to pay the recovery costs.

There is no scope in law for the police to refund costs when a lawful seizure has taken place (although it happens occasionally).

For example, Surrey's website states categoriocally:

By law, the registered keeper or owner has the responsibility to pay for the vehicle to be recovered and any associated storage costs. Fees are set in law and cannot be varied.

http://www.surrey.police.uk/About-Us/Our-policies-and-procedures/InfoItemId/347#sthash.iLo3jDZQ.dpuf

.. and some forces have historically resisted legal action against them even when "it was “plain as a pikestaff” " (according to the judge) that they did not have the legal authority to seize the vehicle [Pryor v Greater Manchester Police 2011] (although this case was about unlawful interference and not just the refund of fees)
http://www.legalknowledgescotland.com/?p=263

Fees can't be varied but can be and often are overridden by the forces Vehicle Recovery Manager.

Marktheshark

You write to the chief constable to claim a refund on fees placing it as part of a complaint that the officer failed in his duty to check he was acting with due diligence and relied upon a system that has been proven in many thousands of cases to be unreliable as proof of insurance.
Demand they refund the loss caused.
Legal beagles can talk you through the LBC to send to get their attention.

ChumLee

Marktheshark wrote: »

You write to the chief constable to claim a refund on fees placing it as part of a complaint that the officer failed in his duty to check he was acting with due diligence and relied upon a system that has been proven in many thousands of cases to be unreliable as proof of insurance.
Demand they refund the loss caused.
Legal beagles can talk you through the LBC to send to get their attention.

Read the wording of the act, out of hours when the MIB and insurance offices are closed. There is no insurance on the database and the driver fails to produce insurance, how has the officer failed to check? You really are a liability with the advice you give out.

thenudeone

ChumLee wrote: »

Read the wording of the act, out of hours when the MIB and insurance offices are closed. There is no insurance on the database and the driver fails to produce insurance, how has the officer failed to check? You really are a liability with the advice you give out.

/\ /\ This

thenudeone

MarktheShark - Nice try, but you won't be surprised to hear that Police forces get dozens of letters "huffing and puffing" like this every week, and they are pretty good at dealing with ones with no substance to them.

The driver did not produce a certificate of insurance on request to police. That has been an offence for at least 25 years and still is an offence. Once that offence has been committed, parliament has given police certain powers to seize vehicles.
Given the information given here, the law on seizure appears to have been complied with.
I suggest you go and read it before giving people false hope of claiming a refund when the police have acted within their powers and a refund is therefore very unlikely.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A