Vehicle seizure recovery problem

Marktheshark

For the more technically minded members, it may also appear that when police interfere in a valid insurance policy contract and persuade the insurance to cancel the contract they may be acting illegally under a new legislative act.
They often call the insurance stating would you cancel the insurance on the word of our information.

The new legislation is section 26
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Which makes it an offence for a constable to interfere or cause action which is detrimental to a person without lawful authority (A court order)
I would say bullying an insurance comapny to cancel someone's insurance so they can get a browny point for seizing the car would more than fall under the act.
Search Legislation
Title:

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges

(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—

(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and

(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.

(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).

(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;

(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;

(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;

(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—

(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or

(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and

(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).

(6)The first case is where—

(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.

(9)In this section—

“benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;

“United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.

(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.

(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

dacouch

BillyFord wrote: »

His car wasn't impounded for no insurance, it's was for driving otherwise in accordance with a licence.

I can't see the OP stating that.

Many Traffic Cops do not understand Insurance fully, Mark on the ball regarding whether the Insurance Certificate says to the effect Gunnapaul is an insured driver providing he holds or has held a licence.

If you look on your own Certificate it's very likely to say similar which means he was insured at the time of the stop

BillyFord

dacouch wrote: »

I can't see the OP stating that.

Many Traffic Cops do not understand Insurance fully, Mark on the ball regarding whether the Insurance Certificate says to the effect Gunnapaul is an insured driver providing he holds or has held a licence.

If you look on your own Certificate it's very likely to say similar which means he was insured at the time of the stop

Have another read then.

Licence expired five days before the stop. Medical reasons means it expires every three years so he loses his entitlement to drive after 3 years not when he's 70. So his car was taken for driving otherwise than in accordance. Marktheshark is wrong, the seizure has nothing to do with insurance.

It's civilian staff in the front office who are not understanding this and not the cops.

BillyFord

Marktheshark wrote: »

For the more technically minded members, it may also appear that when police interfere in a valid insurance policy contract and persuade the insurance to cancel the contract they may be acting illegally under a new legislative act.
They often call the insurance stating would you cancel the insurance on the word of our information.

The new legislation is section 26
Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Which makes it an offence for a constable to interfere or cause action which is detrimental to a person without lawful authority (A court order)
I would say bullying an insurance comapny to cancel someone's insurance so they can get a browny point for seizing the car would more than fall under the act.
Search Legislation
Title:

Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015
Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges

(1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she—

(a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and

(b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper.

(2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).

(3)The police constables referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a)a constable of a police force in England and Wales;

(b)a special constable for a police area in England and Wales;

(c)a constable or special constable of the British Transport Police Force;

(d)a constable of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary;

(e)a constable of the Ministry of Defence Police;

(f)a National Crime Agency officer designated under section 9 or 10 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 as having the powers and privileges of a constable.

(4)For the purposes of this section, a police constable exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly if—

(a)he or she exercises a power or privilege of a constable for the purpose of achieving—

(i)a benefit for himself or herself, or

(ii)a benefit or a detriment for another person, and

(b)a reasonable person would not expect the power or privilege to be exercised for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(5)For the purposes of this section, a police constable is to be treated as exercising the powers and privileges of a constable improperly in the cases described in subsections (6) and (7).

(6)The first case is where—

(a)the police constable fails to exercise a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the purpose of the failure is to achieve a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to fail to exercise the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(7)The second case is where—

(a)the police constable threatens to exercise, or not to exercise, a power or privilege of a constable,

(b)the threat is made for the purpose of achieving a benefit or detriment described in subsection (4)(a), and

(c)a reasonable person would not expect a constable to threaten to exercise, or not to exercise, the power or privilege for the purpose of achieving that benefit or detriment.

(8)An offence is committed under this section if the act or omission in question takes place in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters.

(9)In this section—

“benefit” and “detriment” mean any benefit or detriment, whether or not in money or other property and whether temporary or permanent;

“United Kingdom waters” means the sea and other waters within the seaward limits of the United Kingdom’s territorial sea.

(10)References in this section to exercising, or not exercising, the powers and privileges of a constable include performing, or not performing, the duties of a constable.

(11)Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office at common law in England and Wales or Northern Ireland.

Why would they need to bully the insurance company?
You do realise that 165 covers no licence, don't you?

facade

sheramber wrote: »

Some policies state they do not cover impounded vehicles so the police want to ensure that your exisitng insurance covers it.

If not ,you will need to buy specific insurance for it.
A Google search will give you several hits,

But that's insane: they impound a properly insured car, for nothing to do with insurance, then say the insurance doesn't cover you to recover it and is effectively no longer valid because it is now the other side of a fence???

To get a car out of impound, you need the V5, some identification, a driving licence, and proof of insurance. Are they now saying that RTA insurance does not cover driving a car through a gate onto the road?

Like I suggested, ask at Peppipoo, there are people there who have a lot of experience in these matters.

facade

Ectophile wrote: »

On my policy the "drive any car you don't own" clause specifically excludes recovering a car from a pound.

The intent is to stop you getting your mate to collect your uninsured car for you and then you carry on driving it uninsured, they want to see that the car is insured before they release it.

Semantics I know, but the BIL's insurance won't apply until the car is on the highway, he isn't using it to release the car, the OP has valid insurance on the car to release it already, but cannot drive it.

BillyFord

facade wrote: »

But that's insane: they impound a properly insured car, for nothing to do with insurance, then say the insurance doesn't cover you to recover it and is effectively no longer valid because it is now the other side of a fence???

To get a car out of impound, you need the V5, some identification, a driving licence, and proof of insurance. Are they now saying that RTA insurance does not cover driving a car through a gate onto the road?

Like I suggested, ask at Peppipoo, there are people there who have a lot of experience in these matters.

Will pepipoo know force policy and why someone is misunderstanding the legislation? Probably not. You can get a vehicle out on a trade policy. This is a clear cut case of a jobsworth not knowing the law.
/wwwdotsurrey.police.uk/About-Us/Our-policies-and-procedures/InfoItemId/347

worried_jim

BillyFord wrote: »

Have another read then.

Licence expired five days before the stop. Medical reasons means it expires every three years so he loses his entitlement to drive after 3 years not when he's 70. So his car was taken for driving otherwise than in accordance. Marktheshark is wrong, the seizure has nothing to do with insurance.

It's civilian staff in the front office who are not understanding this and not the cops.

I have a medical license which was due to expire on Dec 24th, my renewal docs came through on Oct 1st and I sent them back the same day. On Monday this week I called the DVLA as nothing had come back- they were very helpful and let me know that they had received my forms but the medical dept had ab approx 10 week turn around at present.

They did say they if they hadn't arrived by Dec 24th I would still be okay to drive, they let me know which part of the Act covers this but I don't remember. Anyway expecting along wait my new license arrived yesterday.

OP- expect about ten weeks to get your license back.

Minrich

There will be a person or persons in charge of seized vehicles in the force that seized your car . Speak to them , they can override any front desk civilian who are hindering your collection.

BillyFord

I can't believe a so called professional driver would allow himself to get in such a mess.