Car seized for no insurance

Silver-Surfer_2

dacouch wrote: »

The staff are the (Often) dedicted dept to deal with the police at a Insurer are generally better trained than normal insurance staff. However they're not infallible and do make mistakes.

The staff can and do make guesses at policy cover which can result in cars being illegally seized.

Joe Horner's post is factually correct

Well Section 165 states.

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.

If the insurance company say the policy is no longer valid and give dates of their cancellation letters or emails has the person produced evidence of being insured?

I guess it's down to case law but I wouldn't say the seizure is unlawful.

dacouch

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

Well Section 165 states.

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.

If the insurance company say the policy is no longer valid and give dates of their cancellation letters or emails has the person produced evidence of being insured?

I guess it's down to case law but I wouldn't say the seizure is unlawful.

If the driver produced a relevant certificate at the side of the road and the vehicle was seized even if the Insurer had (Incorrectly) stated that the vehicle was not covered. Then the seizure would automatically unlawful.

The Certificate is a legal document, that trumps the database and trumps an insurer's employee giving out incorrect information

Silver-Surfer_2

dacouch wrote: »

If the driver produced a relevant certificate at the side of the road and the vehicle was seized even if the Insurer had (Incorrectly) stated that the vehicle was not covered. Then the seizure would automatically unlawful.

The Certificate is a legal document, that trumps the database and trumps an insurer's employee giving out incorrect information

So if I cancel my policy and carry my insurance certificate my car is unseizable?

What if they send a certificate out in advance and I never renew? How can it be a legal document if there's no contract in place?

Justice13075

No. If an officer does a PNC check on your vehicle and it comes back that the policy is cancelled and you produce the insurance certificate they will check the policy number and then when it was cancelled. If you knowingly show a certificate you know to be cancelled to the officer you will be in deep excrement

dacouch

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

So if I cancel my policy and carry my insurance certificate my car is unseizable?

What if they send a certificate out in advance and I never renew? How can it be a legal document if there's no contract in place?

That's not what JH or I are saying.

A relevant Certificate is a current certificate that has not been cancelled by the Insurer following the cancellation process in their policy booklet. The courts tend to describe it as a relevant certificate.

If you produce a relevant (Valid) certificate and the vehicle is seized, then the seizure is unlawful, despite what the police officers beliefs may be or what the Insurer has said.

All three sections of RTA 165a MUST be satisfied for a vehicle seizure to be legal

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

If the insurance company say the policy is no longer valid and give dates of their cancellation letters or emails has the person produced evidence of being insured?

I guess it's down to case law but I wouldn't say the seizure is unlawful.

Yes it is down to case law and, as it stands, case law has only dealt fully with the situation where cover WAS valid and the insurers incorrectly told the police it wasn't. In that situation it's very clear that the seizure would be unlawful.

One of the judges touched on the question of fake or revoked certificates but failed to develop the point fully because it didn't apply in the case before them.

But it's hard to see how the legality of a decision to seize could hinge on knowledge gained after the event (ie: after there's been time to verify things by more than a roadside phone call to rule out mistakes).

If retrospective considerations like that were allowed then many lawful seizures (where insurance was in place but evidence couldn't be produced) would become retrospectively unlawful and that's already been tested and failed.

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

So if I cancel my policy and carry my insurance certificate my car is unseizable?

No, they can seize what they like.

BUT, until it's been fully established (which a roadside phone call doesn't do) that the insurance has been (a) cancelled and (b) cancelled correctly, seizing once any certificate has been produced is a big risk.

If the certificate turns out to be valid, then it will have been unlawful regardless of any other information gained.

If the certificate turns out NOT to be valid then it may or may not be unlawful depending on any future development of case law.


If the police have suspicions about a certificate then they should do the followiing:

* Accept it on face value with respect to the seizure (ie: don't seize)
* Make sure that accurate details are obtained for the driver so they can find him.
* Check the policy as fully as possible and, if they have good enough evidence that it's invalid, charge the driver with all applicable offences including no insurance and use of the false certificate.

Penalties at that point are much MUCH worse than 6 points, a fine, and having an old banger crushed.

Silver-Surfer_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

No, they can seize what they like.

BUT, until it's been fully established (which a roadside phone call doesn't do) that the insurance has been (a) cancelled and (b) cancelled correctly, seizing once any certificate has been produced is a big risk.

If the certificate turns out to be valid, then it will have been unlawful regardless of any other information gained.

If the certificate turns out NOT to be valid then it may or may not be unlawful depending on any future development of case law.


If the police have suspicions about a certificate then they should do the followiing:

* Accept it on face value with respect to the seizure (ie: don't seize)
* Make sure that accurate details are obtained for the driver so they can find him.
* Check the policy as fully as possible and, if they have good enough evidence that it's invalid, charge the driver with all applicable offences including no insurance and use of the false certificate.

Penalties at that point are much MUCH worse than 6 points, a fine, and having an old banger crushed.

If you suosect the certificate is produced with intent to deceive then why not seize it and then arrest them?

Joe_Horner

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

If you suosect the certificate is produced with intent to deceive then why not seize it and then arrest them?

Because, given plenty of well documented mistakes, the say-so of a call centre operative would NOT be sufficient grounds to arrest on.

Unless you'd prefer that the legal system got tied up with a lot of unlawful arrest, seizure, and general harassment cases against travpol?

Silver-Surfer_2

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Because, given plenty of well documented mistakes, the say-so of a call centre operative would NOT be sufficient grounds to arrest on.

Unless you'd prefer that the legal system got tied up with a lot of unlawful arrest, seizure, and general harassment cases against travpol?

There's enough suspicion so as long as there's a statutory reason arrest would be lawful.

Oh and by seizure I meant the document, a key piece of evidence you appeared willing to let drive off down the road.