Vehicle Incorrectly Seized

Car_54

George333 wrote: »

I read it as he hasn't been charged and has had a conditional offer of a fixed penalty notice.

According to post #1, he has had a COFP but has opted for court.

George333

Car_54 wrote: »

According to post #1, he has had a COFP but has opted for court.

So he hasn't been charged yet.

DUTR

CCPECP wrote: »

I applied a private plate from DVLA and notified my insurance on 11/11/19. On 13/11/19 I was pulled for no insurance and no plate. Police didn't even give me the opportunity to show documents and seized my vehicle even though it was showing insured on askmid and I had all my supporting documents. They now have sent me 6 points and a £300 fine and i have opted for a court hearing. My insurance has investigated and so have DVLA and now i have evidence everything was done on my side and their side but the police computer database was slow to show the changes. I have since then had an article on The Sun


Where i have undergone defamation in the comments section as people are finding the story difficult to believe. I am a recent graduate, i work, i am heavily distressed and now going to ask my GP for prescriptions to help me deal. It has affected my credit score, financial loss of £321.10 thus far, accumulating overdraft interest daily, affecting my career prospects and personal life and i am receiving slander when people recognise my vehicle leading to humiliation and distraught. I have done nothing wrong at all and feel as i was racially discriminated.

Since i have obtained and investigated to conclude the required evidence to point blame at West Midlands Police, they have stopped replying to my emails as the only method of appeal to the Vehicle Recovery Unit.

Now i want to go to court to be compensated and reimbursed and get my points and fines cleared.

My question is, how much can i claim in compensation for all of the above? How do i proceed?

Dude you are sounding like a spoilt brat, if that incident is all you describe you have a long way to go in life.

Aylesbury_Duck

CCPECP wrote: »

Do you know how graduate schemes work? In application for 2020 ones with loads of successful firms. Low paid job? My job pays £28/hr overtime lol and i’m there part time. Not that it has anything to do with you? Do you even have a degree like Chemical Engineering? or did you graduate in business management 😂

Are you even old enough to have a licence? You sound like you're 14. Grow up, you're embarrassing yourself. Again.

Scrapit

CCPECP wrote: »

Do you know how graduate schemes work? In application for 2020 ones with loads of successful firms. Low paid job? My job pays £28/hr overtime lol and i’m there part time. Not that it has anything to do with you? Do you even have a degree like Chemical Engineering? or did you graduate in business management 😂

Bragging about a career you don't yet have?
You do have a lot to learn. Helluva lot.

unholyangel

Hang on a minute, the offence isn't not being insured. Its failing to provide proof of insurance.

I just mention this as the OP hasn't said whether this has happened yet, although has stated they weren't interested at the time or when he went to get his car released. And there is no exception to the offence for proving during proceedings that you were insured at the time of the request. In fact, its explicitly worded to have proved it before proceedings are commenced. I can't speak as to the officers who stopped OP, but (having never had a vehicle seized myself but having had to produce documents at a station) was it the station you'd need to pay/produce to have the vehicle released? Isn't one of the conditions of release that you need to provide proof of insurance?

OP, you're not doing yourself any favours. I know you likely may be worked up at the situation itself, but you really cannot bemoan the attention the sun has gotten you when it was a choice of your own making. Unforeseen by you, yes,. But still caused by you. To be brutally honest, you're doing quite a good job of living up to modern views of millennial snowflakes - taking a molehill and making it into a mountain.

My aim isn't to offend, just relay my impression of your posts and (hopefully) help you understand why people might be responding as they are. You still always get a few of course, but I think the general reception would have been better.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

Hang on a minute, the offence isn't not being insured. Its failing to provide proof of insurance.

No, that is 100% wrong. The offence is indeed driving without insurance.
Failure to provide proof is not an offence, but it may be a reason to seize the vehicle.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

No, that is 100% wrong. The offence is indeed driving without insurance.
Failure to provide proof is not an offence, but it may be a reason to seize the vehicle.

I'm going to snip bits that aren't strictly relevant but the offence the police quote in the sun is not the one you're thinking of (keeping or using an uninsured vehicle).

(1)Any of the following persons—
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road
must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination.

(2)Those documents are—
(a)the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security (within the meaning of Part VI of this Act), or such other evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 of this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State,

(3)Subject to subsection (4) below, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence.

(4)A person shall not be convicted of an offence under [F4subsection (3)] above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence F5. . . if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—
(a)within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or
(b)it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or
(c)it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,

The police said section 165 of the RTA, not 143. An entirely different offence.

Car_54

unholyangel wrote: »

I'm going to snip bits that aren't strictly relevant but the offence the police quote in the sun is not the one you're thinking of (keeping or using an uninsured vehicle).



The police said section 165 of the RTA, not 143. An entirely different offence.

Section 165A does not define an offence, it simply defines the powers of seizure. The underlying offence is that of using an uninsured vehicle, section 143.

Mr.Generous

For those who think the police only seize vehicles when they should and it's somehow deserved I'm not convinced. Police officers having a bad day show attitude just like anybody else, and some use their powers when they know they shouldn't really.



My boss many years ago had a bump in the snow and a traffic officer said his company BMW wasn't insured and would be seized. He tried all sorts and in the end he said go for it, I won't be able to work - but if you think a big multi national business doesn't insure cars you are wrong. The officer made a couple of phone calls and didn't seize the car in the end.



I have had a car seized. Different circumstances but still a pain in the !!!! and quite costly. My car was seized for "being used in commission of a crime" or similar. Guess what? It wasn't and in fact the police realised there had been no crime. But that's after they've taken the car. Police investigations move at snails pace.



A young person in care made a vexatious allegation against me which quickly unravelled as false - they were (and probably still are) a serial false accuser. I am aware of 1 poor sod they have accused 3 times of committing crimes against them and each time he has been arrested then released.


It didn't help me at the time, and the cost of recovery was never refunded. The police claimed they were acting as a result of information supplied and suggested I recovered my losses from the kid in care. They said they have to take allegations seriously and it was right and propper to seize etc. They did say they would refer the matter to Prof Stds but I never heard anything, and to some extent you just want to put it all behind you. I was arrested and held for a few hours, its bloody awful. If you are thinking no smoke without fire then talk to someone who has worked with problematic children!! One allegation was made against someone as a reason for being late home for tea !!!!!!!!



Not entirely relevant to the OP's position but some similarities. I explained to the officer that I had done nothing wrong and that the accuser had a habit of making allegations when ever they were in any trouble. The officer was accompanied by a young atractive WPC special constable who perhaps he thought was impressed with the macho way he dealt with me. He made a flipant remark along the lines of "what will the neighbors say when we turn up with a low loader and take your car away"



This did really happen, If someone else had told me prior to my experience I would have doubted it. The police can and do abuse powers at times. The PC seizing my car didn't give a damn what I said, he just did it. Basically I had to get my brother to drive me down to get the car back the next day, and my phone the day after!!



Its entirely possible the OP has done nothing wrong. And a Seat Cupra is fast. Very fast if its a 300 bhp+ car. I think that influences the officer to some extent. Envy? Assuming it won't be insured from past experience? Who knows.


OP you may not get your money back from the seizure if they stick to the script of seized correctly under RTA powers. If you get a solicitor it might be a different story.



I'm not anti police, I dont have an attitude I was 50 yrs old when it happened to me. In the course of my working life I have dealt with police 100's of times, and probably on half a dozen occasions the Police officer has had the problem attitude. A very small percentage, but 1 is too many.