Vehicle Incorrectly Seized

esmerobbo

If I remember right from the old Hort1 days and to put it simply the actual offence is committed when you can not produce a certificate of insurance or other such indemnity however if you produce them at a police station within 7 days the charge will be dropped. Or did I dream that up?

CCPECP

Thank you for some perspective finally

I’m ignoring the small minded people and i’ll be back after court

Mr.Generous wrote: »

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.

CCPECP

I didn’t show attitude.
I was insured.
I was on the MID.
I was approved to place the new plates from DVLA.
I did have incorrect layouts on the plates, police officers didn’t mention it but everyone here wants to.
It wasn’t my insurance’s fault.
It wasn’t DVLA’s fault.
Anybody that wants to pick out anything irrelevant, such as my choice in shoes? my degree, how much i spend on what i purchase or what the plate spells out, i will be replying with no respect.
Call me childish or spoilt or whatever you want frankly it doesn’t bother me at all 😂
I’ll be going to court and i’ll be taking the few useful information i got from certain individuals on here, thank you to them.

I’ll let you all know the outcome. You’ll hear from me soon

CCPECP

I had both. It doesn’t matter the law is made up depending on what officer you get and what kind of day they are having. Authority gets to some people’s head and the majority of people believe that the police force are always right have wool over their eyes.

esmerobbo wrote: »

If I remember right from the old Hort1 days and to put it simply the actual offence is committed when you can not produce a certificate of insurance or other such indemnity however if you produce them at a police station within 7 days the charge will be dropped. Or did I dream that up?

DUTR

CCPECP wrote: »

I had both. It doesn’t matter the law is made up depending on what officer you get and what kind of day they are having. Authority gets to some people’s head and the majority of people believe that the police force are always right have wool over their eyes.

Just like the members of the public that they come across.
They didn't just stop you for no reason.
They didn't stop you because you are not Caucasian.
Why not put yourself in their shoes? What would you have done at that time?
Going to court doesn't mean you will win, that also as well as logic and facts, depends on the Magistrates and what sort of day they are having and what people they have come across.

unholyangel

Car_54 wrote: »

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.

You're still not getting it. Sections 165 and 165A are separate.

Section 165A gives the police powers of seizure.
Section 165 makes it an offence not to provide, when asked, proof of insurance
Section 143 makes it an offence to use a vehicle in a public place without insurance.

If you'll notice subsection 3 of section 165 that I quoted earlier explicitly states:

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

George333

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.

Failing to produce an insurance certificate on demand was an offence, has that offence been revoked?

George333

DUTR wrote: »

Just like the members of the public that they come across.
They didn't just stop you for no reason.
They didn't stop you because you are not Caucasian.
Why not put yourself in their shoes? What would you have done at that time?
Going to court doesn't mean you will win, that also as well as logic and facts, depends on the Magistrates and what sort of day they are having and what people they have come across.

He will win in court if he can provide proof of insurance covering the time of the stop.

AdrianC

CCPECP wrote: »

I was on the MID.

No, that's the whole point. You weren't showing as insured on MID. Nor, by the sound of it, was your new plate showing as being on the car.

Now, that might simply have been down to hysteresis, and it's likely true that nobody did anything incorrectly...

onomatopoeia99

DUTR wrote: »

Going to court doesn't mean you will win, that also as well as logic and facts, depends on the Magistrates and what sort of day they are having and what people they have come across.

If the magistrate is having a bad day and makes an error in law (which shouldn't happen, as they have a trained clerk to advise them) then it will be overturned on appeal when in front of a proper judge.