Vehicle Incorrectly Seized

Carrot007

Car_54 wrote: »

Are you sure the spacing is illegal? Bear in mind the number is in the old (pre 2001) format.

Pretty sure, a space has been a requirement in all single line number plates going back to the begining as far as I am aware.


Just becuase the easy to find current docs only mention the current format does not mean there is no requirement for older plates (just that the idiots producing the leaflets are short sighted).

TooManyPoints

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

If an appeal is made against conviction and/or sentence in a Magistrates court the matter is re-heard before a Crown Court judge and two Magistrates (from a different Bench to the original convicting court). The judge rules on matters of law whilst all three have an equal say when deciding matters of fact (meaning the Magistrates can out-vote the judge). There does not seem to be too much in the way of matters of law to decide in your case so do not rely on being seen favourably by a “proper judge.”

What happens if i lose court?

See above. You will have 21 days to lodge an appeal.

There are at least 3 issues on the go
1)Was the car seized wrongfully?
2)Was the vehicle showing a valid registration?
3)Was the driver insured at the time?

The Magistrates Court will only be interested in (3) because that will be the only charge you face. If you want to claim compensation for your various episodes of loss and trauma you will have to pursue that through the civil court.

Just to clarify the difference between S143 (Driving with no Insurance) and S165 (the requirement to produce documents). The former carries an endorsement and a minimum of six penalty points. The latter does not. If the former is charged the latter will not be (it would be unjust because one cannot produce what one does not have).

If it got to court and he produces and insurance certificate that's the end of it.

One would hope so. But stranger things have happened.

Ectophile

George333 wrote: »

Why not just move into the present day and make the complaint online now?

Or do you actually believe the Chief Constable reads them?

Does it matter? If you want to sue the a particular police force as a whole, you send a letter to the Chief Constable. Who actually reads the letter is neither here nor there.

Manxman_in_exile

George333 wrote: »

Why not just move into the present day and make the complaint online now?

Or do you actually believe the Chief Constable reads them?

I'd wait - and I don't care who reads them.


I'm surprised you don't suggest complaining straight to the IOPC and letting them refer it back to the relevant force?

ToxicWomble

Was a mistake made - maybe/probably and hopefully it gets resolved.

The rest of the stress/anxiety etc is your own fault for running to the rag paper like a spoilt child.

Judging by your attitude and responses on here, I expect you failed the attitude test big style.

Were you “profiled” - maybe, but the profiles exist based an factual data and statistics.

Not everything that you dont agree with that happens in your life is racially motivated. Get over it and get that chip off your shoulder.

If you go through life acting as a victim, that’s how you will be portrayed as you are finding out now.

Dr_Crypto

ToxicWomble wrote: »

Was a mistake made - maybe/probably and hopefully it gets resolved.

The rest of the stress/anxiety etc is your own fault for running to the rag paper like a spoilt child.

Judging by your attitude and responses on here, I expect you failed the attitude test big style.

Were you “profiled” - maybe, but the profiles exist based an factual data and statistics.

Not everything that you dont agree with that happens in your life is racially motivated. Get over it and get that chip off your shoulder.

If you go through life acting as a victim, that’s how you will be portrayed as you are finding out now.

I don’t agree. The OP was a victim. He was lawfully using his car and as a result of an error/ flaw in the system it was sieved and he’s had to waste his time sorting this out. He also lost money in the process. He feels he’s been the victim of racism. None of us were there so how can we say categorically he wasn’t? He says he wasn’t given the opportunity to produce documents which he says would have proved he was insured; if he was a well-spoken white chap would he have been similarly denied? Quite possibly.
If you are on Facebook I suggest you look at the page “Bullshire Police”. It is quite enlightening regarding the sense of entitlement and contempt of the public some policemen possess. They certainly don’t like being held to account for their actions and seem to revel in trying to frustrate anyone attempting to do so. For example trying to claim that an ITV journalist (or was it Sky) in a corporate vehicle was uninsured.

DUTR

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

I don’t agree. The OP was a victim. He was lawfully using his car and as a result of an error/ flaw in the system it was sieved and he’s had to waste his time sorting this out. He also lost money in the process. He feels he’s been the victim of racism. None of us were there so how can we say categorically he wasn’t? He says he wasn’t given the opportunity to produce documents which he says would have proved he was insured; if he was a well-spoken white chap would he have been similarly denied? Quite possibly.
If you are on Facebook I suggest you look at the page “Bullshire Police”. It is quite enlightening regarding the sense of entitlement and contempt of the public some policemen possess. They certainly don’t like being held to account for their actions and seem to revel in trying to frustrate anyone attempting to do so. For example trying to claim that an ITV journalist (or was it Sky) in a corporate vehicle was uninsured.

You don't have to agree, none of us were there and we only have one account of the episode, we don't know the facts.
What we do know is that the vehicle was stopped as it flagged up as unregistered, as it could not be verified by the authorised sources then it is the prudent move to remove the vehicle from the road.
The officers report to the sergeant who then runs it by the cps, after the findings were assessed then the charges were placed.
The final verdict is for the courts to decide.

George333

DUTR wrote: »

You don't have to agree, none of us were there and we only have one account of the episode, we don't know the facts.
What we do know is that the vehicle was stopped as it flagged up as unregistered, as it could not be verified by the authorised sources then it is the prudent move to remove the vehicle from the road.
The officers report to the sergeant who then runs it by the cps, after the findings were assessed then the charges were placed.
The final verdict is for the courts to decide.

That may be correct if they hadnt offered him a ticket.

George333

Dr_Crypto wrote: »

I don’t agree. The OP was a victim. He was lawfully using his car and as a result of an error/ flaw in the system it was sieved and he’s had to waste his time sorting this out. He also lost money in the process. He feels he’s been the victim of racism. None of us were there so how can we say categorically he wasn’t? He says he wasn’t given the opportunity to produce documents which he says would have proved he was insured; if he was a well-spoken white chap would he have been similarly denied? Quite possibly.
If you are on Facebook I suggest you look at the page “Bullshire Police”. It is quite enlightening regarding the sense of entitlement and contempt of the public some policemen possess. They certainly don’t like being held to account for their actions and seem to revel in trying to frustrate anyone attempting to do so. For example trying to claim that an ITV journalist (or was it Sky) in a corporate vehicle was uninsured.

He may have been insured but driving without a registration plate isn't lawful.

Hasbeen

George333 wrote: »

He may have been insured but driving without a registration plate isn't lawful.

He did have a registration plate. It was illegal but the police did not push that fact.

Does anyone know what the private plate actually means? Engineer?

https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/10243073/student-car-impounded-personalised-plates/