Vehicle Incorrectly Seized

George333

Car_54 wrote: »

Anywhere in England and Wales. See https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/charging-directors-guidance-2013-fifth-edition-may-2013-revised-arrangements

Where in that guide is police prosecutions or are you confusing charging decisions?

George333

Hasbeen wrote: »

You can have a number plate on your car which does not meet the legal requirements. You can be fined for this. It has to have legal spacing, font, approved makers name and appropriate standard mark on plate.

Suggest you try google.

Think about what you've written you can't because if it doesn't meet regs then it's not a number plate and the offence you can be fined for is no number plate.

Hasbeen

George333 wrote: »

Think about what you've written you can't because if it doesn't meet regs then it's not a number plate and the offence you can be fined for is no number plate.

Please show where in the law it states that having an illegal number plate. You will be given a NIP for not having a number plate. Thank you

Car_54

George333 wrote: »

Where in that guide is police prosecutions or are you confusing charging decisions?

You're right. The list of offences suitable for police-led prosecutions is actually here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-led-prosecution-list-of-offences
The term "police-led" is significant: the CPS take over in the event of a not-guilty plea.

George333

Hasbeen wrote: »

Please show where in the law it states that having an illegal number plate. You will be given a NIP for not having a number plate. Thank you

No need to issue a NIP for a number plate offence.

George333

Car_54 wrote: »

You're right. The list of offences suitable for police-led prosecutions is actually here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-led-prosecution-list-of-offences
The term "police-led" is significant: the CPS take over in the event of a not-guilty plea.

Police lead is for a charging decision only, even a guilty plea in court is a CPS matter.

Hasbeen

George333 wrote: »

No need to issue a NIP for a number plate offence.

My mistake was meaning FPN and they put on it as number plate spacing not to requirements or such like. My son was stopped because of this when he did not understand the attitude test, so he received two, 1 for front and 1 for back.

Think it was £60 each back then?

George333

Hasbeen wrote: »

My mistake was meaning FPN and they put on it as number plate spacing not to requirements or such like. My son was stopped because of this when he did not understand the attitude test, so he received two, 1 for front and 1 for back.

Think it was £60 each back then?

Display of Registration Marks Regulations 2001 defines what a number plate should be like if it's not made to those specifications then it's isn't a number plate. In the case of the OP I doubt his plate was even sold as a number plate. Even if it has the correct spacing it wouldn't be legal.

TooManyPoints

Police lead is for a charging decision only, even a guilty plea in court is a CPS matter.

That's incorrect, George. In many areas (and certainly in the three of which I have experience) simple guilty plea matters involving non-imprisonable traffic matters are normally handled by a police prosecutor. They started doing that a few (probably four or five) years ago. CPS would take over in the event of a trial being required.

Back to the original problem - I think the OP should be able to manage an acquittal on the insurance matter (provided what we have been told is correct). In fact, like you, I would be surprised if it went to trial if he can satisfy the police beforehand that he was indeed insured.

However I think his claim for compensation for unlawful seizure may be a little more difficult. If - for whatever reason - the vehicle was not shown on the police copy of the MIB database (I think they work on a downloaded copy in the same way as they do with the DVLA data) then it will be argued that the seizure was lawful. Of course we don't really have all the details but I cannot really understand why an officer would seize a vehicle that was shown as insured on whatever database he is instructed to rely on. It would cause him more grief than it's worth.

The claim for associated compensation for trauma, stress and all the other stuff mentioned might very much depend on whether the seizure was ruled as lawful. I don't think the police can be held liable - especially if the seizure is ruled lawful - for the OP allowing the details of his troubles to be published in The Sun and then complaining because readers of that estimable organ post comments on what they have read. Quite how that amounts to "defamation" and why it should be for the police to compensate him is a little unclear.

onwards&upwards

Ms_Chocaholic wrote: »

What is the private plate meant to spell out?
Seems a waste of money to me.

Engineer I think. As if the person driving behind you cares or will even notice! :rotfl:

Massive waste of money, as personalised plates always are.