We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Vehicle Incorrectly Seized
Comments
-
TooManyPoints wrote: »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.
I'd be interested to know which forces as inspectors stopped prosecuting years ago.0 -
Kent to my certain knowledge, Essex I think, George.
These are not police officers who undertake court duties but civilian employees of the police. They are not CPS employees.0 -
onwards&upwards wrote: »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.
Its up to the individual what they spend their money on though0 -
Its up to the individual what they spend their money on though
It is also up to the individual to have an opinion on those who spend a lot of money on vanity plates, especially vanity plates that are meaningless until explained.
If I saw E17 GNR I would probably think it was just a random number plate.
If I was told it was a personalised number plate I would guess a musically confused E17 and Guns N' Roses fan before Engineer.
A man walked into a car showroom.
He said to the salesman, “My wife would like to talk to you about the Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
Salesman said, “We haven't got a Volkswagen Golf in the showroom window.”
The man replied, “You have now mate".0 -
It is also up to the individual to have an opinion on those who spend a lot of money on vanity plates, especially vanity plates that are meaningless until explained.
If I saw E17 GNR I would probably think it was just a random number plate.
If I was told it was a personalised number plate I would guess a musically confused E17 and Guns N' Roses fan before Engineer.
Stay Now...'Just because its on the internet don't believe it 100%'. Abraham Lincoln.
I have opinions, you have opinions. All of our opinions are valid whether they are based on fact or feeling. Respect other peoples opinions, stop forcing your opinions on other people and the world will be a happier place.0 -
By that logic, a motor vehicle which doesn’t comply with every element of the C & U, lighting, etc. regulations isn’t a motor vehicle. Seems unlikely.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.0 -
Are you showing attitude here?I didn’t show attitude.Anybody that wants to pick out anything irrelevant, such as my choice in shoes?
I think the shoes were just part of the confusion - you're apparently wanting to sue because you're £300 impound fee is going to hurt your credit rating, whilst this revolves around a £400-700 plate and you're wearing £300 trainers and talking about how successful you are.
So is the impound fee actually causing your any hardship?0 -
By that logic, a motor vehicle which doesn’t comply with every element of the C & U, lighting, etc. regulations isn’t a motor vehicle. Seems unlikely.
Really?
The road traffic act clearly defines a motor vehicle as a mechanically propelled!vehicle, intended or adapted for use on roads.
No mention of it needing lights or complying with an con and use regs.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards