Vehicle Incorrectly Seized

AdrianC

photome wrote: »

not sure why there are so many a.......s on the motoring forum

Feed us bull, expect scepticism.

DUTR

photome wrote: »

I like the car..dont like the plate.


Hope you win


not sure why there are so many a.......s on the motoring forum

Why are they so just because they have a different view to you?
Sadly in that part of Walsall there are reported incidents in the media too often.

George333

CCPECP wrote: »

Lol i must be so important for you to be doing background checks on me 😂

What a sad life, but if you wanna play like that then why don’t you focus on sorting your eBay dispute and your Hermes delivery out and try claim back your £10 eBay purchase instead? Maybe if you put more time into your own little disputes instead of mine you’d at least be a little more productive?

It’s funny because you’re sitting here wasting so much time evidently hating and focusing on me and it’s not bothering me at all.

You sad sad sad little boy ugh, i sympathise you :rotfl:

I appreciate your concern on the matter but unlike you I took the advice offered and it's now sorted.

Cap2019

custardy wrote: »

Think this is the best comment unless others found better?

Absolutely - although I admire the confidence he has in his 'super (10 year old) Cupra' :rotfl:

TooManyPoints

Once again, back to your question. I'm trying to get to the bottom of your question title: "Vehicle incorrectly seized" and the likelihood of success in your compensation claim for your troubles. You will have to show that the car was not lawfully seized. Here's what the law (S165A of the Road Traffic Act) has to say about police officers' powers to seize your car:

S.165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1) Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2) The first condition is [irrelevant in your case]

(3) The second condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143, [the section that covers insurance requirements]
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

(4)The third condition is [irrelevant in your case]

(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;
(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;
(c) use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6)Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—

(a) [irrelevant in your case]
(b) in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section.

So, here's the questions you must answer:

1. Did one of the officers require you to produce evidence of insurance cover?
2. Did you, or did you not, produce such evidence immediately?
3. Were you warned that your car would be seized?

From your description, I believe the answers to the above are (1) - Yes, (2) - No you did not (3) Yes.

If that's the case I would suggest your car was lawfully seized. The officer did ask you to produce evidence of cover, you did not do so and he had reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle was being driven without insurance as it was not shown - for whatever reason - on his database as being insured.

Section 165A makes it quite clear that the onus is on the driver to prove that cover exists, it is not on the police to prove that it does not. They only have to have "reasonable grounds" for believing so and I suggest those grounds were adequately met when he interrogated his database. It is also clear that the evidence must be provided immediately to avoid seizure. There is no provision for a "producer" to be given and the evidence provided at a later date.

If everything is as I believe it is my guess is that any claim you make against the police for compensation will fail as your car was seized lawfully. Of course had The Sun's reporter been a little more diligent he may have discovered what I have about the law and the paper may have declined to run your story. This would have avoided you suffering abuse from their readers so perhaps any claim you might make in that respect may be more successful if you direct it to the newspaper.

CCPECP

Thank you for providing me all this information i appreciate it. But in terms of the three questions

1. the officer didn’t require me to produce evidence of insurance cover, didn’t even ask me to, i said i have them and they said it wasn’t relevant
2. no because they didn’t let me
3. yeah they told me it’d be seized immediately

TooManyPoints wrote: »

Once again, back to your question. I'm trying to get to the bottom of your question title: "Vehicle incorrectly seized" and the likelihood of success in your compensation claim for your troubles. You will have to show that the car was not lawfully seized. Here's what the law (S165A of the Road Traffic Act) has to say about police officers' powers to seize your car:

S.165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1) Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2) The first condition is [irrelevant in your case]

(3) The second condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143, [the section that covers insurance requirements]
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

(4)The third condition is [irrelevant in your case]

(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—
(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;
(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;
(c) use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6)Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—

(a) [irrelevant in your case]
(b) in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section.

So, here's the questions you must answer:

1. Did one of the officers require you to produce evidence of insurance cover?
2. Did you, or did you not, produce such evidence immediately?
3. Were you warned that your car would be seized?

From your description, I believe the answers to the above are (1) - Yes, (2) - No you did not (3) Yes.

If that's the case I would suggest your car was lawfully seized. The officer did ask you to produce evidence of cover, you did not do so and he had reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle was being driven without insurance as it was not shown - for whatever reason - on his database as being insured.

Section 165A makes it quite clear that the onus is on the driver to prove that cover exists, it is not on the police to prove that it does not. They only have to have "reasonable grounds" for believing so and I suggest those grounds were adequately met when he interrogated his database. It is also clear that the evidence must be provided immediately to avoid seizure. There is no provision for a "producer" to be given and the evidence provided at a later date.

If everything is as I believe it is my guess is that any claim you make against the police for compensation will fail as your car was seized lawfully. Of course had The Sun's reporter been a little more diligent he may have discovered what I have about the law and the paper may have declined to run your story. This would have avoided you suffering abuse from their readers so perhaps any claim you might make in that respect may be more successful if you direct it to the newspaper.

CCPECP

Nah i’m not concerned, you’re the concerned one because you’ve shown repeated signs that you have nothing better to do but invest your time in reading into my background. Weird sad life

George333 wrote: »

I appreciate your concern on the matter but unlike you I took the advice offered and it's now sorted.

CCPECP

Thank you. They’re being difficult on purpose for attention ignore them

photome wrote: »

I like the car..dont like the plate.


Hope you win


not sure why there are so many a.......s on the motoring forum

Belenus

You and other youngsters today starting out in your careers should be lot more aware of the possible future effects of the digital footprint you are leaving behind on forums and social media etc.

If I were a future potential employer and read this thread I wouldn't be impressed by you.

k3lvc

Belenus wrote: »

If I were a future potential employer and read this thread I wouldn't be impressed by you.

But it's not his fault - it was those nasty coppers (or insert other person in authority) wot did it :rotfl::rotfl: - and anyway running to The Sun will sort it all out