Safe Speed Forums

When payment fails, that's what's going to happen.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

If a vehicle is seized but turns out to be insured, what does the driver have to do to get it back? Do they have any remedy against the insurance company if the compoany doesn't update the database? Is the comapny even required to update it?

What I find galling is that time and effort can be taken in detecting, impounding and crushing untaxed cars when none appears to be devoted in doing away with VED altogether and making our lives a little easier.

Rather than expanding and perpetuating this job creations scheme!

And



So which is it?

This week, my nineteen year old son is driving his grandfather's Astra. The car is Taxed and has an MOT but grandad's insurance has run out (he is no longer able to drive). My son is driving it on his own insurance while his own Polo is being repaired. His insurance allows him to drive the "uninsured" Astra because it's a car he does not own.

So is he legal now? I understand the Astra will have to be SORNed or insured when this new legislation "Continuous Enforcement of Motor Insurance Requirements" comes into effect (November?)

I'd assumed that, when my son was driving it, he was insured. If he left it in a car park it did not need insurance. Later when he drove home, again his own insurance would cover him. From what Stephen says, if he finds it in a multi-storey it'll be clamped or siezed or crushed.

I rang the Thames Valley police who were extremely vague. We are not trying to cheat the system or drive uninsured or anything else illegal - so why do we feel like criminals?

It is the Insurance company's responibility to update the motor insurance database which they have access to, so, if they do not then it is not the police's fault, I believe but cant confirm this but if they fail to update the details then they can be fined.

The way that they get there vehicles back is we give them a form to produce there documents at a police station, and the form is filled in and stamped then the owner or whoever the car belongs to goes along to the garage pays the fee to release and they check that the person driving it away is covered by a policy of insurance whether that be a private policy or traders they get it back.
Stephen

Silly question, but why do they have to pay a fee to release a vehicle which has been used perfectly legally by all concerned and should therefore never have been seized in the first place...?

_________________
Fatshoutybloke

Stormer. Your son will be driving uninsured as the driving other cars extension only applies to vehicles already insured elsewhere. If he wants to drive the astra then he will have to look at using temporary insurance eg Norwich Unions £10 a day cover to fully comply with the law.

In a recent report it showed 12% of drivers that were stopped that were showing no insurance actually did have insurance. This could mean a lot of disgruntled motorists have their cars seized for no good reason.it would be an interesting prosecution to bring under the DPA as it is an offence to have inaccurate or out of date data about someone

How does one know who the owner is then Stephen? What compensation can the poor bugger who's been deprived of his vehicle because of an f*(k up with administration expect to receive?

How can it be, that the justice system in this country has stooped so low, that Judge Dredd and his merry men can seize and impound vehicles when it is known that the administrative system upon which Judge dredd relies, is known to have errors?

I've just rung my insurers, FordInsure underwritten by Norwich Union, who say I would be insured in the circumstances I describe. They've written it explicitly in a note on my file. My son is with Quinn so I suppose that's another phone call and possibly a different answer.

Interestingly, FordInsure say that the car is insured only while I'm in it! The moment I step out it's not insured. The crime is DRIVING while uninsured so I think this is OK.

Of course Stephen will see it as an "uninsured car" on the database and whip it away to be crushed - with me in it probably!

Stephen, do you know what part of the Road Traffic Act covers these "uninsured cars" - what is the actual offence?

Wrong!

This seems to come up quite a lot. It isn't true and never has been true. It would only become true IF an insurance policy document made that requirement - and I've never yet seen one that does.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Don't you want to curl up and die? I really can't get my head around all this.

Targets, partnership working, pooling knowledge and resources, no room for complacency, further opportunities for closer collaboration, a rare opportunity to network, to share best practice, partnership opportunities, fresh initiatives, the challenges we must face (direct quotes from Ladyman speech).

Doesn't it wear you down? There may be something in all this, but all I can see at this time of night is empires under construction.

Wouldn't it be better to rebuild our country such that the dross who cause us such misery and the need for these "fresh initiatives" disappear?

Sorry Paul, not very helpful, but that's how I feel.

Im with Quinns an it certainly makes no mention in the policy about the car having to be covered by it's own policy.

I recently brought a new car, called up my insurance an told them and they sent out a new certificate.

How ever I still have the old certificate sitting here as they have not asked for it back

Even if they eventualy do thats 3 weeks at least I could have driven my old car around illegaly yet appeared legal (as it still has several months tax an MOT.

Granted would flag up on ANPR but would probably convince a large amount of coppers that it was mistaken.

Not that I ever would of course, no point at all when Im perfectly legal on the other car.

Not that I ever would of course

Why is everyone getting all hot and bothered about not being insured in respect of someone else, since the new sec 165 seizure power was brought in for us to do in my force, i have seized over 325 vehicle's and not one has complained, they have all been leitimate seizures.

Like I explained before if you can prove or convince that you are insured personally or via a third party policy, then we will check and if its true then nothing to worry about if not then you will loose your vehicle.

The law was designed to take genuine uninsured drivers off the road not to persecute the descent motorists so dont believe everything you here, when someone says they had there car taken off them for no insurance and they say they had it then they are either lying or the insurance company have got it wrong, so the police have done nothing wrong.
Stephen

I suspect Stephen, that in spite of your own experience, that others find PCs who are not as keen to take the time to investigate the circumstances.
I myself was stopped on two occasions and warned about a supposed illegal mod. to my car, yet when I obtained the relevant regs., there was nothing to indicate anything was wrong. I therefore requested clarification, which showed I was correct, and the opinion of two separate officers, in two separate forces was wrong.
It eventually comes down to an opinion by individual officers, which dictates a course of action they take.

A similar situation occurs at customs when returning from the continent with tobacco and alcohol.
"Personal use" is open ended, yet some customs officers have seized cars and goods (then had to hand them back after a court case!).
I visit my parents in France usually only once a year, and bring back as much as I can safely carry - which might not fit the ADVISED amounts posted by HMC&E, so I am then at the mercy of an officers opinion as to my circumstances.

Unfourtunately, there is a fear that their cars will be seized by mistake at the whim of an over zealous officer.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

I have very serious concerns.

1) I believe that seizure amounts to a criminal penalty. Clearly criminal penalties are supposed to be decided by the judiciary rather than the Police. It is asking too much of you to expect you to make the judgment. Granted, a police officer seizing a car that is known to be uninsured isn't, in itself, much of a problem. But I believe that a very important line has been crossed.

2) There are far too many uninsured drivers for the Police to be able to make a difference with these seizures. As far as I can tell, Police nationally are ramping up to about 250,000 prosecutions a year - but DfT says 2 million uninsured drivers. So the risk, at present rates of prosecution, to an average uninsured driver is one nick in 8 years. This is Policing by bluff and threat, because you're barely in a position to scratch the surface.

3) Most of the vehicle you seize are throw-aways... (Can you tell us what proportion are never reclaimed after seizure?) And the scum involved will be back in another throw-away in a week or two.

4) The points in 1 and 2 above diminish the reputation of the Police in the minds of the public. Certainly I am nervous that I might encounter a copper who misuses his powers of seizure against me. And that's very bad indeed. Another 1% knocked off the Police's reputation.

If seizures were the answer, then we should have special courts to sanction the seizure. However I think the problem is too big and we need a new solution entirely. See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SafeSpeedPR/message/232

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Utter, meaningless drivel - but to the uneducated it gives the impression that the gurt lummox is actually doing/acheiving something.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian

WRT the current situation: I can confirm that my policy (at least) covers me third-party to drive with the owner's consent any car not owned by me and that car does not need it's own insurance. This was precisely the situation when my son changed his car. During the overlap period, he had two cars but only one insurance, which wasn't switched to the new car until he'd sold the old one. (He didn't drive the new car for the few days that took). After seeing claims that the car had to have its own insurance on this forum, I rang my insurers who confirmed that I would have the minimum cover required by law while I was driving. However, they did say that the car would be uninsured as soon as I stepped out of it.

IMO, requiring the car to be insured is yet another piece of legislation where the government has donned blinkers and not considered side effects. For example, the new rules unfairly benefit motor dealers. Most people have only one insurance, and so won't be able to overlap their cars the way my son did. So if, like many, you need a car to get to work etc. the new rules effectively prevent you from engaging in private sales.


I find this unbelievable. What Stephen is saying is along the lines of, "We impound your vehicle because we wrongly believe you have no insurance. You prove that we are wrong and then, even though we've got it wrong, you must pay for our mistake" Surely, the only fair way of handling this is to require the police to compensate the owner for wrongly depriving them of their car (and possibly their livelihood).


It appears that a criminal penalty is to be levied even if the accused is innocent

I share Paul's concern. Our justice system was crafted with important safeguards, one of which was to prevent "kangaroo courts". It did this by ensuring that no one person can be accuser, judge, and jury. This important tenet of a fair judicial system is absent from the law that permits the police to confiscate and destroy property without referral to a court of law. Now I'm not saying that the police would ever deliberately wrongfully penalise anyone , but people do make mistakes and there is thus more scope for wrongful punishment where the same person is judge and jury.


So, the police only have to suspect that there is no insurance (as opposed to have proof beyond reasonable doubt) and the rules say they can seize your car and destroy it. The rules seem to say that even if you have a certificate of insurance, should the police suspect it is not valid, your car can be crushed - and it seems you have no recourse.

---

AIUI, this all came about because the greedy insurance cartel wants to increase its profit. The new rules will put new business their way. Right now, the insurance cartel has more power to say who can legally drive what than does any publically appointed or elected body (such as Parliament or the police).

These new rules are just the latest piece of "elastoplast" to patch up the seriously flawed system of ensuring victims of RTCs are compensated. There is a simple, elegant solution (but the insurance companies won't like it!) and that is for the government to provide third-party insurance, paid for from fuel duties, for any activity that makes use of that fuel. (Boat owners, aviators, and lawnmower man would have to pay the duty, so it's only fair that they too benefit from the insurance.) How we insure electric and other alternative fuel vehicles would need addressing - but I'm sure that would be much less of a problem that the millions of drivers who are currently uninsured.

_________________
Will

I don't think this is the reason (although they probably do want to increase their profits). I think that these powers are the result of the police and CPS not wanting to be bothered actually getting proper evidence against miscreants (have I got the latest PC word right?). It's just slackness.

The product of a system like this is people being pressured into admitting a minor crime and getting a police caution rather than all the hassle and financial risk of going to court to prove their innocence. It's just easier for the police to say "I think you are guilty - now prove you are innocent at your own expense." A compete reversal of natural justice.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

AFAICT, this all started with the insurance industry publishing a paper suggesting the very scheme that's about to become law. Given half a chance, many industries will do this, and the latest of which I've become aware is Specsavers et al. who want it to be an offence for anyone who needs glasses to drive not to carry a spare pair of glasses in the car.

_________________
Will