Car Wrongly impounded?

[Welsh Eric]

Hello,

 

Im in need of some advice if anyone can help. Yesterday I was pulled over by a police car for having no Tax, Mot or insurance. The car had failed its mot around 10 days previously, I had not paid to have it put right and obvioulsy couldnt tax it without the MOT. I accept that I shouldnt have driven it.

 

I was however insured but my insurance details did not show up on the policemans computer. I told the police officer that I was insured, he didnt believe me, and had my car towed away.

 

The paperwork I have been given states that the reason for my car being impounded is for driving without insurance. It was a sunday so the officer couldnt have checked with my insurer. Im assuming that the officer acted correctly as he showed me that my car was showing up as being uninsured.

 

Now that I can prove that my car was insured, do I still have to pay the release fees? Could he have impounded my car for having no tax or mot?

 

If I do have to pay the release fees, can I claim them back from my insurer for not updating the police database with my details?

 

Im also wandering what kind of fines Ill be getting for no tax or mot. Not a good day for me but am making no excuses. The car had one tyre that was under the required tread limit, a damaged shock absorber, corroded brake pipes and an ABS warning light permanently on.

 

Any help would be a godsend,

 

thanks in advance,

 

Eric

[flyingdoc]

Driving on the public road without road tax can lead your car to be impounded.

 

However - your car was impounded for no Insurance - so if you can prove that you had valid insurance then you may be able to recover the penalties.

 

I personally feel that the power to impound your car under these circumstances (no insurance - no license) is in breach of the human rights act section 8 (right to a fair trial) as the police are imposing sentance on you in impounding your car without you having any access to legal representation or the ability to prove your innocence.

 

You seem to have got off quite lightly, had the police examined the car you could have also been ticketed for the illegal tyre which is 3 points and a fine in its own right, as well as all the other fines.

[green_and_mean]

 

I personally feel that the power to impound your car under these circumstances (no insurance - no license) is in breach of the human rights act section 8 (right to a fair trial) as the police are imposing sentance on you in impounding your car without you having any access to legal representation or the ability to prove your innocence.

 

No sentence has been passed and there is no human right to be allowed to drive. The Police are using statutary powers to remove the car from the road until you can prove its insured any fine/trial is a seperate matter dealt with through the Courts.

[Welsh Eric]

Thanks for you reply Doc,

 

I think I am getting fined for the tyre, mot, tax etc. I have a HORT.1 producer slip that only mentions "Insurance not showing on PNC"

 

The officer told me to expect things through in the post about all my wrongdoings I guess Ill have to wait and see exactly what and how much Im getting stung for.

 

Not sure how to proceed. The officer told me that the MOT repair work MUST be done at the garage the car was towed to. I wander if this is true? He also told me that I had to decide right there and then if i wanted the car to be crushed and avoid any charges, or accept the £100 odd pound recovery fee plus storage costs. That didnt sound right to me either. Im absolutely skint hence not being able to put the car right in the first place. But the longer I leave the car at the garage, the more the cost goes up !!

 

If I booked an MOT at my preferred garage, I think i could drive the car to it with no tax and MOT legally. Is this correct?

 

Many thanks,

 

Eric

[flyingdoc]

lol after I defended you as well!!!

 

How can you say no sentance has been passed? - you are being deprived of your car - with attendant costs and the inconvenience and distress caused at the time.

 

also the human right is not that to be able to drive - but the right to a fair trial.

 

no matter what the result of the trial - the inconvenience, embarrassment and distress cannot be undone.

 

Especially now as we are finding that more and more errors are being uncovered with regard to the DVLA.

 

this is my personal opinion and an argument I would like to see put forward in court. It is not one I would advocate anyone else following as it has not been tried.

[Welsh Eric]

No sentence has been passed and there is no human right to be allowed to drive. The Police are using statutary powers to remove the car from the road until you can prove its insured any fine/trial is a seperate matter dealt with through the Courts.

 

The sentence for me is having my car impounded and having to pay for its release. It looks like its the insurers fault for not updating the police database, but Im the one stuck with the immediate costs!

[flyingdoc]

If you pre book a test then YES you can drive the car to the test centre (I would put the spare on to make the journey though) and then you are legally allowed to drive it to where it is going to undergo repairs (if that is not at the same place as the test is done)

 

Get your car out of there asap. otherwise the costs will mount up very fast.

[patdavies]

lol after I defended you as well!!!

 

How can you say no sentance has been passed? - you are being deprived of your car - with attendant costs and the inconvenience and distress caused at the time.

 

also the human right is not that to be able to drive - but the right to a fair trial.

 

 

No sentence has been passed. That would be for a Court (or offer of FPN) for the offence of no insurance.

 

What the motorist is liable for is the fixed cost of recovery (and storage). It is not a fine and is paid to the recovery company not the Crown.

 

The HRA, as referenced, does not apply at this point as there will be a future trial for the offence

 

Whether the vehicle is insured or not is immaterial. All that is required for seizure is the reasonable belief by a constable that the vehicle is not insured.

 

Later production of proof of insurance will negate the charge of driving without insurance, but will not affect the requirement to pay the recovery fees. The motorist would have to prove that the belief of the officer concerned as not reasonable in order to be able to sue the relevant police force for the amount of the fees.

[flyingdoc]

Later production of proof of insurance will negate the charge of driving without insurance, but will not affect the requirement to pay the recovery fees. The motorist would have to prove that the belief of the officer concerned as not reasonable in order to be able to sue the relevant police force for the amount of the fees.

 

so how is this just.

 

You are merrily on your way - perfectly legally but because some spotty youth in a computer center somewhere cannot copy a registraton correctly you end up with your car impounded and having to pay costs.

 

If the belief of the constable is based upon an erronious entry on the PNC then the person or organisation that is responsible for the upkeep of the data on that system should be responsible for any costs incurred as a result of the data being incorrect.

 

it may not be called a trial, but the effects are the same.

 

This legislation is wrong - I know it is the law but it doesnt make it right.

[Welsh Eric]

Thanks again doc. It's true that the distress and embarrassment can't be undone. I waited to be picked up for half an hour on the side of the road, with the squad car behind mine with its lights flashing and everybody rubber necking as they passed. It was not nice.

 

I know I'm in the wrong for driving it in that legal and physical state, but still feel a little hard done by for the impoundment. And the costs couldn't have come at a worse time.

 

Eric

[green_and_mean]

lol after I defended you as well!!!

 

How can you say no sentance has been passed? - you are being deprived of your car - with attendant costs and the inconvenience and distress caused at the time.

 

no matter what the result of the trial - the inconvenience, embarrassment and distress cannot be undone.

 

 

 

Just being argumentative...lol!!

 

You are deprived of your car because 'you' failed to provide proof of insurance at the roadside as required by law. You could use the same argument if you got stopped and had no brakes etc, would you expect to be allowed to carry on your driving until the Court date? Unless you can satisy the PC that the car is roadworthy and you are legally entitled to drive they can prohibit you from doing so.

[flyingdoc]

You are not required to carry your documents - hence the 7 day provider, but even if you have - the police will not believe a certificate of insurance over and above their computer system, as people have been known to get a certificate, cancel the policy and not return the certificate.

 

How then can you prove at roadside that you have insurance?

[Welsh Eric]

Just being argumentative...lol!!

 

You are deprived of your car because 'you' failed to provide proof of insurance at the roadside as required by law. You could use the same argument if you got stopped and had no brakes etc, would you expect to be allowed to carry on your driving until the Court date? Unless you can satisy the PC that the car is roadworthy and you are legally entitled to drive they can prohibit you from doing so.

 

This is an interesting point. I believed that the police had the technology to check if a car is insured or not. I dont like the idea of having to drive around with all of my documents on board. But if it is me that has failed to prove that I was insured at that moment, can I pursue my insurers to recover my costs? If i had my insurance docs on me, but the policeman's computer told him that I wasnt insured, would he have impounded my car any way?

 

Am I right in thinking that it is my insurers fault that my car was impounded for having no insurance?

[flyingdoc]

the police will believe the PNC above any documentation you may have. HOWEVER if you can phone your insurance company and they confirm insurance then they will believe that.

Insurance companies have 24 hour helplines open 365 for accidents and claims - they should have been able to confirm cover for you.

 

Your case - I fear - was just - you were driving without tax, MOT and with a dangerously defective vehicle. (bald tyre - corroded brake pipes and defective ABS)

 

just because I dont agree with the law doesnt mean that given the statutes available the police made the wrong decision...

 

sorry but...

[green_and_mean]

There is a certain amount of inconvenience/annoyance involved in any Police action pre trial. If you get arrested for any offence you get hauled off down the nick and have to find your own way home and lose a days pay etc even if they decide you did nothing wrong unfortunatly thats just the way it is.

[Welsh Eric]

the police will believe the PNC above any documentation you may have. HOWEVER if you can phone your insurance company and they confirm insurance then they will believe that.

Insurance companies have 24 hour helplines open 365 for accidents and claims - they should have been able to confirm cover for you.

 

Your case - I fear - was just - you were driving without tax, MOT and with a dangerously defective vehicle. (bald tyre - corroded brake pipes and defective ABS)

 

just because I dont agree with the law doesnt mean that given the statutes available the police made the wrong decision...

 

sorry but...

 

So should the officer have phoned my insurer? Or should I have insisted that he did that? Is there a requirement for the police to check when you contest their data?

 

Im sorry but the car was not dangerous. The tyre was not bald, it was only just under the required tread. The ABS is not faulty it is just an error message that needs resetting via a vagcom. And the brake pipes after a rub with wire wool are absolutely fine. Basically the Kwikfit that I took the car to for convenience have gone o.t.t. with the faults, which they have done in the past, to make more work for themselves. Anyway that is largely irrelevant but I wasnt driving around in a wreck!

 

What is relevant for me now is how to proceed with recovering my costs. My insurers have confirmed that my data had been given to the DVLA.

my policy was exactly one month old. My insurers are not therefore willing to assist with the cost of getting my car released, they told me to pursue the DVLA.

 

From my experience with the DVLA that will be a nightmare. Does anyone think I have a case? My car was insured, it was impounded for not being insured. I told the officer that the car was insured, he just didnt believe me.

 

Could I argue that the officer did not do enough to prove his suspicion that the car was not insured?

 

And can I pursue the DVLA as they have not done their job properly, which has, technically, led to my car being wronlgy impounded.

 

Many thanks,

 

Eric

[flyingdoc]

the police checked on the PNC regarding the insurance on your car, I would suspect that is all they are obliged to do.

 

My wife watches a lot of these police camera thingy shows and they always seem to telephone insurers where no insurance is shown but that may be a local or personal policy on behalf of the officers concerned.

 

in order to pursue an action against anyone for the refund of the costs you would have to find out where the information got lost which I suspect would be almost impossible to do.

 

In the first instance I would make a complaint to the police complaints comission to the effect that the data held on the PNC was incorrect and due to this your car was impounded and you incurred towing fees.

 

See what their response is.

[Welsh Eric]

Will do Doc, thanks again!!

[green_and_mean]

The DVLA, police national computer and the motor insurers database are 3 seperate things.

[Welsh Eric]

The DVLA, police national computer and the motor insurers database are 3 seperate things.

 

Do you know then, who is most likely to blame for my data being incorrect on the PNC?

 

Eric

[green_and_mean]

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 that—

(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination,

(b) the person fails to produce them, and

© the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).

(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,

(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and

© the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

(4) The third condition is that—

(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,

(b) the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and

© the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

(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;

© 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) in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;

(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.

But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

(7) If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.

(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section are exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 165B are in force.

(9) In this section—

(a) a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage;

(b) a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

© “counterpart” and “licence” have the same meanings as in section 164;

(d) “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

[green_and_mean]

Do you know then, who is most likely to blame for my data being incorrect on the PNC?

 

Eric

 

The Motor Insurance Database (MID) was set up by the insurance industry to help combat this crime, and the police are now the MID's biggest customer, making over 3.8 million enquiries per month. The DVLA, with over 1 million enquiry transactions a month in support of their Electronic Vehicle Licensing operation, is the second largest user of the MID. The MID also helps the UK comply with the 4th EU Motor Insurance Directive, which requires that insurance details of all vehicles in member states can be easily accessed by a national information centre. In the UK, this role is carried out by the MIB via the UK Information Centre.If your vehicle is privately insured it will have already been entered onto the MID by your insurer.

 

Motor Insurers' Information Centre

[Steve__M]

I've always thought that your insurance would not cover you if you knowingly drove the car without an MOT. Is this a myth?

[green_and_mean]

I've always thought that your insurance would not cover you if you knowingly drove the car without an MOT. Is this a myth?

 

New cars do not need an MOT so it cannot be a legal requirement on your insurance to have one.

[lamma]

yes.