Failure to produce licence at roadside
Scroll to see replies
even an indicator not working isnt treated as severely as that normally :|!
all sounds a bit... extreme to me...
x
all sounds a bit... extreme to me...
x
Please tell me this was sorted? Update OP please, this is more interesting than Hollyoaks 
It's all sorted. My mum went to the police station today with her licence and they were all baffled that she was told that she'd have to go to court. She also got in touch with her solicitor who said that he had no right whatsoever to take the car and her keys so she's filed a complaint against the policeman. She had to pay a £150 release charge at the pound but the car is now safe and sound in the driveway.
Original post by gooner1991
It's all sorted. My mum went to the police station today with her licence and they were all baffled that she was told that she'd have to go to court. She also got in touch with her solicitor who said that he had no right whatsoever to take the car and her keys so she's filed a complaint against the policeman. She had to pay a £150 release charge at the pound but the car is now safe and sound in the driveway.
She should take this up with some authority to refund the release charge. The policeman was obviously overstepping his bounds in ordering the car to be impounded.
Original post by gooner1991
Oh and she got pulled over because one of her indicators was flashing really fast which apparently means that the bulb is loose.
Well it was stupid of them to take it. If they had let your mum have it then she could tighten it, at least the indicator was working. This should have been given as the reason.
So there's four options . . .
1) you're a
(unlikely you'd bother with something so complicated if you were a troll)2) the policeman was bang out of order (most likely / yet unlikely)
3) you were scammed and now don't want to look silly (possible)
4) your mum didn't tell you everything/ she couldn't remember everything the policeman said (quite possible)
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by JC.
Sorry but this is utter crap.
All acts of law are freely avaliable online.
Show me anywhere it states that it is an offence not to produce a licence at the side of the road.
Impossible because such a law does NOT exist in this country and never has. Therefore, unless the vehicle was taken for some other reason which hasn't been mentioned the car has clearly been stolen.
All acts of law are freely avaliable online.
Show me anywhere it states that it is an offence not to produce a licence at the side of the road.
Impossible because such a law does NOT exist in this country and never has. Therefore, unless the vehicle was taken for some other reason which hasn't been mentioned the car has clearly been stolen.
Section 137 Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence not to produce documents to a constable upon requirement and explicitly says it's an offence not to do so at that time. But, it does say it's a defence if they're produced at a police station within 7 days, so in the real world you're right, but not in law. I know which of those two is more important!
Also while I'm commenting, the paper documents these days are pretty much pointless. Police rely on electronic databases of driving licences, vehicle keepers, motor insurance, MOT tests and vehicle excise duty payments rather than having to wait 7 days to sort anything out. These databases have only in recent years become the sole source of data for police after trying them out for several years. That's not to say they're perfect which I will mention in a moment...
Under Section 165 Road Traffic Act 1988 police can seize any vehicle which is suspected of being driven in accordance with a driving licence or 3rd party insurance for the driver. This will result in the vehicle being removed by a contract recovery agent under police powers and it will be retained under police authority until you go there with an insurance certificate for the vehicle and payment of the seizure fee (which you'll have to pay even if it was driven legally, unless you can cajole a goodwill reduction/waiver or get it off your insurer for not putting you on the database).
Police will rely on these databases in the first instance to see if a vehicle is insured and the driver licensed. If a vehicle comes back as uninsured or a driver unlicensed according to databases, a copper may ask if you've got a certificate/paper licence with you. This becomes most important in relation to motor trade insurance or newly bought cars, which if it's a new acquisition won't appear on the insurance database. Production of the certificate will negate any need for further action, so it may be of benefit to carry it on a new policy. However if the database shows an unlawfully driven car and you can't prove otherwise, it'll be seized until you produce the documents to the recovery agent.
Having said all that, many coppers won't just seize based on a one-liner on the database and will attempt to make a few phone calls and so on to confirm insurance. It also in most forces needs a supervisor to authorise the seizure too, something they're less likely to do if further enquiries haven't been made. Finally, it's still possible to give the 7 day rule in any case, as sometimes coppers will think you're a decent person and not likely to be uninsured so *may* cut you some slack. Even then, you'll still get done if you weren't driving with insurance in the end.
Original post by gooner1991
But the tax disc is there. The silly policeman even ticked the 'yes' box next to tax disc!He ticked all of the yes boxes apart from licence :-/
Sigh. This is an absolute nightmare. Can only wait till the morning,really.
Sigh. This is an absolute nightmare. Can only wait till the morning,really.
Was it in-date?
Original post by gooner1991
It's all sorted. My mum went to the police station today with her licence and they were all baffled that she was told that she'd have to go to court. She also got in touch with her solicitor who said that he had no right whatsoever to take the car and her keys so she's filed a complaint against the policeman. She had to pay a £150 release charge at the pound but the car is now safe and sound in the driveway.
keep us up to date with this.. wouldnt be surprised if this makes it into an edition of the sun..
Original post by ke200
Was it in-date?
Yup, it expires next year. My mum was also straight on the phone to Churchill to check if everything's ok with the insurance and it was all fine.
Original post by gooner1991
Yup, it expires next year. My mum was also straight on the phone to Churchill to check if everything's ok with the insurance and it was all fine.
Im glad
although, you should go back to the police and get a refund for having to pay to get eh car back. It was their mistake, and they should pay. Like, a couple of months ago my friend's front door was bashed in, and their whole house searched on a drug tip off. They found nothing, quickly realised it was a mistake and paid for all damages, got a new door and everything.
Personally, I would take this much further; mainly because I'm an ass, but more so because I can't stand people who can't do a simple job properly. ****ing muppet policeman. I'm sure her solicitor can advise things to claim against.
- Loss of earnings, if her job depends on her car.
- Theft of a motorvehicle, as he had no right to seize it.
- Possibly misconduct or something to show that the police officer had no clue what he was doing and wasn't aware of some of the most basic laws.
- Making you pay £150 to release the car; not everyone can cough up that money on demand.
- Check the car for any damage that wasn't there previously; the idiots that seized the car probably aren't the most careful people.
Just a few things I would look into. Hope your mum rinses the **** out of them and gets a load in compensation.
- Loss of earnings, if her job depends on her car.
- Theft of a motorvehicle, as he had no right to seize it.
- Possibly misconduct or something to show that the police officer had no clue what he was doing and wasn't aware of some of the most basic laws.
- Making you pay £150 to release the car; not everyone can cough up that money on demand.
- Check the car for any damage that wasn't there previously; the idiots that seized the car probably aren't the most careful people.
Just a few things I would look into. Hope your mum rinses the **** out of them and gets a load in compensation.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by CurlyBen
Technically it's an offence not to produce your licence when required to by a policeman, but producing documents within 7 days is defined as being sufficient defence to the charge so as long as they are shown nothing happens.
I was also stopped without having my licence on me. After telling me it was an offence and reading me my rights, they said there would be no charge provided I produced it at a police station within 7 days.
In OP's case, I'd be more concerned about the car being impounded. Would she be expected to pay the hefty release fee herself? If so then that is pretty harsh.
the strange thing is, both times I've been stopped by the police, at no point did they ask to see my lisence. I guess my car was on the database as being registered, taxed, MOT'd and insured so they saw no need.
Funnily enough, when I got stopped on suspiscion of drink-driving (was in fact driving slowly up and down my road trying to find a parking space big enough) they never even breathalised me once I convinced them I hadn't been drinking.......which was a bit of a challenge considering it was 3am and I was in a tellytubby costume.
Guess not all police officers are the same.....some get a bit of a power trip I think.
Funnily enough, when I got stopped on suspiscion of drink-driving (was in fact driving slowly up and down my road trying to find a parking space big enough) they never even breathalised me once I convinced them I hadn't been drinking.......which was a bit of a challenge considering it was 3am and I was in a tellytubby costume.
Guess not all police officers are the same.....some get a bit of a power trip I think.
Original post by persov
the strange thing is, both times I've been stopped by the police, at no point did they ask to see my lisence. I guess my car was on the database as being registered, taxed, MOT'd and insured so they saw no need.
Funnily enough, when I got stopped on suspiscion of drink-driving (was in fact driving slowly up and down my road trying to find a parking space big enough) they never even breathalised me once I convinced them I hadn't been drinking.......which was a bit of a challenge considering it was 3am and I was in a tellytubby costume.
Guess not all police officers are the same.....some get a bit of a power trip I think.
Funnily enough, when I got stopped on suspiscion of drink-driving (was in fact driving slowly up and down my road trying to find a parking space big enough) they never even breathalised me once I convinced them I hadn't been drinking.......which was a bit of a challenge considering it was 3am and I was in a tellytubby costume.
Guess not all police officers are the same.....some get a bit of a power trip I think.
Tell me you had the head on at the time
Original post by mikeyd85
Tell me you had the head on at the time
Dipsy's head-stalk sticking out of the sunroof
Original post by mikeyd85
Tell me you had the head on at the time
It was in the boot. When they asked me to open the boot and saw it, they made me put it on lol. They also found a piste map I had of a recent trip to France and started chatting about skiing for a bit. Some coppers can be friendly.
Original post by gooner1991
Yup, it expires next year. My mum was also straight on the phone to Churchill to check if everything's ok with the insurance and it was all fine.
Please tell me that you've followed this up and the police will repay you the impound fee?
Original post by James'
Personally, I would take this much further; mainly because I'm an ass, but more so because I can't stand people who can't do a simple job properly. ****ing muppet policeman. I'm sure her solicitor can advise things to claim against.
- Loss of earnings, if her job depends on her car.
- Theft of a motorvehicle, as he had no right to seize it.
- Possibly misconduct or something to show that the police officer had no clue what he was doing and wasn't aware of some of the most basic laws.
- Making you pay £150 to release the car; not everyone can cough up that money on demand.
- Check the car for any damage that wasn't there previously; the idiots that seized the car probably aren't the most careful people.
Just a few things I would look into. Hope your mum rinses the **** out of them and gets a load in compensation.
- Loss of earnings, if her job depends on her car.
- Theft of a motorvehicle, as he had no right to seize it.
- Possibly misconduct or something to show that the police officer had no clue what he was doing and wasn't aware of some of the most basic laws.
- Making you pay £150 to release the car; not everyone can cough up that money on demand.
- Check the car for any damage that wasn't there previously; the idiots that seized the car probably aren't the most careful people.
Just a few things I would look into. Hope your mum rinses the **** out of them and gets a load in compensation.
No idea why this has been negged.
The copper had no right to seize the vehicle at all, and so he should be taken to the cleaners IMO. Hopefully he'll get sacked too (but sadly coppers have a nasty habit of sticking up for their own - no matter how much in the wrong they are).
Original post by James'
Personally, I would take this much further; mainly because I'm an ass, but more so because I can't stand people who can't do a simple job properly. ****ing muppet policeman. I'm sure her solicitor can advise things to claim against.
- Loss of earnings, if her job depends on her car.
- Theft of a motorvehicle, as he had no right to seize it.
- Possibly misconduct or something to show that the police officer had no clue what he was doing and wasn't aware of some of the most basic laws.
- Making you pay £150 to release the car; not everyone can cough up that money on demand.
- Check the car for any damage that wasn't there previously; the idiots that seized the car probably aren't the most careful people.
Just a few things I would look into. Hope your mum rinses the **** out of them and gets a load in compensation.
- Loss of earnings, if her job depends on her car.
- Theft of a motorvehicle, as he had no right to seize it.
- Possibly misconduct or something to show that the police officer had no clue what he was doing and wasn't aware of some of the most basic laws.
- Making you pay £150 to release the car; not everyone can cough up that money on demand.
- Check the car for any damage that wasn't there previously; the idiots that seized the car probably aren't the most careful people.
Just a few things I would look into. Hope your mum rinses the **** out of them and gets a load in compensation.
Original post by WelshBluebird
No idea why this has been negged.
The copper had no right to seize the vehicle at all, and so he should be taken to the cleaners IMO. Hopefully he'll get sacked too (but sadly coppers have a nasty habit of sticking up for their own - no matter how much in the wrong they are).
The copper had no right to seize the vehicle at all, and so he should be taken to the cleaners IMO. Hopefully he'll get sacked too (but sadly coppers have a nasty habit of sticking up for their own - no matter how much in the wrong they are).
Any copper would be quite justified to lawfully seize the vehicle under Section 165A Road Traffic Act 1988 with little more than a belief it's being driven without a licence or insurance. Whether to do so in these circumstances is a proportionate action is another subject, but it's happening day in, day out up and down the country, just on the basis that computerised records aren't holding the detail and no paper copy is available at the roadside. The Secretary of State for Transport has determined under Section 164B that if the police use these powers then the person wanting to recover the vehicle will have to pay the fee.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A
The only correct thing amongst all of that is the need to check the vehicle for damage if it's been seized.
You can neg away, but that's the law. I'm not arguing in favour of it or saying anyone was treated fairly. I'm offering absolutely no opinion at all. But the above are objective and true facts.
(edited 11 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- ID in China
- Person vandalised my car
- Selecting breakdown cover
- have you seen/heard ice cream vans this summer?
- Geography: Oxford or Cambridge?
- Criminal Record Guidance
- Advice needed dvla
- Sentencing Council to make changes for pregnant women / new mothers
- TV License / iPlayer question
- Advice needed licence issue
- DVLA
- Tv licensing for university
- Driving test with your own car?
- Passing Stage 1
- Do i need to declare motor claims on a new full licence?
- Application Competition Form for Provisional
- Applying for driving license
- TV licensing letter, an investigation/scheduled visit? In student accommodation
- Provisional license query for international boarder in the UK
- Driving license
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?Trending
Last reply 5 months ago
Where is my car parked during the day? Advice for first car insuranceLast reply 7 months ago
Will paying £1,900 a year for insurance as a new 21 year old driver be a lot?
