Oh goody, I've got myself a section 59.

[Red Devil]

berg1 said:

Having followed this thread for a while I have decided rather than trying to contest any of the BIB's views I will find a brick wall to bang my head against.
Seems to have the same affect.

You're welcome to borrow mine.....

[saaby93]

I'm sure I saw a reply from the OP saying that everything had been sorted out satisfactorily at the front desk, but can't see it any more
Useful things the front desk. Good for all types of issues

[vonhosen]

Red Devil said:

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

vonhosen said:

eldar said:

Practical difference is really simple.

A conventional arrest needs to be backed up by evidence that may be examined by someone external to the police prior to conviction.

S59 requires no evidence that is subject non-police review before a penalty is imposed. There are no proper safeguards. It there were, I'd be satisfied with S59.

You are getting caught up with conviction.

The conventional arrest doesn't need to be examined by somebody external of the Police where there is no prosecution.
Sec 59 doesn't need to be examined by somebody external of the Police either.

In the arrest you lose liberty & possibly lose out financially as a result.
With a Sec 59 warning you lose nothing & in a seizure you lose the car for as long as it takes you to go a collect it (& you have to pay the 3rd party recovery costs, which is not a fine it's just costs).

This is like wading through treacle and about as rewarding.
A seizure late in the evening a couple of hundred miles from home would cause serious and immediate financial loss over and above the cost of getting the car back. If you were arrested you would be taken to a police station fro processing. Which in most cases would be somewhere close to civilsation. An S59 seizure could see you stranded on a motorway slip road miles from anywhere. There is no obligation on BiB to give you a lift to the nearest railway station/bus stop/town/village.

What Von conveniently chooses to ingnore is that a first S59 is like the Sword of Damocles. And where it is not justified (arguably so in the case of the OP) the existing remedies are simply not good enough. I am 100% with FiF on this issue.

1) You aren't going to get left on a motorway.

2) Arrest can result in you being taken a considerable distance to the Police station where you are going to be dealt with & equally can have financial loss over & above the cost of the car recovery.

Re 1)
Really? http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1071...
Yes I know it wasn't an S59 issue but the seizure is the common denominator.

Re 2)
Diversionary tactics again. Typical Von red herring. I repeat. A police station is likely to be in or relatively close to a centre of population, whereas the roundabout at the end of a motorway slip road may well not be. Or are you saying the police will, as a matter of course, give a lift to those they seize a vehicle from?

Honestly it's like talking to a machine with its programming code on a closed loop cycle.

So a bloke who wasn't abandoned on the motorway & who had means for the onward journey.

He was forced to walk off it. Petty close to abandonment in my book. Why could he not have been escorted off the motorway by the BiB? When the BiB in NI wanted to speak to me that is exactly what they did. No problems and all sorted with a minimum of inconvenience.

What you mean is there were too many to get in their vehicle & they wouldn't want to leave some on the motorway whilst they moved them in shifts. As a result they instead closed the slip road so that it would be safe for them to walk off together.

Red Devil said:

He didn't have the means for the onward journey. His father-in-law did. And that contact would not have been available to him on a motorway slip road without a mobile phone. I wonder what would have happened if his phone couldn't get a signal or the battery ran low.

The officers were no doubt aware he had a mobile phone & arrangements had been made for his onward journey. Again that's not abandoned.

Red Devil said:

Von is very reluctant to agree that the legislation needs updating - as suggested by FiF. I wonder why. Could it be that the expediency it provides is so attractive that any improved checks and balances are seen as retrograde?

Von has kept asking from some evidence of vehicles being illegitimately seized in significant numbers. It isn't forthcoming, so in that case I'm not for spending money unnecessarily on bureaucracy. I may change my position should the circumstances change in relation to that.

I've already said I've never issued one, so that position isn't based in making it expedient or easy for me.

Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 18th February 08:23

[F i F]

It's not the seizure, it all starts with the first notice.

:introduces vonlike red herring for comedic purposes:

So are we saying there is never any abuse of seizure of alcohol under either Section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2002 or Section 1 of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997.

: points at those two old buffers having a quiet picnic in Twickers car park iirc:

: also points at the WPC who seized unopened containers in Suffolk and had the arrest turned down by the Custody Sgt:

Both seizures took place in front of TV cameras.

Bit late when stuff has been poured down the drain.



Turning back to S59.

Clearly some forces recognise the situation and have a Force Policy.

: points at Hants policy:

28503 PROCEDURE revision 3 said:

4.1.
Officers will ensure that they use these powers appropriately and particularly not simply as an alternative to seeking prosecution for driving offences. Officers will ensure the driver has the appropriate “documents” and authority to be using the vehicle and deal with any offences disclosed.
4.2.
PCSOs will normally deal with vehicles that contravene S. 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Prohibition of off road driving) AND cause or are likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. Incidents where a warning or seizure are considered under s.59 following a contravention of s.3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Careless and inconsiderate driving) will require a Police Officer to attend to conduct the investigation.
4.3.
A first warning will result in an evidential file of the circumstances being submitted to a Supervisor. The Supervisor will authorise the warning to be entered onto PNC upon the merits of the evidence provided, and will assess to see if a prosecution is warranted. (With Careless and inconsiderate driving cases, Central RPU IMU Ops will make the final decision). Ideally third party evidence by way of statement/ proforma statement will be required.
4.4.
A Seizure will need to be approved by a Supervisor who is satisfied with the evidence of the second occasion, the timing, and the validity of the first warning. An evidential file will be required to assess if a prosecution is warranted in addition to the vehicle seizure as above.

Mind you that procedure was due for review yesterday so technically it could be out of date.

Why not modify the legislation to embody this procedure and also allow some sort of independant review or oversight in case the behaviour or reason for the notice being issued is contested and/or contestable.


:Clarkson:
How hard can it be?
:/Clarkson:

[rypt]

vonhosen said:

Red Devil said:

Von is very reluctant to agree that the legislation needs updating - as suggested by FiF. I wonder why. Could it be that the expediency it provides is so attractive that any improved checks and balances are seen as retrograde?

Von has kept asking from some evidence of vehicles being illegitimately seized in significant numbers. It isn't forthcoming, so in that case I'm not for spending money unnecessarily on bureaucracy. I may change my position should the circumstances change in relation to that.

I've already said I've never issued one, so that position isn't based in making it expedient or easy for me.

Why are you only interested in seizures, the first S59 is the same as the 2nd in terms of what it can be given for as such just because we have not seen seizures does not mean that S59s are not being abused

[rypt]

F i F said:

:introduces vonlike red herring for comedic purposes:

So are we saying there is never any abuse of seizure of alcohol under either Section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2002 or Section 1 of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997.

: points at those two old buffers having a quiet picnic in Twickers car park iirc:

: also points at the WPC who seized unopened containers in Suffolk and had the arrest turned down by the Custody Sgt:

Both seizures took place in front of TV cameras.

Bit late when stuff has been poured down the drain.

Police are liable for replacement I assume though

[F i F]

rypt said:

F i F said:

:introduces vonlike red herring for comedic purposes:

So are we saying there is never any abuse of seizure of alcohol under either Section 12 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2002 or Section 1 of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997.

: points at those two old buffers having a quiet picnic in Twickers car park iirc:

: also points at the WPC who seized unopened containers in Suffolk and had the arrest turned down by the Custody Sgt:

Both seizures took place in front of TV cameras.

Bit late when stuff has been poured down the drain.

Police are liable for replacement I assume though

Only if you sue in civil court, probably...

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer suystems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

[rypt]

F i F said:

or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer suystems will never be 100% in accord.

I had that, re DVLA that is, though wasn't stopped.
Had a tax disc last year that was paid until end of May, for some strange reason DVLA computer decided that it should actually expire middle of March (dunno why middle still to this day).
Had a wonderful month or argument with DVLA, who insist "our system is never wrong", only thing that shut them up was the fact that I still had the receipt from Post Office for the tax, AND the charge on my bank statement for paying for it.

Computers are ALWAYS wrong in this country

[TTwiggy]

and if the (wrongly held) thought of your untaxed and uninsured car causes the copper 'alarm and distress' he or she could issue an S59

[F i F]

Anyone got a youtube link to that football chant "It's gone quiet over there..."

[G51CAV]

F i F said:

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer systems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

The MIB is not updated by the police, that is the job of the insurance company and they have an obligation to you in making sure it is done within a reasonable time scale.

A vehicle wouldn't be seized simply for no tax, that would be covered by a non endorsable FP and a notification to DVLA who would look for the back tax from the registered keeper, whoever told you that story has omitted some key information!

[Crazy Torque]

I was pulled over by a police check point in Brighton - with ANPR - for having no insurance.

These police were somewhat smarter than the usual mindless automatons we hear about, pointing out to me that since the tax disc was issued only the previous week, they were able to work out that must have been insured for the Post Office to issue the tax disc. Hence, paper rules over computer!


Though I always wonder if I may get an S59 - I'm sure some old ladies would say looking at it is causing them 'distress'

[stitched]

G51CAV said:

F i F said:

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer systems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

The MIB is not updated by the police, that is the job of the insurance company and they have an obligation to you in making sure it is done within a reasonable time scale.

A vehicle wouldn't be seized simply for no tax, that would be covered by a non endorsable FP and a notification to DVLA who would look for the back tax from the registered keeper, whoever told you that story has omitted some key information!

Deary me, can there be someone so isolated from reality that they missed the regional 'no tax' clampdowns where crushed vehicles were displayed on street corners to threaten motorists who dared to defile the roads withoud contributing to the porky trough, (politicians not BiB so keep your hair on OS)

[G51CAV]

stitched said:

G51CAV said:

F i F said:

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer systems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

The MIB is not updated by the police, that is the job of the insurance company and they have an obligation to you in making sure it is done within a reasonable time scale.

A vehicle wouldn't be seized simply for no tax, that would be covered by a non endorsable FP and a notification to DVLA who would look for the back tax from the registered keeper, whoever told you that story has omitted some key information!

Deary me, can there be someone so isolated from reality that they missed the regional 'no tax' clampdowns where crushed vehicles were displayed on street corners to threaten motorists who dared to defile the roads withoud contributing to the porky trough, (politicians not BiB so keep your hair on OS)

FIF's post would suggest that the person referred to was stopped while using the car, my point being that if stopped by a patrol and the only offence detected was no excise, then the preferred way of dealing with it would be to issue a conditional offer.

If the car was seized then other offences that would merit the seizure would have been detected, those have not been disclosed to FIF.

What you're talking about is a different matter.

[F i F]

G51CAV said:

stitched said:

G51CAV said:

F i F said:

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer systems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

The MIB is not updated by the police, that is the job of the insurance company and they have an obligation to you in making sure it is done within a reasonable time scale.

A vehicle wouldn't be seized simply for no tax, that would be covered by a non endorsable FP and a notification to DVLA who would look for the back tax from the registered keeper, whoever told you that story has omitted some key information!

Deary me, can there be someone so isolated from reality that they missed the regional 'no tax' clampdowns where crushed vehicles were displayed on street corners to threaten motorists who dared to defile the roads withoud contributing to the porky trough, (politicians not BiB so keep your hair on OS)

FIF's post would suggest that the person referred to was stopped while using the car, my point being that if stopped by a patrol and the only offence detected was no excise, then the preferred way of dealing with it would be to issue a conditional offer.

If the car was seized then other offences that would merit the seizure would have been detected, those have not been disclosed to FIF.

What you're talking about is a different matter.

@ G51CAV the facts of the case in question.

The chap was stopped on an ANPR hit for no tax.
He was displaying a current tax disc and had a cash receipt from the PO relating to that disc.
The DVLA computer showed it as not taxed. DVLA could not be contacted Christmas Eve. see later.
The vehicle was seized and a tow truck ordered.
The driver offered to pay the £160 towing fee there and then as the tow company wanted paying.
PC allowed this to happen and advised the driver not to use the vehicle until after DVLA returned to work and this could be investigated further.
Chap did not use hs vehicle over Christmas.

Investigation afterwards revealed that the vehicle had been taxed at beginning of December in normal scheme of things but there had been a problem with the cheque and tax disc revoked. This disc had been returned to Swansea and the vehicle retaxed using cash payment at PO, and this was the disc on display and the receipt which was showed to the PC. DVLA had not updated their records when the vehicle was taxed for the second time.
There was nothing else for which the vehicle could be seized hence the driver being allowed to retain the vehicle after payment of £160.
Police involved have publicly declared that is the situation, and also said they believe they were correct to seize.

All very much outwith procedure in my eyes. He is afaik still out the £160.

Sorry chap but your speculation is incorrect and BOTH sides of the story. The vehicle was seized, albeit temporarily, simply for no tax. Nothing else.

[G51CAV]

F i F said:

G51CAV said:

stitched said:

G51CAV said:

F i F said:

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer systems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

The MIB is not updated by the police, that is the job of the insurance company and they have an obligation to you in making sure it is done within a reasonable time scale.

A vehicle wouldn't be seized simply for no tax, that would be covered by a non endorsable FP and a notification to DVLA who would look for the back tax from the registered keeper, whoever told you that story has omitted some key information!

Deary me, can there be someone so isolated from reality that they missed the regional 'no tax' clampdowns where crushed vehicles were displayed on street corners to threaten motorists who dared to defile the roads withoud contributing to the porky trough, (politicians not BiB so keep your hair on OS)

FIF's post would suggest that the person referred to was stopped while using the car, my point being that if stopped by a patrol and the only offence detected was no excise, then the preferred way of dealing with it would be to issue a conditional offer.

If the car was seized then other offences that would merit the seizure would have been detected, those have not been disclosed to FIF.

What you're talking about is a different matter.

@ G51CAV the facts of the case in question.

The chap was stopped on an ANPR hit for no tax.
He was displaying a current tax disc and had a cash receipt from the PO relating to that disc.
The DVLA computer showed it as not taxed. DVLA could not be contacted Christmas Eve. see later.
The vehicle was seized and a tow truck ordered.
The driver offered to pay the £160 towing fee there and then as the tow company wanted paying.
PC allowed this to happen and advised the driver not to use the vehicle until after DVLA returned to work and this could be investigated further.
Chap did not use hs vehicle over Christmas.

Investigation afterwards revealed that the vehicle had been taxed at beginning of December in normal scheme of things but there had been a problem with the cheque and tax disc revoked. This disc had been returned to Swansea and the vehicle retaxed using cash payment at PO, and this was the disc on display and the receipt which was showed to the PC. DVLA had not updated their records when the vehicle was taxed for the second time.
There was nothing else for which the vehicle could be seized hence the driver being allowed to retain the vehicle after payment of £160.
Police involved have publicly declared that is the situation, and also said they believe they were correct to seize.

All very much outwith procedure in my eyes. He is afaik still out the £160.

Sorry chap but your speculation is incorrect and BOTH sides of the story. The vehicle was seized, albeit temporarily, simply for no tax. Nothing else.

As I said, I'm not disputing any of what you've been told, I simply don't believe you have been told everything.

[rypt]

F i F said:

All very much outwith procedure in my eyes. He is afaik still out the £160.

And again, surely DVLA/Police are liable for that £160.
The DVLA for failure to update their records, the Police for failure to investigate the issue fully before requiring seizure.

[stitched]

rypt said:

F i F said:

All very much outwith procedure in my eyes. He is afaik still out the £160.

And again, surely DVLA/Police are liable for that £160.
The DVLA for failure to update their records, the Police for failure to investigate the issue fully before requiring seizure.

I think Von would suggest the civil courts were sufficient for the recovery of the dosh

[F i F]

G51CAV said:

F i F said:

G51CAV said:

stitched said:

G51CAV said:

F i F said:

It's like if your vehicle is seized for, say, no insurance because the MID is not up to date, even though you provide a cert at the station later to prove it was on cover. You're still liable for towing and storage costs and any consequential costs of being stranded at the roadside, because the officer had cause to believe, albeit wrongly as it turned out, that you were not insured to drive the vehicle. You'll get nothing from the police and would have to try and recover your costs from the insurance company.

tbh I'm not sure of whose liability it would be if you presented your ins cert at the roadside but the database was believed over the cert, or had a tax disc but DVLA system said not taxed.

The only case I know of personally the car was seized for no tax despite the guy having a cash receipt from Post Office, but the guy immediately paid the £160 to the tow company and he was allowed to drive home but then lost use of the car for a few days until DVLA came back to work as he couldn't afford another £160 if he got stopped and vehicle seized again.

Barmy isn't it?

You've got a vehicle insured and have a cert.
You've got a vehicle tested and have the test cert.
You've paid tax and are displaying a disc.
You've done what you are supposed to do but get hassle because various folks can't get their computer systems in order, and the computer is always believed over the paper.

Paper and computer systems will never be 100% in accord.

Sorry, red herring is smoked and kippered by now.

The MIB is not updated by the police, that is the job of the insurance company and they have an obligation to you in making sure it is done within a reasonable time scale.

A vehicle wouldn't be seized simply for no tax, that would be covered by a non endorsable FP and a notification to DVLA who would look for the back tax from the registered keeper, whoever told you that story has omitted some key information!

Deary me, can there be someone so isolated from reality that they missed the regional 'no tax' clampdowns where crushed vehicles were displayed on street corners to threaten motorists who dared to defile the roads withoud contributing to the porky trough, (politicians not BiB so keep your hair on OS)

FIF's post would suggest that the person referred to was stopped while using the car, my point being that if stopped by a patrol and the only offence detected was no excise, then the preferred way of dealing with it would be to issue a conditional offer.

If the car was seized then other offences that would merit the seizure would have been detected, those have not been disclosed to FIF.

What you're talking about is a different matter.

@ G51CAV the facts of the case in question.

The chap was stopped on an ANPR hit for no tax.
He was displaying a current tax disc and had a cash receipt from the PO relating to that disc.
The DVLA computer showed it as not taxed. DVLA could not be contacted Christmas Eve. see later.
The vehicle was seized and a tow truck ordered.
The driver offered to pay the £160 towing fee there and then as the tow company wanted paying.
PC allowed this to happen and advised the driver not to use the vehicle until after DVLA returned to work and this could be investigated further.
Chap did not use hs vehicle over Christmas.

Investigation afterwards revealed that the vehicle had been taxed at beginning of December in normal scheme of things but there had been a problem with the cheque and tax disc revoked. This disc had been returned to Swansea and the vehicle retaxed using cash payment at PO, and this was the disc on display and the receipt which was showed to the PC. DVLA had not updated their records when the vehicle was taxed for the second time.
There was nothing else for which the vehicle could be seized hence the driver being allowed to retain the vehicle after payment of £160.
Police involved have publicly declared that is the situation, and also said they believe they were correct to seize.

All very much outwith procedure in my eyes. He is afaik still out the £160.

Sorry chap but your speculation is incorrect and BOTH sides of the story. The vehicle was seized, albeit temporarily, simply for no tax. Nothing else.

As I said, I'm not disputing any of what you've been told, I simply don't believe you have been told everything.

So following that line, if the police publicly have said, oints at letter from RPU Sgt to local paper as part of my evidence: there was no other reason for the seizure other than DVLA records out of date as an attempt to point the finger of blame elsewhere, and in said communication did not take any objection to the reporting of the indident or say there were any other circumstances then you are clearly alleging that the police are not coming forward with material facts.

Don't believe it then. I care not.

[G51CAV]

F i F said:

So following that line, if the police publicly have said, oints at letter from RPU Sgt to local paper as part of my evidence: there was no other reason for the seizure other than DVLA records out of date as an attempt to point the finger of blame elsewhere, and in said communication did not take any objection to the reporting of the indident or say there were any other circumstances then you are clearly alleging that the police are not coming forward with material facts.

Don't believe it then. I care not.

If that was said then it sounds more of an admission than trying to blame someone else, I say that because I know what I would expect if I were silly enough to seize a vehicle in those circumstances and accordingly still don't think all has been disclosed.