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

[F i F]

G51CAV said:

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from RPU Sgt to local paper as part of my evidence: there was no other reason for the seizure other than DVLA records out of date as an attempt to point the finger of blame elsewhere, and in said communication did not take any objection to the reporting of the indident or say there were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.

Let's face it, nobody ever knows everything about an incident, even if one was there, and heard every word. Impossible to know what is in another's mind for example.

However I am reporting both sides here.

I find it interesting that you admit it was a silly circumstance in which to seize a vehicle, as indeed it was, with the on;y evidence of no tax being the ANPR system copy of the DVLA records, which are of course notoriously accuate. I also find it strange that having seized it and ordered a tow truck, that the driver was allowed to retain the vehicle there and then on payment of the towing fee.

I find it disappointing that you continue to maintain "the not everything has been disclosed line" in a rather unpleasant insinuation along the usual lines of there must be more to the story making quite unstated accusations and implications.

There is indeed more to the story as having updated myself with the individuals concerned, I have learnt that the complaint was finally found to be on a sound basis and he has received all his money back.

[Red Devil]

F i F said:

G51CAV said:

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from RPU Sgt to local paper as part of my evidence: there was no other reason for the seizure other than DVLA records out of date as an attempt to point the finger of blame elsewhere, and in said communication did not take any objection to the reporting of the indident or say there were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.

Let's face it, nobody ever knows everything about an incident, even if one was there, and heard every word. Impossible to know what is in another's mind for example.

However I am reporting both sides here.

I find it interesting that you admit it was a silly circumstance in which to seize a vehicle, as indeed it was, with the on;y evidence of no tax being the ANPR system copy of the DVLA records, which are of course notoriously accuate. I also find it strange that having seized it and ordered a tow truck, that the driver was allowed to retain the vehicle there and then on payment of the towing fee.

I find it disappointing that you continue to maintain "the not everything has been disclosed line" in a rather unpleasant insinuation along the usual lines of there must be more to the story making quite unstated accusations and implications.

There is indeed more to the story as having updated myself with the individuals concerned, I have learnt that the complaint was finally found to be on a sound basis and he has received all his money back.

Institutionalised inability to admit that MoPs are capable of telling it exactly like it is. Poor form.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

No.

The police have no power to sieze untaxed vehicles.

It would not gave been the police who siezed it but the dvla. The police officer may be there but that is purely to prevent BOP.

If the police siezed the vehicle there must have been other offences to sieze the vehicle for.

Dvla have different powers in relation to taxed and untaxed vehicles than the police. As GAV correctly stated all a police officer can do for no tax displayed is issue a ticket.

I would suggest that it is merely a police officer present but probably dvla anpr or the dval who are there acting under there powers.

Something a police officer would have no 'power' to interfere with.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

No.

The police have no power to sieze untaxed vehicles.

It would not gave been the police who siezed it but the dvla. The police officer may be there but that is purely to prevent BOP.

If the police siezed the vehicle there must have been other offences to sieze the vehicle for.

Dvla have different powers in relation to taxed and untaxed vehicles than the police. As GAV correctly stated all a police officer can do for no tax displayed is issue a ticket.

I would suggest that it is merely a police officer present but probably dvla anpr or the dval who are there acting under there powers.

Something a police officer would have no 'power' to interfere with.

[F i F]

So to move on, let's take it that DVLA ordered the seizure.

Digging out the history in detail it's clear that the post incident police line on this was a) we were ordered to seize by DVLA and b) the DVLA records were not up to date and incorrect, c) that you should make sure that you have the funds to pay for tax when you pay it otherwise it might be rescinded later.

c) being somewhat of a red herring and a below the belt hit but it was so written.

So the question then comes why DVLA allegedly order seizure on a vehicle on the last working day before Christmas, and yet first thing on the first working day after Christmas now say everything is OK.

Which gets me back on a particular hobby horse in that certain organisations who are responsible for maintaining computer databases which are seemingly to be believed over the paper records then they must BY LAW be made to have appropriate 24 hour cover manned by people with knowledge, ability and authority to deal with such questions as opposed to some twonk who just sits in a call centre and just replies "Computer says no."

Not that this has anything to do with S59, however I feel sorry for bib who have in this case been reduced to the tax gathering arm of one of the most incompetent agencies in UK.

[rypt]

F i F said:

b) the DVLA records were not up to date and incorrect

Hello DPA, that's illegal by the way

[Red Devil]

F i F said:

So to move on, let's take it that DVLA ordered the seizure.

Digging out the history in detail it's clear that the post incident police line on this was a) we were ordered to seize by DVLA and b) the DVLA records were not up to date and incorrect, c) that you should make sure that you have the funds to pay for tax when you pay it otherwise it might be rescinded later.

c) being somewhat of a red herring and a below the belt hit but it was so written.

So the question then comes why DVLA allegedly order seizure on a vehicle on the last working day before Christmas, and yet first thing on the first working day after Christmas now say everything is OK.

Which gets me back on a particular hobby horse in that certain organisations who are responsible for maintaining computer databases which are seemingly to be believed over the paper records then they must BY LAW be made to have appropriate 24 hour cover manned by people with knowledge, ability and authority to deal with such questions as opposed to some twonk who just sits in a call centre and just replies "Computer says no."

Not that this has anything to do with S59, however I feel sorry for bib who have in this case been reduced to the tax gathering arm of one of the most incompetent agencies in UK.

Agree 100%
We don't know the cause of the problem which resulted in the first attempt to tax going belly up.
A lack of funds does not always have to be the account holders fault. Been there, done that, T-shirt acquired.

[Richard C]

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.

G51CAV, why do BiB always refuse to believe this sort of thing. Is it an official line or simply an us and them thing ?

[Richard C]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

No.

The police have no power to sieze untaxed vehicles.

It would not gave been the police who siezed it but the dvla. The police officer may be there but that is purely to prevent BOP.

If the police siezed the vehicle there must have been other offences to sieze the vehicle for.

Dvla have different powers in relation to taxed and untaxed vehicles than the police. As GAV correctly stated all a police officer can do for no tax displayed is issue a ticket.

I would suggest that it is merely a police officer present but probably dvla anpr or the dval who are there acting under there powers.

Something a police officer would have no 'power' to interfere with.

That may be the case in your area but in N Wales and Cheshire the ANPR is operated by Police, from both counties. 18 months ago I spotted them having stopped a rather tatty car which was being loaded onto a recovery flatbed. The occupants had been told to find their own way home but told me that it was insured but 3 months out of date on tax. I enquired of the WPC under which powers they were entitled to sieze the vehicle and she said they were entitled to under "...devolved powers from the DVLA" I asked her did that mean that they were contracted as agents of the DVLA at which her male colleague became err...somewhat unhelpful.

Oh yes apart from the occupants and the 2 PCs there were no other personnel present.

[oldsoak]

Richard C said:

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.

G51CAV, why do BiB always refuse to believe this sort of thing. Is it an official line or simply an us and them thing ?

Let me turn that on it's head and ask why do non-Bib always believe the first account is gospel and draw conclusions from having just one side of the story?

[Nick_F]

Because few, if any of us, find that the majority of the people we encounter in our day-to-day lives are dishonest.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Nick_F said:

Because few, if any of us, find that the majority of the people we encounter in our day-to-day lives are dishonest.

In answer to your question I am not aware of the police doing the above. We can't.


Your an idealist. I'm a realist. Most people will subconsciously manipulate the information they give friends to illicit sympathy or support. Or they may honestly believe what they repeat as they were so caught up in an incident and made certain presumptions or forgot certain details.

As a result bib in here post based on knowing what procedures and laws say and what there own experiences of similar situations have taught them.

You never ever get both sides on here.

[^Slider^]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Nick_F said:

Because few, if any of us, find that the majority of the people we encounter in our day-to-day lives are dishonest.

In answer to your question I am not aware of the police doing the above. We can't.


Your an idealist. I'm a realist. Most people will subconsciously manipulate the information they give friends to illicit sympathy or support. Or they may honestly believe what they repeat as they were so caught up in an incident and made certain presumptions or forgot certain details.

As a result bib in here post based on knowing what procedures and laws say and what there own experiences of similar situations have taught them.

You never ever get both sides on here.

Im not aware of any powers to seize for no tax.

Im not aware of any devolved powers to enable police to seize cars on behalf of DVLA for no tax.

All i know is we can give a fixed penalty of £60.00 and inform DVLA of the matter.

[Nick_F]

Perhaps I should have been clearer: I don't doubt your assertion that those who perhaps feel hard done by, or who are ashamed of something they have done, will spin their accounts of what happened - even to themselves, never mind their friends and acquaintances.

My point is that in our daily lives most of us don't ever encounter the sort of individuals who make up your customer base - it's hard to imagine that some cynicism isn't an inevitable consequence.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Nick_F said:

Perhaps I should have been clearer: I don't doubt your assertion that those who perhaps feel hard done by, or who are ashamed of something they have done, will spin their accounts of what happened - even to themselves, never mind their friends and acquaintances.

My point is that in our daily lives most of us don't ever encounter the sort of individuals who make up your customer base - it's hard to imagine that some cynicism isn't an inevitable consequence.

Actually some of the worst are 'normal' people.

Honesty got a biker off 110 today.

Had he denied it the video i then showed him ( which resulted in him sitting with his head in his hands) would have made it's way to court.

I'm a big believer in honesty. Tell me the truth and mist of the time you'll walk with advice.

[GC8]

Id consider you to be in a minority there. I think that most traffic officers would see that as a confession sealing the motorcyclists fate.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

GC8 said:

Id consider you to be in a minority there. I think that most traffic officers would see that as a confession sealing the motorcyclists fate.

Not in my experience.

Officers only stop vehicles when they have the evidence they need. Your confession won't seal your fate but in most cases will mitigate the outcome.

Some officers it won't I'm sure but the vast majority it will.

[saaby93]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Honesty got a biker off 110 today.

I'm not happy with a hit and miss approach to policing
If 110mph is not to be penalised the normal channels should be approached to raise the limit to 120mph.
Surely cant have one rule for some and not for others depending how the officer felt on the day

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 23 February 20:10

[Mr_annie_vxr]

saaby93 said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Honesty got a biker off 110 today.

I'm not happy with a hit and miss approach to policing :waves:
If 110mph is not to be penalised the normal channels should be approached to raise the limit to 120mph.
Cant have one rule for some and not for others depending how the officer felt on the day

So No discretion then.

Like a speed camera.


Never happy some posters on here.

[saaby93]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

So No discretion then.
Like a speed camera.
Never happy some posters on here.

Speed cameras no problem with the right limit
See happy sometimes

Discretion is ok if everyone knows where they stand
so if the NSL limit rules added
110mph wont attract a penalty if you're being careful and when discussed with a stopping officer you admit to the offence.

Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 23 February 20:25