Seized vehicle and section 165 road traffic act

[simoncrowe]

Can somebody help me? I know I have been at fault here but bear with me! I had a vehicle that had no tax, not or insurance and was due to be collected by a garage to carry out some work and then the mot. I parked it on the road in order that the garage could pick it up. I was working away from home. In the few days it took for the garage to collect the vehicle as it was Easter the police have seized the vehicle and impounded it. However they have seized it under section 165 of the road traffic act which, if I am not mistaken only gives the police powers to seize vehicles that are being driven? Can somebody tell me which part of section 165 of the act allows them to remove vehicles that are parked? Or can somebody tell me which part of the road traffic act they should have seized it under.

I know it shouldn't have been parked there but if they want me to get my paperwork in order then shouldn't they get their paperwork in order also? Can anybody help as it is going to cost me about £650 to get my car back which I can ill afford at the moment.

[Vaud]

If you want a view of the police criteria and guidance from one force:

http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/P15-2008Seizure_Re...

I'm no lawyer, but these would seem to relevant:

3.1.5 The third condition is that:
(iii) The Officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) (driving licences) or section 143 (insurance)

3.1.6 Where any of the conditions outlined in Para. 3.1.3 – 3.1.5 is satisfied, the Officer may:
(i) Seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

3.1.8 The Officer is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for them to do so.

Edited by Vaud on Wednesday 13th April 14:02

[Foliage]

simoncrowe said:

Can somebody help me? I know I have been at fault here but bear with me! I had a vehicle that had no tax, not or insurance and was due to be collected by a garage to carry out some work and then the mot. I parked it on the road in order that the garage could pick it up. I was working away from home. In the few days it took for the garage to collect the vehicle as it was Easter the police have seized the vehicle and impounded it. However they have seized it under section 165 of the road traffic act which, if I am not mistaken only gives the police powers to seize vehicles that are being driven? Can somebody tell me which part of section 165 of the act allows them to remove vehicles that are parked? Or can somebody tell me which part of the road traffic act they should have seized it under.

I know it shouldn't have been parked there but if they want me to get my paperwork in order then shouldn't they get their paperwork in order also? Can anybody help as it is going to cost me about £650 to get my car back which I can ill afford at the moment.

Err well 1(b) and 1(c)

The liberal use of the word was and been, should give you a clue.

[Psycho Warren]

Sounds like your neighbours grassed you up or you were very unlucky for an ANPR cop car to drive down your street.

[anonymous-user]

According to a recent thread on here, the police have no grounds to investigate a parked car - even if it were to trigger an ANPR response.

[anonymous-user]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Vaud]

bmw535i said:

According to a recent thread on here, the police have no grounds to investigate a parked car - even if it were to trigger an ANPR response.

Interesting, the local force guidance I linked to does allow it.

If I had more time I'd look for other force guidance.

[simoncrowe]

The vehicle had 3 flat tyres so it could not have been driven and was not being driven

[simoncrowe]

I did find this from Nottinghamshire police.

http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default...

These powers cannot be used to remove abandoned vehicles or vehicles involved in road traffic collisions. The power to recover vehicles in these circumstances are granted under Section 102(2) of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1988. The only time it may be deemed to be appropriate would be at the scene of a road traffic collision where the vehicle sustains minor damage and the driver attempts to drive away from the scene and this is witnessed by the constable

Do you think I have any grounds to pursue it?

[simoncrowe]

Foliage said:

Err well 1(b) and 1(c)

The liberal use of the word was and been, should give you a clue.

Where do I find 1(b) and 1(c) that you are referring to?

[Vaud]

simoncrowe said:

Foliage said:

Err well 1(b) and 1(c)

The liberal use of the word was and been, should give you a clue.

Where do I find 1(b) and 1(c) that you are referring to?

The Road Traffic Act

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

[Red Devil]

Vaud said:

If you want a view of the police criteria and guidance from one force:

http://www.dorset.police.uk/pdf/P15-2008Seizure_Re...

I'm no lawyer, but these would seem to relevant:

3.1.5 The third condition is that:
(iii) The Officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) (driving licences) or section 143 (insurance)

3.1.6 Where any of the conditions outlined in Para. 3.1.3 – 3.1.5 is satisfied, the Officer may:
(i) Seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

3.1.8 The Officer is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for them to do so.

Selective quoting from part of a document can be somewhat misleading. It is quite clear that Policy and Procedure document is all about the offence of driving an uninsured vehicle (as opposed to a CIE infraction). Even assuming that they have the relevant power (which is doubtful imo) I'm amazed that the police have the time and resources to target parked cars whose owners are nowhere near the vehicle at the time.

Edited by Red Devil on Wednesday 13th April 15:10

[Vaud]

Red Devil said:

Selective quoting from part of a document can be somewhat misleading. It is quite clear that Policy and Procedure document is all about the offence of driving an uninsured vehicle (as opposed to a CIE infraction). Even assuming that they have the relevant power (which is doubtful imo) I'm amazed that the police have the time and resources to target parked cars whose owners are nowhere near the vehicle at the time.

Fair enough, though I did link to the complete policy.

A car with 3 flat tyres and, no insurance or tax?

So CIE, no tax, MOT, and probably construction and use issues as well.

Popping it on a low loader and seizing its seems fair in my view.

Edit to add.

It says ANY of the criteria. One criteria is "the Officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) (driving licences) or section 143 (insurance)

It must have been driven to that location..

[simoncrowe]

Red Devil said:

Selective quoting from part of a document can be somewhat misleading. It is quite clear that Policy and Procedure document is all about the offence of driving an uninsured vehicle (as opposed to a CIE infraction). Even assuming that they have the relevant power (which is doubtful imo) I'm amazed that the police have the time and resources to target parked cars whose owners are nowhere near the vehicle at the time.

That was my understanding also. The guidance I posted above from Nottinghamshire seems to back that up and also categorically states that section 165 can not and must not be used to remove abandoned vehicles.

The question is, who do I make a complaint to in regards to this? The force in question is Greater Manchester.

[Vaud]

simoncrowe said:

That was my understanding also. The guidance I posted above from Nottinghamshire seems to back that up and also categorically states that section 165 can not and must not be used to remove abandoned vehicles.

The question is, who do I make a complaint to in regards to this? The force in question is Greater Manchester.

Just dial 101 and ask to make a complaint. They have a policy and procedure.

2 seconds on Google also finds you :

http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?read...

[mcflurry]

Since the car has no tax, no insurance, no MOT and only 1 decent wheel, what would you expect the police to do if they saw it on the road?

[simoncrowe]

Vaud said:

Fair enough, though I did link to the complete policy.

A car with 3 flat tyres and, no insurance or tax?

So CIE, no tax, MOT, and probably construction and use issues as well.

Popping it on a low loader and seizing its seems fair in my view.

Fair enough, I think it was unlucky how it fell with Easter and the garage being delayed in picking it up but surely I have basis for a complaint if they have done it under the wrong road traffic act and wrong paperwork?

[TooMany2cvs]

simoncrowe said:

Can somebody help me? I know I have been at fault here but bear with me! I had a vehicle that had no tax, not or insurance and was due to be collected by a garage to carry out some work and then the mot. I parked it on the road in order that the garage could pick it up. I was working away from home. In the few days it took for the garage to collect the vehicle as it was Easter the police have seized the vehicle and impounded it. However they have seized it under section 165 of the road traffic act which, if I am not mistaken only gives the police powers to seize vehicles that are being driven? Can somebody tell me which part of section 165 of the act allows them to remove vehicles that are parked? Or can somebody tell me which part of the road traffic act they should have seized it under.

I know it shouldn't have been parked there but if they want me to get my paperwork in order then shouldn't they get their paperwork in order also? Can anybody help as it is going to cost me about £650 to get my car back which I can ill afford at the moment.

simoncrowe said:

The vehicle had 3 flat tyres so it could not have been driven and was not being driven

You left an untaxed, uninsured, untested car with three flat tyres on the road... for days on end... and you're surprised Mr Plod took an interest? And you think it unfair...?

Blimey.

BTW, you do know that you'll need to declare it as being impounded when you insure it before you can reclaim it, right?

[simoncrowe]

Vaud said:

It must have been driven to that location..

It was trailered to that location.

mcflurry said:

Since the car has no tax, no insurance, no MOT and only 1 decent wheel, what would you expect the police to do if they saw it on the road?

There is no way the police would have seen it, it was parked on a very quiet residential street with only a few houses on it. I think somebody has complained about it

[TooMany2cvs]

simoncrowe said:

but surely I have basis for a complaint if they have done it under the wrong road traffic act and wrong paperwork?

Maybe you're due a "Sorry, we put the wrong reason on the paper", maybe you're not.
Does that mean you'll get it back? No.
Does that mean it should never have been seized? No.
Does that mean you'll get off any prosecution arising? No.

This "quiet residential street" that it was left on - was it the street you live on?