Uninsured driver car impounded
Discussion
I have asked this on FTLA but haven't got a specific answer on one bit of it yet. This isn't me personally but I know of someone who is fully insured who ended up letting someone drive his car who it turns out wasn't insured but said he was, one thing led to another and the car was impounded.
I know this wont make any difference to the case and it was just a bit of a query I had about it. So a made up scenario for a start, if I lent my insured car to someone with no insurance and he took the car and returned it to the side of the road where it was before, once he got out I'm assuming its fully insured by me again without me needing to drive it again, could the police knock on in 2 weeks time and seize it for no insurance? how about 1 week, or 1 day later, I'm guessing not as its now insured again.
So what is the cut off where they can seize it, an hour, a minute, 30 seconds after he or she got out, when does it become insured again. Basically what legislation do the police use to seize a car for no insurance when it is insured (if it is.)
I know this wont make any difference to the case and it was just a bit of a query I had about it. So a made up scenario for a start, if I lent my insured car to someone with no insurance and he took the car and returned it to the side of the road where it was before, once he got out I'm assuming its fully insured by me again without me needing to drive it again, could the police knock on in 2 weeks time and seize it for no insurance? how about 1 week, or 1 day later, I'm guessing not as its now insured again.
So what is the cut off where they can seize it, an hour, a minute, 30 seconds after he or she got out, when does it become insured again. Basically what legislation do the police use to seize a car for no insurance when it is insured (if it is.)
paul_c123 said:
"The constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven." from Road Traffic Act 1988 section 165A (3) (c) is probably the relevant bit of law.
I actually just read that bit, someone on the other forum begrudgingly and condescendingly just posted it, they view anyone over there who isn't a top class lawyer as scum despite it being a forum supposedly to help the common person.So its "is being driven" or "was being driven" without any time frame stipulation, how far back can "was" go? I know it doesn't really matter because if your car is getting seized then its getting seized no matter what and you just have to suck it up and pay but I'm just interested in technicalities like this for some reason.
Cat said:
If a constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle is or was being driven without insurance then they can seize it. If they are unable to do immediately because the vehicle fails to stop or drives off then it can be seized within 24 hours.
Cat
Saw that bit as well but does that just apply to failure to stop/make off or could it apply to say PC plod sees someone go past in the opposite direction who he knows hasn't got insurance but for one reason or another cant do a u-turn and stop them, can they just waltz up to the RK address the next day and take the vehicle? Or does it mean that if someone/anyone drives your car uninsured then its potentially getting lifted any time in the next 24hrs.Cat
Odd ball questions I know but I'm interested.
It would need to be a specific case, not a theoretical example you've presented, to be able to make a sensible and meaningful useful response.... The law has the word "reasonable", it doesn't have a fixed timeframe in there so I think that covers your other question.
Edited by paul_c123 on Tuesday 14th July 18:54
paul_c123 said:
it doesn't have a fixed timeframe in there so I think that covers your other question.
It does, the power to seize the vehicle (where it fails to stop or drives off) is for up to 24 hours. After that time the vehicle cannot be seized but the driver could still be reported for having no insurance. Cat
Super Sonic said:
Why would the police knock in two weeks time and seize for no insurance? The car is insured isn't it? The uninsured driver wasn't stopped. The question makes no sense.
I'm not saying they would knock on in two weeks time I'm asking when they still could, how far down the line is still a legitimate seizure, I'm pretty sure I asked a similar question a while ago when I saw a video of some geezer sat in a car in a car park and the police were trying to say he had "just driven" it to where it was without any proof he had ever driven it or something similar to that. Like I said these little oddities intrigue me for some reason.What has happened is someone I know has leant their car to a family member who told them he was insured via DOC on their policy, he was stopped for whatever reason, speeding I guess although I don't know and it turns out that he didn't have the required cover after all. The car was then seized and the RK has had a nightmare of a couple of days trying to get it back through no fault of his own.
I can understand the car getting seized if there isn't any insurance on it full stop, it cant just sit at the side of the road after the stop in case it should roll away or catch fire etc and damage something and you can't have an uninsured car on the road anyway but if it was subsequently insured with the RK again once the uninsured driver got out why cant it be left at the side of the road for the RK to pick up again.
Frane Selak said:
I'm not saying they would knock on in two weeks time I'm asking when they still could, how far down the line is still a legitimate seizure, I'm pretty sure I asked a similar question a while ago when I saw a video of some geezer sat in a car in a car park and the police were trying to say he had "just driven" it to where it was without any proof he had ever driven it or something similar to that. Like I said these little oddities intrigue me for some reason.
What has happened is someone I know has leant their car to a family member who told them he was insured via DOC on their policy, he was stopped for whatever reason, speeding I guess although I don't know and it turns out that he didn't have the required cover after all. The car was then seized and the RK has had a nightmare of a couple of days trying to get it back through no fault of his own.
I can understand the car getting seized if there isn't any insurance on it full stop, it cant just sit at the side of the road after the stop in case it should roll away or catch fire etc and damage something and you can't have an uninsured car on the road anyway but if it was subsequently insured with the RK again once the uninsured driver got out why cant it be left at the side of the road for the RK to pick up again.
Are you asking about the real situation you have described, or the hypothetical one you have made up?What has happened is someone I know has leant their car to a family member who told them he was insured via DOC on their policy, he was stopped for whatever reason, speeding I guess although I don't know and it turns out that he didn't have the required cover after all. The car was then seized and the RK has had a nightmare of a couple of days trying to get it back through no fault of his own.
I can understand the car getting seized if there isn't any insurance on it full stop, it cant just sit at the side of the road after the stop in case it should roll away or catch fire etc and damage something and you can't have an uninsured car on the road anyway but if it was subsequently insured with the RK again once the uninsured driver got out why cant it be left at the side of the road for the RK to pick up again.
From your OP:
"a made up scenario for a start, if I lent my insured car to someone with no insurance and he took the car and returned it to the side of the road where it was before, once he got out I'm assuming its fully insured by me again without me needing to drive it again"
As I said in my previous post, the car is insured, your imaginary friend didn't get stopped driving it, why would the police seize it?
Edited by Super Sonic on Tuesday 14th July 19:58
Well both, I can ask more than one question cant I? The hypothetical question was to gauge how long they have to seize it and the factual one was to see why they did it.
Its a bit like designing a building, when they ask will it sustain an earthquake the designers don't say that's just a hypothetical question, it will never happen so it doesn't matter. No, they provide all the info to the client no matter how far fetched it is.
Its a bit like designing a building, when they ask will it sustain an earthquake the designers don't say that's just a hypothetical question, it will never happen so it doesn't matter. No, they provide all the info to the client no matter how far fetched it is.
Super Sonic said:
Frane Selak said:
I'm not saying they would knock on in two weeks time I'm asking when they still could, how far down the line is still a legitimate seizure, I'm pretty sure I asked a similar question a while ago when I saw a video of some geezer sat in a car in a car park and the police were trying to say he had "just driven" it to where it was without any proof he had ever driven it or something similar to that. Like I said these little oddities intrigue me for some reason.
What has happened is someone I know has leant their car to a family member who told them he was insured via DOC on their policy, he was stopped for whatever reason, speeding I guess although I don't know and it turns out that he didn't have the required cover after all. The car was then seized and the RK has had a nightmare of a couple of days trying to get it back through no fault of his own.
I can understand the car getting seized if there isn't any insurance on it full stop, it cant just sit at the side of the road after the stop in case it should roll away or catch fire etc and damage something and you can't have an uninsured car on the road anyway but if it was subsequently insured with the RK again once the uninsured driver got out why cant it be left at the side of the road for the RK to pick up again.
Are you asking about the real situation you have described, or the hypothetical one you have made up?What has happened is someone I know has leant their car to a family member who told them he was insured via DOC on their policy, he was stopped for whatever reason, speeding I guess although I don't know and it turns out that he didn't have the required cover after all. The car was then seized and the RK has had a nightmare of a couple of days trying to get it back through no fault of his own.
I can understand the car getting seized if there isn't any insurance on it full stop, it cant just sit at the side of the road after the stop in case it should roll away or catch fire etc and damage something and you can't have an uninsured car on the road anyway but if it was subsequently insured with the RK again once the uninsured driver got out why cant it be left at the side of the road for the RK to pick up again.
From your OP:
"a made up scenario for a start, if I lent my insured car to someone with no insurance and he took the car and returned it to the side of the road where it was before, once he got out I'm assuming its fully insured by me again without me needing to drive it again"
As I said in my previous post, the car is insured, your imaginary friend didn't get stopped driving it, why would the police seize it?
Edited by Super Sonic on Tuesday 14th July 19:58
The OP has outlined an actual situation about a car getting towed despite insurance being in place for it.
To understand how law/ procedures work, he postulated a number of scenarios to determine where there might be a tipping point hat causes plod to tow an otherwise insured car.
H
Ian Geary said:
It's quite clear.
The OP has outlined an actual situation about a car getting towed despite insurance being in place for it.
To understand how law/ procedures work, he postulated a number of scenarios to determine where there might be a tipping point hat causes plod to tow an otherwise insured car.
H
He postulated one scenario where someone borrows a car, doesn't get stopped, and puts it back. My answer was why would The police come along later and impound the (insured) car? The OP has outlined an actual situation about a car getting towed despite insurance being in place for it.
To understand how law/ procedures work, he postulated a number of scenarios to determine where there might be a tipping point hat causes plod to tow an otherwise insured car.
H
Frane Selak said:
Well both, I can ask more than one question cant I? The hypothetical question was to gauge how long they have to seize it and the factual one was to see why they did it.
You really are living up to your reputation as being the new Welsh Beef!Carry on, it's very entertaining!
Super Sonic said:
He postulated one scenario where someone borrows a car, doesn't get stopped, and puts it back. My answer was why would The police come along later and impound the (insured) car?
Because the keeper is allowing it to be driven uninsured?Is there an onus on a keeper to make sure anyone who drives the car is insured?
Perhaps if the keeper condones it being driven uninsured, or makes no effort to check insurance is in place, they deserve the car to be seized?
The car is either driven with consent or it's 'taken without consent'? If you consent to someone taking the car, are you liable for ensuring it's insured?
How would plod know that it had been driven uninsured?
There are not many ways they'd know without stopping the car and seeing who is driving it.
Or the keeper report it 'taken'....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff