Is it a legal requirement to display a VIN in the windscreen
Discussion
Hi,
A while back my girlfriends vehicle was seized by the police on the ‘suspicion of being stolen’. The police seized the vehicle at night and the reason they gave was that they could not correctly identify the vehicle, it was in a known hotspot, and they couldn’t see the vin number in the windscreen. They also couldn’t adequately identify the colour to confirm the registration against make/model/colour (I assume due the time of night) their report said ‘blue’ instead of ‘purple’
My girlfriend reported it stolen the day after it was seized and we heard nothing for a week until the police called and said that the vehicle wasn’t stolen it was seized for the above reason. I asked why they didn’t contact the owner through insurance information etc, and they claimed due to the time of night they couldn’t try. I asked why we hadn’t been told when reporting it stolen, and they basically admitted they’d made a mistake in procedure.
A couple of months on we’ve finally had a settlement offer for my girlfriends missed time at work, however they are refusing to pay the full amount we requested. She missed shifts 2, 4, 5 & 7 days after work before being able to source another vehicle.
The police are claiming that because they seized the vehicle lawfully, and that it would have incurred costs the recover the vehicle, that they will only pay the missed shifts minus the costs of recovery (£110). I am arguing that ‘being unable to identify the vehicle from the VIN in the windscreen’ is not a reason to suspect the vehicle stolen and that the seizure was not lawful.
So is it a legal requirement to display a VIN in the windscreen? Or does it just need to be stamped and legible elsewhere on the vehicle?
Does anyone else have any other advice?
Thanks
A while back my girlfriends vehicle was seized by the police on the ‘suspicion of being stolen’. The police seized the vehicle at night and the reason they gave was that they could not correctly identify the vehicle, it was in a known hotspot, and they couldn’t see the vin number in the windscreen. They also couldn’t adequately identify the colour to confirm the registration against make/model/colour (I assume due the time of night) their report said ‘blue’ instead of ‘purple’
My girlfriend reported it stolen the day after it was seized and we heard nothing for a week until the police called and said that the vehicle wasn’t stolen it was seized for the above reason. I asked why they didn’t contact the owner through insurance information etc, and they claimed due to the time of night they couldn’t try. I asked why we hadn’t been told when reporting it stolen, and they basically admitted they’d made a mistake in procedure.
A couple of months on we’ve finally had a settlement offer for my girlfriends missed time at work, however they are refusing to pay the full amount we requested. She missed shifts 2, 4, 5 & 7 days after work before being able to source another vehicle.
The police are claiming that because they seized the vehicle lawfully, and that it would have incurred costs the recover the vehicle, that they will only pay the missed shifts minus the costs of recovery (£110). I am arguing that ‘being unable to identify the vehicle from the VIN in the windscreen’ is not a reason to suspect the vehicle stolen and that the seizure was not lawful.
So is it a legal requirement to display a VIN in the windscreen? Or does it just need to be stamped and legible elsewhere on the vehicle?
Does anyone else have any other advice?
Thanks
You need to provide more details as to why your girlfriend was stopped.
I doubt that the police stopped her just so they could peer at her car's windscreen. It is impossible to tell from the incomplete information provided whether the seizure was or was not lawful.
EDIT: If she was stopped - apols if she was not.
The decision to report as stolen a car that had been seized by the police was frankly bizarre. EDIT: Apols, not if the car was grabbed whilst parked.
I doubt that the police stopped her just so they could peer at her car's windscreen. It is impossible to tell from the incomplete information provided whether the seizure was or was not lawful.
EDIT: If she was stopped - apols if she was not.
The decision to report as stolen a car that had been seized by the police was frankly bizarre. EDIT: Apols, not if the car was grabbed whilst parked.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 23 April 07:17
Breadvan72 said:
You need to provide more details as to why your girlfriend was stopped. I doubt that the police stopped her just so they could peer at her car's windscreen. It is impossible to tell from the incomplete information provided whether the seizure was or was not lawful.
The decision to report as stolen a car that had been seized by the police was frankly bizarre.
It’s not clear to me that she was with the car when it was seized. I read it and thought it was taken by the Police without her present, hence she reported it as stolen the next day. Otherwise, why report it as ‘stolen’?The decision to report as stolen a car that had been seized by the police was frankly bizarre.
Is she was stopped, they could have looked at the VIN plate inside the car.
How old is the car? Visible VIN numbers haven’t been around for ever.
Did the car have the ‘window’ in the screen for the VIN?
If so, why wasn’t the VIN visible? If it had been tampered with or deliberately obscured this may have concerned the Police
Feels like we need the whole story...
Edited by 595Heaven on Thursday 23 April 05:39
Drawweight said:
From reading the OP what he means by being ‘seized’ is it was lifted from a parking spot rather than his gf being stopped while driving it.
Not an uncommon thing to happen.
OK, that makes more sense, and in that case reporting the car stolen obviously wasn't daft. I mistakenly thought that this was one of those entertaining threads about the lives of those PH'ers who live colourful lives in Medway Towns. Not an uncommon thing to happen.
To answer the question in the thread title, Regulation 67 of the Construction and Use Regulations requires a VIN plate for cars first used on or after 1/4/1980.
See in particular Reg 67(3) -
The vehicle identification number of every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be marked on the chassis, frame or other similar structure, on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate.
If the VIN was not clearly visible, that may have given the police sufficient grounds for suspicion about the vehicle.
BUT for an expert answer on this, hope that agtlaw happens along.
See in particular Reg 67(3) -
The vehicle identification number of every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be marked on the chassis, frame or other similar structure, on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate.
If the VIN was not clearly visible, that may have given the police sufficient grounds for suspicion about the vehicle.
BUT for an expert answer on this, hope that agtlaw happens along.
When I built my kit car in 2000/2001 the VIN plate was riveted to the chassis under the bonnet. It was only visible if you took the bonnet off. It couldn't be stamped into the windscreen because the car didn't have one, nor was it a legal requirement to have one either. No idea whether that helps the OP at all or whether it's just a cool story bro. I suspect the latter.
595Heaven said:
Breadvan72 said:
You need to provide more details as to why your girlfriend was stopped. I doubt that the police stopped her just so they could peer at her car's windscreen. It is impossible to tell from the incomplete information provided whether the seizure was or was not lawful.
The decision to report as stolen a car that had been seized by the police was frankly bizarre.
It’s not clear to me that she was with the car when it was seized. I read it and thought it was taken by the Police without her present, hence she reported it as stolen the next day. Otherwise, why report it as ‘stolen’?The decision to report as stolen a car that had been seized by the police was frankly bizarre.
Is she was stopped, they could have looked at the VIN plate inside the car.
How old is the car? Visible VIN numbers haven’t been around for ever.
Did the car have the ‘window’ in the screen for the VIN?
If so, why wasn’t the VIN visible? If it had been tampered with or deliberately obscured this may have concerned the Police
Feels like we need the whole story...
Edited by 595Heaven on Thursday 23 April 05:39
OP, what was the car and was the VIN obsured? If it was what was obscuring it?
It depends on the age of the car as to being windscreen visible. I can't find online a reference to when it became commonplace but I would say the late 1980s or early 1990s.
Whether it is a manufacturer choice, or a compulsory requirement I can't find either. Anecdotally, there were occasions in the early 90s when Mercedes Benz (bless 'em) would sell duplicate keys to customers who had 'lost them', but could provide the VIN number. Which they'd read off the screen of the target car.....
Whether it is a manufacturer choice, or a compulsory requirement I can't find either. Anecdotally, there were occasions in the early 90s when Mercedes Benz (bless 'em) would sell duplicate keys to customers who had 'lost them', but could provide the VIN number. Which they'd read off the screen of the target car.....
98elise said:
Agreed.
OP, what was the car and was the VIN obsured? If it was what was obscuring it?
Even where the vin is attached to the dash. OP, what was the car and was the VIN obsured? If it was what was obscuring it?
Parking pass, national trust sticker, 2015 tax disc, no smoking sign, map book, driving gloves, plug in solar charger, sun blocking mirror screen, receipt book, paper hanky, bird s
t. In my opinion, letter before action. Money claim on line.
When I took my Honda for MOT last month (before our “imprisonment”) there was a parking meter ticket obscuring the VIN that had slipped down the gap - are we saying that a copper can just decide to seize a car through that? Surely they must have had other reasons to take this car, as I’m sure there must be thousands of cars parked out there with stickers, permits or just litter obscuring part or all of the VIN - the conspiracy theorist in me might say that the copper had a connection with the tow company 
V8fan said:
It depends on the age of the car as to being windscreen visible. I can't find online a reference to when it became commonplace but I would say the late 1980s or early 1990s.
Whether it is a manufacturer choice, or a compulsory requirement I can't find either. Anecdotally, there were occasions in the early 90s when Mercedes Benz (bless 'em) would sell duplicate keys to customers who had 'lost them', but could provide the VIN number. Which they'd read off the screen of the target car.....
The UK rules date from 1986, and partly implement EEC (as it then was) Directives from 1976 and 1978.Whether it is a manufacturer choice, or a compulsory requirement I can't find either. Anecdotally, there were occasions in the early 90s when Mercedes Benz (bless 'em) would sell duplicate keys to customers who had 'lost them', but could provide the VIN number. Which they'd read off the screen of the target car.....
vitesse2000 said:
When I took my Honda for MOT last month (before our “imprisonment”) there was a parking meter ticket obscuring the VIN that had slipped down the gap - are we saying that a copper can just decide to seize a car through that? Surely they must have had other reasons to take this car, as I’m sure there must be thousands of cars parked out there with stickers, permits or just litter obscuring part or all of the VIN - the conspiracy theorist in me might say that the copper had a connection with the tow company
My parents Rover 75 has had a Killarney Town Council parking ticket slipped down over theirs for the last three years, tried my best but it would require some sort of micro claw and/or moving the dash to get it. The VIN is stamped into the upper strut tower on the offside so when it goes for test the tester looks at that. The factory data plate in the passenger door shut has the chassis number on it too, and I know my Mondeo has the same along with its EU type approval number, original colour code and trim code.As son as the vehicle was seized, a removal marker should have been placed against its record on PNC, giving Time date and location where it was removed from. When it was subsequently reported stolen, a PNC check would have been made at the time of call which would have raised the removal marker and the fact Police had removed it. I assume Op Will have to pay the unnecessary storage fees.
Hi all.
Yes - it was picked up during the night whilst parked.
The reason the VIN wasn’t visible in the windscreen is because the piece of paper had slid down - it’s only half visible - but it was visible enough for the garage who did the pickup to identify it and allow its release without us having attend to pick it up, or without them gaining access to the vehicle.
The police actually arranged for vehicle to be returned to us at no cost, at our home address, but now the civil litigation team are saying those costs will have to come out of the compensation we claim because they took the vehicle ‘lawfully’.
The car in question is a 59 plate Corsa.
As for them not marking it on the PNC - this is why they’re agreeing to pay compensation, because they know they didn’t follow their procedures.
Yes - it was picked up during the night whilst parked.
The reason the VIN wasn’t visible in the windscreen is because the piece of paper had slid down - it’s only half visible - but it was visible enough for the garage who did the pickup to identify it and allow its release without us having attend to pick it up, or without them gaining access to the vehicle.
The police actually arranged for vehicle to be returned to us at no cost, at our home address, but now the civil litigation team are saying those costs will have to come out of the compensation we claim because they took the vehicle ‘lawfully’.
The car in question is a 59 plate Corsa.
As for them not marking it on the PNC - this is why they’re agreeing to pay compensation, because they know they didn’t follow their procedures.
Breadvan72 said:
To answer the question in the thread title, Regulation 67 of the Construction and Use Regulations requires a VIN plate for cars first used on or after 1/4/1980.
See in particular Reg 67(3) -
The vehicle identification number of every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be marked on the chassis, frame or other similar structure, on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate.
If the VIN was not clearly visible, that may have given the police sufficient grounds for suspicion about the vehicle.
BUT for an expert answer on this, hope that agtlaw happens along.
The one you often have on display behind the windscreen is generally a printed sticker stuck to plastic trim and would not meet those requirementsSee in particular Reg 67(3) -
The vehicle identification number of every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be marked on the chassis, frame or other similar structure, on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate.
If the VIN was not clearly visible, that may have given the police sufficient grounds for suspicion about the vehicle.
BUT for an expert answer on this, hope that agtlaw happens along.
The one that is stamped is often under a flap in the carpet, clearly visible and accessible to anyone with full access to the car.
Breadvan72 said:
To answer the question in the thread title, Regulation 67 of the Construction and Use Regulations requires a VIN plate for cars first used on or after 1/4/1980.
See in particular Reg 67(3) -
The vehicle identification number of every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be marked on the chassis, frame or other similar structure, on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate.
If the VIN was not clearly visible, that may have given the police sufficient grounds for suspicion about the vehicle.
BUT for an expert answer on this, hope that agtlaw happens along.
I am happy to be corrected on this but I don't think this means it must be visible through the windscreen. For example my 2005 Mazda had the vin under a (marked) plastic cover in the side of the drivers footwell. In my view this was "on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate."See in particular Reg 67(3) -
The vehicle identification number of every vehicle to which this regulation applies shall be marked on the chassis, frame or other similar structure, on the off side of the vehicle, in a clearly visible and accessible position, and by a method such as hammering or stamping, in such a way that it cannot be obliterated or deteriorate.
If the VIN was not clearly visible, that may have given the police sufficient grounds for suspicion about the vehicle.
BUT for an expert answer on this, hope that agtlaw happens along.
It was only readable when you opened the cover but it was easily accessible and, when accessed, clearly visible.
My old lotus (1984) did not have a vin under the windscreen, only under the bonnet (and on the chassis ).
ETA: I should add the mazda did also have a vin under the windscreen but it was on the nearside.......
Edited by brman on Thursday 23 April 09:46
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff