'Seized' car back from the police....
Discussion
Following on from my last post here (causing a bit of a stir - but less said about that the better) we have had the car that was ‘seized’ on Friday returned to us, with no impounding charge or storage fee’s. The ‘usual’ paperwork was even waived as the PC in question admitted that he had made a mistake.
Firstly the car ‘was’ insured (we told him that) and the so-called ‘incorrect’ licence (wrong class of vehicle on the back) was correct and in line with the paper one that we showed him. He denied ever seeing it at first but then made reference to it later in our conversation when he stated that it read ‘ provisional’ (they all read provisional – go and have a look at yours)
So – I am glad we got the car back, cost free and without having to prove via a V5 we don’t have yet that we are the keepers but I am still not pleased that we were dicked about for nearly four days trying to make the authorities see sense.
I still question the sense in random ANPR checks when it isn’t backed up with a portion of common sense here and now.
Firstly the car ‘was’ insured (we told him that) and the so-called ‘incorrect’ licence (wrong class of vehicle on the back) was correct and in line with the paper one that we showed him. He denied ever seeing it at first but then made reference to it later in our conversation when he stated that it read ‘ provisional’ (they all read provisional – go and have a look at yours)
So – I am glad we got the car back, cost free and without having to prove via a V5 we don’t have yet that we are the keepers but I am still not pleased that we were dicked about for nearly four days trying to make the authorities see sense.
I still question the sense in random ANPR checks when it isn’t backed up with a portion of common sense here and now.
I dont completely disagree with ANPR checks but any instance in which someone who hasnt done anything wrong having their car seized is flawed. Yes they might have caught 500 illegal asylum seekers in un-insured vehicles but why should the 'innocent' be put out.
Some road side common sense and two phone calls would have told the officer that the car was 99 percent certain to be legal. A pair of eyeglasses would have shown him the licence was in order - a call to me would have backed that up
Some road side common sense and two phone calls would have told the officer that the car was 99 percent certain to be legal. A pair of eyeglasses would have shown him the licence was in order - a call to me would have backed that up
thirteen-o-two said:
I dont completely disagree with ANPR checks but any instance in which someone who hasnt done anything wrong having their car seized is flawed. Yes they might have caught 500 illegal asylum seekers in un-insured vehicles but why should the 'innocent' be put out.
Some road side common sense and two phone calls would have told the officer that the car was 99 percent certain to be legal. A pair of eyeglasses would have shown him the licence was in order - a call to me would have backed that up
The basic problem is that this government view us all as being guilty, and we have to scurry around proving our innocence. Some road side common sense and two phone calls would have told the officer that the car was 99 percent certain to be legal. A pair of eyeglasses would have shown him the licence was in order - a call to me would have backed that up
Mostly it is connected with an unrivalled thirst for money. It can only get worse.
Globulator said:
thirteen-o-two said:
I dont completely disagree with ANPR checks but any instance in which someone who hasnt done anything wrong having their car seized is flawed. Yes they might have caught 500 illegal asylum seekers in un-insured vehicles but why should the 'innocent' be put out.
Some road side common sense and two phone calls would have told the officer that the car was 99 percent certain to be legal. A pair of eyeglasses would have shown him the licence was in order - a call to me would have backed that up
The basic problem is that this government view us all as being guilty, and we have to scurry around proving our innocence. Some road side common sense and two phone calls would have told the officer that the car was 99 percent certain to be legal. A pair of eyeglasses would have shown him the licence was in order - a call to me would have backed that up
Mostly it is connected with an unrivalled thirst for money. It can only get worse.
got to agree there. what happened to proving you guilty? its now guilty because we cant prove you innocent.Hooli said:
got to agree there. what happened to proving you guilty? its now guilty because we cant prove you innocent.The vast majority of the population have no idea what kind of police state we effectively live in (if you own a car) now, and that innocent until proven guilty remains for the rapist and murderer but not for the motorist.
splitter / judas said:
Mistakes will happen and there may be training needs/officer having a bad day (don't we all have them). At the end of the day the DVLA were mainly at fault here. Glad to hear the vehicle has been returned and the Police picking up the bill.
I think that the use of any database HAS to taken only as an indicator. You CANNOT rely on them to make decisions such as those that occured here. It maybe that the DVLA need to get their act together but the BIB involved need to be reminded that "Computer says no" it not a valid excuse.telecat said:
splitter / judas said:
Mistakes will happen and there may be training needs/officer having a bad day (don't we all have them). At the end of the day the DVLA were mainly at fault here. Glad to hear the vehicle has been returned and the Police picking up the bill.
I think that the use of any database HAS to taken only as an indicator. You CANNOT rely on them to make decisions such as those that occured here. It maybe that the DVLA need to get their act together but the BIB involved need to be reminded that "Computer says no" it not a valid excuse.splitter / judas said:
As the OP has shown, that when mistakes are made the BiB wave the fees.
The police cannot "waive" fees that they are not entitled to take in the first place. Waiving implies that they were correctly applied but out of the goodness of their heart they are not going to enforce them. That is clearly not the case here.Ean218 said:
splitter / judas said:
As the OP has shown, that when mistakes are made the BiB wave the fees.
The police cannot "waive" fees that they are not entitled to take in the first place. Waiving implies that they were correctly applied but out of the goodness of their heart they are not going to enforce them. That is clearly not the case here.Surely the onus here is on the DVLA for operating databases with an appalling level of accuracy...? Should these inaccuracies be down to vehicle owners not sending the correct information back or in a timely manner when buying or selling vehicles, then there's a flaw in the process somewhere that needs to be resolved. It has to be made idiot proof.
As it stands, the BiB's are made to look incompetent when for the most part the problem is caused by the DVLA. That said, the BiB's should really take into account the fact that the database is buggy and act more accordingly.
I am all for ANPR and such that uses these databases. As a raw technology it actually works extremely well and has many useful capabilities but is currently crippled by a shonky database that is no fault of the BiB.
Perhaps there needs to be a better way of exchanging information with the DVLA when a vehicle's status is changed...?
As it stands, the BiB's are made to look incompetent when for the most part the problem is caused by the DVLA. That said, the BiB's should really take into account the fact that the database is buggy and act more accordingly.
I am all for ANPR and such that uses these databases. As a raw technology it actually works extremely well and has many useful capabilities but is currently crippled by a shonky database that is no fault of the BiB.
Perhaps there needs to be a better way of exchanging information with the DVLA when a vehicle's status is changed...?
Edited by Roop on Wednesday 13th February 10:44
Jasandjules said:
Hooli said:
got to agree there. what happened to proving you guilty? its now guilty because we cant prove you innocent.The vast majority of the population have no idea what kind of police state we effectively live in (if you own a car) now, and that innocent until proven guilty remains for the rapist and murderer but not for the motorist.
splitter / judas said:
Mistakes will happen and there may be training needs/officer having a bad day (don't we all have them)
If I have a bad day, I have a bad day - not me and everyone I come into contact with.If an officer can't remain objective even if the missus did withdraw privileges the night before over who should put the cat out, perhaps he should be on a desk job and not inflicted on the general population.
His subjective reaction has a significant knock-on effect to the public, in this case a lot of hassle and inconvenience and no doubt expense that was simply unwarranted.
Yes policemen are human and have emotions and make mistakes - but "I'm in a bad mood so I can't really be bothered to check so your car's impounded, make your own way home" isn't acceptable is it?
Whilst the DVLA reported incorrectly when asked about the licence - it was read wrong by the PC in the first place - he refered to it as being 'provisional' - even mine says provisional after nearly 30 years!
Can anyone see anything wrong with this licence in respect of vehicle categories - 'B' is a C-A-R
(I realise on posting that it has come out a tad small - trust me - it states 'B')
Can anyone see anything wrong with this licence in respect of vehicle categories - 'B' is a C-A-R
(I realise on posting that it has come out a tad small - trust me - it states 'B')
Edited by thirteen-o-two on Wednesday 13th February 15:53
Roop said:
Surely the onus here is on the DVLA for operating databases with an appalling level of accuracy...? Should these inaccuracies be down to vehicle owners not sending the correct information back or in a timely manner when buying or selling vehicles, then there's a flaw in the process somewhere that needs to be resolved. It has to be made idiot proof.
As it stands, the BiB's are made to look incompetent when for the most part the problem is caused by the DVLA. That said, the BiB's should really take into account the fact that the database is buggy and act more accordingly.
I am all for ANPR and such that uses these databases. As a raw technology it actually works extremely well and has many useful capabilities but is currently crippled by a shonky database that is no fault of the BiB.
Perhaps there needs to be a better way of exchanging information with the DVLA when a vehicle's status is changed...?
I wouldn't say that 2 wrong in 3000 indicates crippled. You may be overstating the case.As it stands, the BiB's are made to look incompetent when for the most part the problem is caused by the DVLA. That said, the BiB's should really take into account the fact that the database is buggy and act more accordingly.
I am all for ANPR and such that uses these databases. As a raw technology it actually works extremely well and has many useful capabilities but is currently crippled by a shonky database that is no fault of the BiB.
Perhaps there needs to be a better way of exchanging information with the DVLA when a vehicle's status is changed...?
Edited by Roop on Wednesday 13th February 10:44
splitter / judas said:
streaky said:
What about compensation for lost earnings, additional costs incurred, and "mental suffering"? The "guilty" in cases like this never suffer (assuming one can/could identify them), only th innocent - Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff