Vehicle impounded

[big-all]

not driving above 30 in 30 zone or even less when schools out or in local streets not being notice for erattic driving that sort off thing

anyway its all hypothetical as my son has more money than me
it was more the point that the registerd keeper must have insurance for the vehicle in his name even though he cant drive!!!!

 

[johnny_t]

not driving above 30 in 30 zone or even less when schools out or in local streets not being notice for erattic driving that sort off thing

anyway its all hypothetical as my son has more money than me
it was more the point that the registerd keeper must have insurance for the vehicle in his name even though he cant drive!!!!

Who's insurance would you expect to claim on if the car was stolen, or written off in a hit and run ? Not your son's, as he isn't the owner (N.B. Not the same as a registered keper)

Most policies that allow you to drive 'other' cars, which is what the OP's brother seems to have, are with the proviso that the car is insured by its owner. Otheriwse, someone could take out one insurance policy and b e allowed to drive a whole fleet of otherwise uninsured cars.

I suspect that if the OP's brother's attitude is anything like his own, then we can start to work out why things have ended up like they have...

 

[toptec]

Sorry, but I can't stay quiet any longer. On the face of it, once you ignore Gremlins usual vitriol and hatred toward the police, this is a sad case. But, let us consider the facts.

The thick pig said Dvla have no record of the vehicle having any insurance, funny really as he only taxed it a few weeks ago.

The Police can only rely on what they are told by DVLA. If the information is wrong Gremlins gripe is against the DVLA not his local old bill.

When my brother took his documents to the local pig sty, they said they could do nothing because the garage that they use to cart the vehicle away is closed over weekend.( the garage is the local, national, breakdown recovery service, and open 24-7 )

This doesn't make sense. It is either open or closed.

Unknown to my brother, my fathers paper work was locked in the glove box, but as the vehicle is impounded piggy cant let them near the vehicle. How thick and power mad do they get

irrelevant. If they can't get to the vehicle they can't get the paperwork

Piggy confirmed that my brothers paper work was correct, but they could do nothing about the fine and points being added to his licence because the thick piggy had already processed the paper work.

Bull sh11t. The paperwork can easily be withdrawn or cancelled.

He and my father will have to go to court,
1, to show their relevant paper work (which are correct) and piggy knows that
2, So that my brother can appeal against the fine and points

Horsesh11t. If what Gremlin says is true and there does exist the necessary insurance the CPS will never proceed with a case which would obviously fail. The local Criminal Justice Dept will block any case file on this matter as there is no evidence of No insurance.

3, To recover the £150 + vat recovery costs.
4, And I will be claiming a days loss of earnings

If any claim is made under the circumstances detailed by Gremlin the Police would avoid a civil claim and pay him upfront.

Can the police get any thicker

I'm sure they can but you have clearly laid it on as thick in this post.

Then again I suppose they are only doing their job.
Its a lot safer harassing law abying pensioners and motorist (who normally dont fight back) than having to do any fiscal exertion and get off their fat a**e and catch a thief or a druggie.

From what you say you are a much easier and more enjoyable target

Me I would have told piggy where to shove his ticket and driven over him

Course you would Gremlin, Course you would. Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwnn

The only Court case that could result from this is a civil claim for damages. Gremlin could also make a formal complaint to his Chief Constable in the first instance or the IPCC if that fails. BUT, as in most cases there is a lot more, or less, to this outpouring of anger than meets the eye.



_______________

 

[gremlin16]

Toptec

Thanks for your non sideing contribution.

Unfortunately as you are a long retired plod your opinion on present day law no longer count.
As you previously wrote you were prepared to bend the rules to gain a conviction, so your credibility and assumptions are suspect.

As for

as in most cases there is a lot more, or less

What I wrote is the actual fact with nothing added.
And for your information there was no traffic infringement that would have made it necessary for dumb and dumber to take such pathetic actions.
Two pathetic dictators with time on their hands.
No doubt they will get promotion now

 

[toptec]

Toptec
Unfortunately as you are a long retired plod your opinion on present day law no longer count.

Whereas your opinion is all that matters and if others do not agree or see through your facile statements your petulantly tell them to 'F' off. I can see why your are the favourite flavour of your local authorities.

 

[gremlin16]

I can see why your are the favourite flavour of your local authorities.

Thats news to me, should I start running.
At least I have a clean record, doubt yours is that clear.

 

[hairyben]

The Police can only rely on what they are told by DVLA. If the information is wrong Gremlins gripe is against the DVLA not his local old bill.

The DVLA have nowt to do with it, the police use the insurance database which the insurance companies repeatedly point out was never designed for such a purpose.

And as for Gremlins attitude... times were, when I was a younger man, I'd challenge my peers to quantify their anti-police sentiments... more often than not they'd accede my points. Now, with the police being what they are today, I nod and make jokes about doughnuts.

 

[libby lou lou]

Horsesh11t. If what Gremlin says is true and there does exist the necessary insurance the CPS will never proceed with a case which would obviously fail. The local Criminal Justice Dept will block any case file on this matter as there is no evidence of No isurance


Yep!!!!! 2 mlns before you walk ln court,day off, etc,etc you don't know what your talklng about... been there 10 tlmes

 

[swidders]

Isn't there a case of "innocent before proven guilty".

Just because the police couldn't confirm the driver's innocence, why should they assume guilt and act upon it? The burden of proof should lie with the police in this instance, and a wider search for evidence been made accordingly before judgement and subsequent sentence (fine and impounding of vehicle) was carried through.

As a minimum, they should have provided a reasonable time to elapse for relevant evidence to have been accumulated.

 

[Steve]

As a minimum, they should have provided a reasonable time to elapse for relevant evidence to have been accumulated.

The new rules state that Police can sieze cars that the owner cant proove are insured at the roadside.

Perhaps the OP could have given the officer the name of the insurance company at the roadside, and saved himself loads of hassle. To find out this info, he could have phoned the car's owner. The officer would then phone the insurance company to verify the insurance exists.

Maybe the officer was being a little bit of an idiot, but if he didn't allow the above to take place, then he isn't doing his job right.

 

[swidders]

As a minimum, they should have provided a reasonable time to elapse for relevant evidence to have been accumulated.

The new rules state that Police can sieze cars that the owner cant proove are insured at the roadside.

The point is that the op could have proven it within a few minutes and a call. The officer presumed guilt before sufficient evidence had been collected.

In addition, once the "alleged" crime had been logged, there doesn't appear to be a satisfactory way of halting its progress.

Perhaps the OP could have given the officer the name of the insurance company at the roadside, and saved himself loads of hassle. To find out this info, he could have phoned the car's owner. The officer would then phone the insurance company to verify the insurance exists.

Maybe the officer was being a little bit of an idiot, but if he didn't allow the above to take place, then he isn't doing his job right.

Not necessarily an idiot, but over-zealous.

Unless I misread this post earlier, the insurance documents were in the glove compartment anyway, so that call would have been able to provide additional evidence - again overlooked.

Since the officer has now logged the incident as a criminal offence, and by implication the op as a criminal, does the rule of offering one phone call and reading of rights no longer apply?

 

[toptec]

Since the officer has now logged the incident as a criminal offence, and by implication the op as a criminal, does the rule of offering one phone call and reading of rights no longer apply?

Any person reported/arrested/suspected of/for any offence should be cautioned. The "One phone call" is a fallacy. Any arrested person is entitled to have someone notified of their arrest unless a Superintendent signs a 'delay of intimation' form. That notification is usually done by the Custody staff or the arresting officer.

 

[IJWS15]

If your car father's car is not on the database it is your father's insurance companies fault, NOT the policeman's fault.

If your brother failed the "attitude test" when stopped (and if he reacts in any way along the lines of the OP he would fail it) it is his own fault. And if he failed the "attitude test" he would lose any leeway the policeman might have given him.

We have all seen the "road wars" type programs so we know what happens and we know the police ring insurers to check if policies have been issued when the database does not show them. There is more to this tale than we are being told ! ! ! ! !

Good luck with your claim for costs against the police - chance of winning - absolutely none. They acted within their powers.

BTW I was once a prosecution witness against a driver of a dangerous vehicle. While sat in the waiting room at the court with a policeman who was also a witness he was asked to check insurance policies of some people who were due to appear in court that day for "no insurance" and had brought their supposed policy with them. None of them were valid and one was even issued six hours after they had been stopped and asked for proof of insurance. This is why they now have power to seize cars..

 

[gremlin16]

There is more to this tale than we are being told ! ! ! ! !

Is there.

Funny how both insurance documents proved to be correct.
As for more to the tale, thats an easy one to answer. Two dumb and bored clowns with nothing to better to do.

If there was more to the tale, YOU tell me why the vehicle is back on the road and owner and driver have proved that the vehicle was legally on the road.

They acted within their powers. Dictatorship is not part of their contract of employment.

If that what you think then its obvious you are either a hobby bobby or one of the so called busy bodies that have a boring life and cant see further than their own opinions.

Good luck with your claim for costs against the police - chance of winning

If you honestly think that then you are a sad cowardly little man. So do me a favour go and play on the M6.
No one with any sense would stand back and let plod charge/fine them for no reason. As for winning consider it WON

 

[lawrance]

What a nobend!!