'Police made me pay £150 after seizing car for nothing' (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Joedavid wrote:
How many other genuinely un insured cars get this treatment in BD3, I just got a feeling not many, am I wrong?

cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.

oreilly.john.1990@go
oglemail.com wrote:

cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.

Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.

Blotto wrote:
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!

Not so simple wrote:
This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.

Not so simple wrote:
This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company

bd7 helper wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company

YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD EM TO RING THE INSURANCE COMPANY.....

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=rtkdDMSXM

mc

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company

ANY WHERE BUT HERE wrote:
She was white! and on Leeds road, easy pickings?

tyker2 wrote:

Not so simple wrote:
This is a very alarming development.

A car taken off the legal keeper due to failures either with the police/insurance or PnC. The owner, under common law has broken no laws and nobody has the right to forfeit or take any of her belongings till it goes to court and is proven that she broke a law. It's not against the law to drive a vehicle that the police Beleive may not be insured....yes Beleive is the word. The Police have to have your consent to apply these laws/their laws upon our personal belongings.

This lady should speak to a constitutional lawyer and have a judicial review of the entire process. I can bet you a pint of spicy bantams that it will be found to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The police are here to kee the peace...not to enforce policy. Know your rights. I will post something on next so people can check this out for themselves.

what:just take county court action against the insurer END OF

Prisoner Cell Block A wrote:
Is that related to the Freeman movement at all Not so simple?

If not, try check some of the blogs and reports surrounding that.

Joedavid wrote:
OT.
I find it interesting the ages of the car, lady involved, her daughter and father given why?
Police Inspectors age is missing though.

Apollo wrote:
Unfortunately it is not only the Law and its applications that has been dumbed down in recent years.

The average Policemen is no towering intellect and is generally of lower intelligence that the average member of the public and most criminals.

We need to raise the standard and not keep on lowering the bar.

Stories like the above simply reinforce my point and I include the Chief Inspector in this case.

bd7 helper wrote:
I RECKON THE POLICE AND RECOVERY TEAM ARE MAKING MONEY, ANOTHER SCAM BY THE POLICE AND THE RECOVERY TEAM. GET IT QUIZZED WHY DIDNT THE POLICE RING YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY! TRAFFIC POLICE BBC1 AND POLICE INTERCEPTORS CHANNEL 5 THEY RING AND PROVE YOU WRONG!! GET THAT MONEY BACK!!!!

Tollerboy wrote:
The Police acted correctly.

As the lady had received her certificate through the post the insurance company had ample time to update the computer.

Thus the insurers, Swinton or 'other' should pay up.

Simple as that!

webshow wrote:
We are in a police state but no one knows it till they fall. Get out on the streets.

oreilly.john.1990@go
oglemail.com wrote:

cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.

Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.

jh137 wrote:

oreilly.john.1990@go

oglemail.com wrote:

cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.

Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.

Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.

Telfordboy wrote:
I work for a Police Recovery Operator (not in Bradford). A Certificate of Insurance is not proof of insurance in this situation because even if you pay monthly, the certificate is issued at the start of the policy. If you then fail to make the payments, your policy is cancelled but you still have the certificate. Hence the reason the police rely on the insurance database. The £150.00 is paid to the recovery operator but you are then issued with a receipt on behalf of the police as the recovery operator collects the fee on their behalf

Telfordboy wrote:
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.

Not so simple wrote:

Telfordboy wrote:
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.

Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print.

Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment.

Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.

Not so simple wrote:

Telfordboy wrote:
The problem with paying monthly is that if you miss a payment, the insurance company do not allow you a second chance and just cancel the policy without telling you. The recovery operator is paid £30.00 out of the £150.00. The rest goes to the police. If the vehicle is not collected within 14 days (by which time it will have accrued charges of £430.00) it is scrapped.

Insurance has a protocol which still covers your vehicle for 14 days after the policy has expired....just incase you never received the renewal etc. ask your insurer and read the small print.

Most policies are monthly, contracts to pay from the customer. Any breach is only realised till end or start of next month....thus if you do get pulled you are covered if you make the payment.

Funny how an out of Police recovery chap seems to defend the police. Good man.

Telfordboy wrote:
I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase

jh137 wrote:
'No-one at Swinton insurance brokers was available for comment when contacted by the Telegraph & Argus'...
why are we not surprised?
Ive just told my other half about this item, wish we'd known when it happened to us (see my earlier post) that they make a habit of this. Ive been driving for over 30 years w/out a blemish ;-(

WayneRouke wrote:
This is rather concerning, for two reasons:

a) The prevalence of people paying one months premium then stopping the direct debit,just to get an insurance certificate for potential productions, makes the printed document unbelievable and as such worthless. The police therefore, should believe the electronic data. Therefore, We, as insureds, are as such totally reliant upon the insurers entering the data in a speedy and efficient manner. Therefore the system is flawed as it relies on humans.

2) From what I have read, it means that I could be stopped on my way to work, produce my brand new certificate of insurance but my car may be taken away (without authority) if the details havent been entered electronically. But if I am legally insured, then taking my vehicle without my consent is tantamout the theft, regardless of whether its a hoodlum or the police.

3) BUT, I am not sure due process has been followed here. ALL(as far as I know) insurers have a 24 hour hotline, primarily for claims. From what I have seen on the TV, when a vehicle comes up as uninsured, and no certificate, the police ring the insurance company direct who confirm or deny cover (they maintain their own systems). I do not believe the police actually confirmed cover with the insurer.

Therefore, in my mind, both the insurer and the police are guilty. The insurer for not updating the database and the police for not confirming cover with the company itself.

I do know this, if my perfectly legal car is taken away over such a mistake, I will not particularly care who is at fault, I just know I am perfectly innocent, and would immediately make my way to the nearest solicitors, and will be pressing for the maximum charges are applied to whoever is at fault. I would be pressing for a charge of theft.

Blotto wrote:
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!

Not so simple wrote:

Telfordboy wrote:
I am not defending the police because uninsured vehicles are the bane of a recovery operators life as most people are innocently unaware of the fact that they are uninsured and there are many times that we will try and reduce the fees for them by juggling the days storage to make it easier for them. I am merely saying how it works. If you fail to pay monthly payments, you do not have 14 days grace. unfortunately, we do also get a vast amount of regular visitors reclaiming their cars who deliberately drive round in old cars without insurance and take the risk they won't be caught. Have to say they are normally from East European countries and it is them that cause our premiums to increase

Uninsured vehicles. they can be a pain for recovery operators who get paid to recover them? How else would you make your money? Lol you just digging a bigger hole for yourself. No idea about insurance and you charge £30 to recover a car...dude you are a bargain as that £30 pays for your fuel,your insurance and your time anc youve gotta pay tax on that income, bargain.

Secondly do you know how many "insured vehicles are on the road" ? Loads.

What percentage of the total vehicles in the UK are not insured excluding those on SORN or awaiting to be scrapped....you will find that the percentage is very little.

Thirdly, the MIB gets a percentage of all our insurance premiums as well as insurance premium tax going to the government...million

s and millions of pounds in income. You telling me this wasteful dept cannot deal to insure the losses accrued by incidents of the non insured vehicles....utter non sense and if you check figures from govt sources you will scratch your head and think none of these millions spent on enforcing insurance on a small minority make sense....as the vast majority pay for it with enough premiums to handle all claims three times over.

Fourthly I have first hand experience of insurance from the profit orientated underwriters to the ill informed police who enforce the issue of insurance. Your explanation is rather lame and somewhat I'll informed.

Also point note noting; have you guys got any idea as to the cost of comprehensive insurance policies in Europe or should I say eastern Europe? Well let me explain quickly.

Europeans pay half if not 75 % less then what we pay here and they are insured to drive in any country in Europe. Soon you will see as they all cotton on and start driving more valuable cars on the roads fully insured from European insurance companies.

//M\\W wrote:

Blotto wrote:
The Insurance Company were lax in updating their records to the PNC. Therefore they should be the ones doing the reimbursement! They should also be fined for it as well!!

Not Really, because it can take upto three days for the system to update when you purchase or renew a policy.
The police officer should have called the insurance company as they have the phone numbers for nearly all of them or at least looked at the certificate at her home.

It is the police officers fault he could have just told her to produce the documents in seven days instead of taking the car but he wanted to seize it to meet his target.

Not so simple wrote:

jh137 wrote:

oreilly.john.1990@go


oglemail.com wrote:

cassetteman wrote:
A few things here.

She dealt through Swintons, (which is an intermediary and not an insurance company or provider in the strictest sense), so there will have been a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database. If you insure with an on-line insurance company directly the updating of the MID is pretty much instantaneous.

You can check the MID yourself online to see if the update happened and therefore save yourself all this hassle.

Always carry your insurance documents as ultimate proof, hide them somewhere in the vehicle if needs be.

The requirement to "provide" is mandatory, irrespective of what it says on the MID, the retired PC would know this but I can understand his frustration on this occasion what with it being his daughter.

I guess she will have to take it on the chin, I cannot see her getting very far with Swintons or her insurance provider.

Sorry but 'a delay between taking out the policy and Swintons liaising with the insurance provider and, ultimately, the updating of the Motor Insurance Database.' is not a valid excuse here, She had already received her insurance certificate in the post which Is a few days in itself, how long do they need to add a record onto a database saying this car is insured.

Swinton need to be fined, you have wouldnt get away with being laxed in making your payments why allow them to be laxe din updating the national database so you dont get hassled by the police.

Yet another case of Swinton Insurance Brokers lax record keeping. A couple of years ago we were out on a shopping trip and got pulled over(mortified). The police computer had flagged up 'no insurance'. Even though the DD had left the bank on the due dates, Swintons had cancelled the policy as they couldnt get confirmation of my 'no claims' from my previous insurer. No recorded/signed for letter to warn us (apparently theyre not obliged to).A large fine and points later.I can no longer afford to run a vehicle.The DD we'd been paying was for the cancellation fees, the balance of the policy and for (free) breakdown cover. Swintons didnt want to know...and BTW we didnt get a lift home after the car was seized and we were out for the day.

Swinton need to have their trading banned.
I recall a pal who was insured with them.
Prior to his renewal he had sold the vehicle and got another insurance company to insure him.

He was alarmed to see that Swinton were still taking payments from his account eventhough his insurance had finished.

When we queried this with Swinton on manningham lane, we were referred to a term/condition in their policy that states in small print they can renew your insurance of you do not make contact to cancel or even ask for a renewal.

I sat the Swinton manager down and explained what terms they cannot put into contracts and that insuring a vehicle twice was also not good.

The manager apologised and refunded the monies.

These guys should be called swindlers not Swinton.

Also the branch near frizinghall. I went along with a pal to check out some quotes he had received for a commercial vehicle. I was surprised to find a persons working their who had worked for cox insurance aka insure.co.uk in little Germany....I had trained some of these guys and was very dissociated with them as their knowledge was very poor...how Swinton employed them was beyond me...value for money probably!

Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.

Telfordboy wrote:
One final comment just to show you how wrong the system is: If you have your vehicle seized because you are suspected of using it in a crime, you get it back for nothing even if it is proved that you have in court (for example if you are caught with loads of TV's in the back of the vehicle and it is proved in court that you had stolen them) you get your vehicle back for nothing. On the other hand, if your vehicle is stolen and then recovered by us on behalf of the police, it will cost you £150.00 plus £20.00 per day to get it back, despite the fact you are totally innocent. Fees not set by us. They are set by the Government. They are called Statutory Fees. The system is wrong but that is how it is

47years wrote:
The insurance company are clearly at fault here and should be responsible for reimbursing the £150. More importantly they should be compensating the driver for her inconvenience and be fined by the police for not having updated the PNC. Having said that if they were it would only ever be reflected in everyone elses insurance premiums. The powers that be need to look at this issue and give clear guidance.

yezboss wrote:
I would add there are precedents for officers to telephone the insurer to check, that would have been sensible but it seems the time of day may have prevented that, but I like Brian who I know and have served alongside do despair nowadays as all common sense and initiative have disappeared from the 'service'. There is too much reliance on technology which is fallible, and not enough care and consideration which is free and available to all reasonable thinking humans. 'Heads in the sand' are the words which come to my mind. Shame on you West Yorkshire Police.

Stuart_B wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company

"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?

Stuart_B wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company

"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?

tyker2 wrote:

Stuart_B wrote:

tyker2 wrote:
there is no argument:the car was insured and the insurance company is culpable for not updating the records. They should pay the compound fees. However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

we had a similar situation a few years ago when trying to buy road fund licence for her car on line:it flagged up that she was uninsured even though we had paid. The insurance company were very uncooperative until they were told they would be responsible for any impound fees or fines if they persisted in not registering it . They could not seem to accept that their failure meant that we could be stopped anytime even though no other offences had occurred.

The bottom line though is to tell the insurance company to register it immediately and ,maybe, to carry the certificate of the details of the policy with you. This would enable the police to check the details direct with the insurance company

"However it is clear the driver did not give the police, at the time of the incident, correct details of her insurance policy etc.

Where are you getting that bit from ...?

are you for real. Procedure is to stop the car on suspicion of no insurance, driver says that cannot be correct as I have it with xyz company bought on or about and it is valid for me and for the car. Police check on insurance computers via phone call. That should have been registered on the insurance computers if nothing else. it was not probably because the agency had not registered it or because driver gave inadequate details. Police say no trace. Driver objects and says it is so. Under the powers they have they can confiscate the car immediately and upon proof of adequate insurance at the time then the car can be returned to the droiver. Do either wrong details given or inadequate details gien of, possibly, the driver was not insured on that car or was insured on another car without that car being showed. Either way I think the police were correct (the giving of seven days to produce before the car was seized was scrapped years ago).

The driver,if she was properly insured at the time of the incident has a claim against the insurer or it's appointed agent for not registering the insurance with DVLA.

That said it is very unusual ,in these circumstances, for the police to offer a taxi service home.

were the documents unavailable when she got home and, if the police are offering a taxi service should they have not done that to get prrof of valid and paid insurance before a seizure of the car took place.

All this is very odd and, perhaps, the full story is not recorded in the article.

//M\\W wrote:

Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.

NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.

hn0o0258 wrote:
Anyone feels strongly enough, email our shiny new police and crime Commissioner on
contact@westyorkshir

e-pcc.gov.uk

Outraged English Subject wrote:

//M\\W wrote:

Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.

NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.

My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment!

//M\\W wrote:

Outraged English Subject wrote:

//M\\W wrote:

Outraged English Subject wrote:
Yes, the same happened to me last month I had the seven day cover note in the car and the police said thank you sir, was on my way in about three minutes.

NO the same didnt happen to you they didnt take your car.

My comment was in response to the comment by smitd at 9:29pm Wed 6 Feb 13 which you’ll find directly above my comment. Which means…? YES the same DID happen to ME and I drove off WITH my new car. You should try reading the thread before you comment!

ok. but it has nothing to do with the article

Al-gore-alias-liar wrote:
Mr David Ashley Pryor v The Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

http://www.bailii.or

g/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/

2011/749.html