PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

police powers, motoring
pjb12345
post Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 08:20
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 3 May 2018
Member No.: 97,804



can police force us to turn on engine to listen to exhaust .can they force us to turn on ign to check all lights .I am just wondering about the legality of all of this .tia
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 50)
Advertisement
post Tue, 16 Apr 2019 - 08:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 09:49
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



I'm struggling to see reasonable suspicion here despite what Lanc's Plod assert.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 09:53
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:49) *
I'm struggling to see reasonable suspicion here despite what Lanc's Plod assert.


Reasonable suspicion is that the Ferrari wasn't shown on the database as insured.
Stupidity (from Plod) seems to be that the Plod would not talk to NFU on the phone despite driver calling them to confirm insured.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:00
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



The courts have already held that not being on the database (as the sole piece of information) isn't sufficient for RS due to it's known limitations and inaccuracies.

For (four) examples
1/ I have DOV cover on any car (insured or otherwise) so will be completely legal driving it even though it's not on the database.
2/ There is often a delay in putting them on the system so a car may have just been insured and not appear yet
3/ Short term insurances are often never put on the system as they have expired before the delay in putting them on has elapsed
4/ Mistakes like this are far from unheard of


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:46
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:00) *
The courts have already held that not being on the database (as the sole piece of information) isn't sufficient for RS due to it's known limitations and inaccuracies.

For (four) examples
1/ I have DOV cover on any car (insured or otherwise) so will be completely legal driving it even though it's not on the database.
2/ There is often a delay in putting them on the system so a car may have just been insured and not appear yet
3/ Short term insurances are often never put on the system as they have expired before the delay in putting them on has elapsed
4/ Mistakes like this are far from unheard of


But that's the whole point where this thread started.
It is not always what police have the power to do, it what they can do.
Their actions can be questioned after the event, may well lead to compensation claims or whatever.
But when sitting on a motorway with Plod saying "This isn't insured, we are seizing it", the punter is sorta stuck.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:50
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 41,503
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: Planet Earth
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Richy320 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:03) *
QUOTE (Charlie1010 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 09:11) *
He wants a personal apology?
Yes agreed should be reported for no front plate.

Envy never looks pretty!

The irony was clearly lost.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information, SAR=Subject Access Request

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 10:54
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:00) *
The courts have already held that not being on the database (as the sole piece of information) isn't sufficient for RS due to it's known limitations and inaccuracies.

I’d be surprised if a court has said that the lack of an entry on the database can never give rise to reasonable suspicion. Whether RS exists is a matter of fact for each case.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 12:17
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:46) *
But when sitting on a motorway with Plod saying "This isn't insured, we are seizing it", the punter is sorta stuck.

But if the punter has a valid certificate of insurance which Plod doesn't accept as being valid, the punter can expect a decent pay-day at the end of it, including a taxi home.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 13:30
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:54) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 11:00) *
The courts have already held that not being on the database (as the sole piece of information) isn't sufficient for RS due to it's known limitations and inaccuracies.

I’d be surprised if a court has said that the lack of an entry on the database can never give rise to reasonable suspicion. Whether RS exists is a matter of fact for each case.

The wording wasn't 'can never' but they noted that just because just it wasn't on the database that alone wasn't sufficient on its own (not that further evidence would be needed, but that the police should look at the bigger picture), I'll try and find the fuller details.

In the case in question the driver had stated they were insured and was trying to recall and contact the insurer, the police made no further checks and the court in that case decided the police didn't have reasonable belief (sorry it's not RS - may bad - belief is a higher hurdle).

From Merseyside's policy's and procedures apparently
QUOTE
The PNC indicating either insurance ‘not held’ or ‘unlicensed driver’ is only sufficient to provide suspicion. The officer must establish further grounds to support a reasonable belief based on their own personal knowledge, other supporting intelligence and information provided by the driver. These further grounds must be recorded in the officers pocket notebook.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 13:50
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 951
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 30 Apr 2019 - 14:30) *
From Merseyside's policy's and procedures apparently

The PNC indicating either insurance ‘not held’ or ‘unlicensed driver’ is only sufficient to provide suspicion. The officer must establish further grounds to support a reasonable belief based on their own personal knowledge, other supporting intelligence and information provided by the driver. These further grounds must be recorded in the officers pocket notebook.


Shame it was Lancashire that stopped it.....


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Mon, 13 May 2019 - 10:33
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 22:19) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 16:25) *
I recall on a docusoap an officer stopping a motorcycle that had no lights, which is of course completely legal if ridden in daylight only. The officer had to call a vehicle inspector and despite the rider suggesting he just ask him the question he refused. Inspector gets there after about 1 1/4 hours and declares the bike fully legal in about 30 seconds, even telling the rider in front of the stopping officer that it was a complete waste of all their time.

By that time of course if was dark, as the bike had no real security the rider had to push it near 5 miles home, wasn’t very impressed!


Which kinda illustrates the point that a cop can make life awkward even when they are wrong.
Scant consolation when pushing your motorbike home that you can complain about it and may even get an apology.


QUOTE (Ocelot @ Wed, 17 Apr 2019 - 19:25) *
Apparently the Insurance Act allows a policy to be voided retrospectively in certain circumstances

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publ...-disclosure.htm

If this is the case, could the Police prosecute and/or seize a car if they don't believe the appropriate insurance was in place at the time of the stop, despite insurance being valid at that time? I often see (on TV cop shows) people being questioned when stopped if they are, for example, delivering a package, when they don't have business use on their policy.



There have been some cases on here IIRC of pizza delivery drivers being targeted and vehicles impounded due to not having business insurance.

Some pizza bikes have interesting Insurance - they're covered by the Company when they have Pizzas on board, but when they've delivered, they're on their own Insurance. I can only assume that it saves the pizza company money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 13 May 2019 - 10:45
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,196
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Erm, but it would still be business use while returning to the shop!


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:22
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here