RTA 1988 (retention & disposal of vehicles) Options

[Insider]

Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005- in effect 06/07/2005

A constable in uniform may seize a motor vehicle (not an invalid carriage) where :-

• he has required a person under section 164 Road Traffic Act 1988, to produce his driving licence and counterpart for examination, the person fails to produce them, and he has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1) (otherwise than in accordance with a licence), or

• he has required a person under section 165 Road Traffic Act 1988, to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 (no insurance), the person fails to produce such evidence, and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven, or

• the person fails to stop the vehicle when required to do so by a constable in uniform under section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988, or to stop the vehicle long enough for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 (otherwise than in accordance with a licence or without insurance).

Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the driver that he will seize it if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately, or as the case may be, with evidence that the vehicle is insured or exempt from insurance unless the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

If the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.

The constable may enter any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be and may use reasonable force, if necessary, to seize the vehicle or enter the premises.
Private dwelling house does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

A constable, on seizing a vehicle shall give a seizure notice to the driver of the vehicle being seized unless the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so - Regulation 4 Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005

[Advertisement]

[thamesvalley]

SI : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051606.htm
EXP : http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/em2005/uksiem_20...20051606_en.pdf

[LancashireLad]

Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the driver that he will seize it if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately, or as the case may be, with evidence that the vehicle is insured or exempt from insurance unless the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

officer: do you know why I stopped you?
geezer:  no
officer: dont get smart, I have reason to believe that you are driving without insurance/on a provisional due you your hurry to evade me at speed, give me you licence and insurance now or i'll seize the car.
geezer: surely it is impractical to carry them with you
officer: you have a glove box, hand over the keys.

[jeffreyarcher]

So what happened to the seven days that you have to produce them?
I guess that's been done away with by the back door.
In theory, if there's a conflict between primary and secondary legislation, the primary takes precedence. But that's not much good at the side of the road!

[Monster]

We have access to the DVLA database and also the Insurance database.

These checks can and will be made at the roadside.

If you don’t have your insurance with you then we can always call the insurance company direct. (Subject to hour of day).

We have just introduced a policy and it is going into action this week (subject to being to re-deployed due to recent events).

The legislation has been a long time in the making and, as I’m sure you’ll agree, it is about time to get these uninsured vehicles off the road.

[Clear Skies]

We have access to the DVLA database and also the Insurance database.

These checks can and will be made at the roadside.

If you don’t have your insurance with you then we can always call the insurance company direct. (Subject to hour of day).

We have just introduced a policy and it is going into action this week (subject to being to re-deployed due to recent events).

The legislation has been a long time in the making and, as I’m sure you’ll agree, it is about time to get these uninsured vehicles off the road.

whats the policy monster ??

whilst everyone wants the nutters who run around with no insurance and fail to pay their way off the road, This legislation is a little bit tough, and whilst some police officers will be reasonable, there is always a Herr Flick in the making. Is it reasonable to do the chap who has had insurance for twenty years and forgot to renew it ?  ( I have ! )

As for the cowboys who produce the legislation , see this

Private dwelling house does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

This is a clear attempt by ""them"" to undercut the euro fundemental rights legislation, I would say the curtilage of your garden is your home, not just the house, and I bet this ends up in the ECHR .

rgds
Bill

ps  a few pointed remarks from me recently aimed at scumsters, if u have seen them, there is no offence meant as you and southern copper who has also  just joined are here as blokes whos job is police work.
Whereas the scumsters are here trying to be sneaky, but then the scumsters  have lied about everything else so far to justify their existance,  we shouldn't  expect much else from them.

[Monster]

There are more than enough vehicles in London that are the real ‘P!%s’ takers and they are the ones that will be targeted.
At present we have limited storage and have very strict guidelines as to which vehicles will be seized.  Rest assured, all vehicles taken will have deserved it.

We have a dedicated team in London that will start the initiative and iron out the creases.  Once established then all Traffic Officers will continue their work.

Every day I stop at least 4/5 vehicles where the driver has no insurance or licence.  This is without even looking.

[Itchy Bootmore]

Monster:
Out of interest - and fully aware this is a loaded question, I REALLY don't mean to imply anything other than curiosity - how many of these uninsured/unlicensed drivers you pull are UK citizens/nationality? I acknowledge this is going to be a judgement call, and understand if you feel it's a difficult question for you to answer..... my purpose is I'm wondering how many born n' bred Brits (so to speak) who know the laws regarding ownership/driving cars, are becoming opposed to/criminalised by/desparate to avoid the appropriate legislation introduced?? Or are they nearly all some of the half million 'illegals' the Govt have finally admitted are here??!!
Apologies if I haven't worded this quite right, I'm not trying to stereotype any particular group of people.......

[peteturbo]

Jeffry,

AFAIAA, the it has always been an offence not to carry the required documents.  The 7 day producer and HORTi system was introduced as a voluntary schem by the police, to make life easier for everyone.  You know, the kind of just, fair, pragmatic approach which made our society a model for everyone else and our police force the envy of the world, before the idiots came along.

[Insider]

AFAIAA, the it has always been an offence not to carry the required documents.  The 7 day producer and HORTi system was introduced as a voluntary schem by the police, to make life easier for everyone.  You know, the kind of just, fair, pragmatic approach which made our society a model for everyone else and our police force the envy of the world, before the idiots came along.

There was another common sense reason behind that. Mainly that if you were unfortunate enough to have your car half inched, then the scummy car thieves couldn't pass themselves off as you. Also in the current times of ID theft, I'm sure a driving licence and insurance documents would go down a right treat.

[LancashireLad]

I would agree totally *IF* the databases were up to date *AND* were 100% accurate.  But some poor sod is going to get flagged up as a non insured car by the database check and impounded - despite protestations and paperwork at home.

Incidentally - road traffic act

yup its an offence:  

Power of constables to require production of driving licence and in certain cases statement of date of birth.
[164](3) If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

       164.—(1) Any of the following persons—
(a) a person driving a motor vehicle on a road,
(B) a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road,
© a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use of a motor vehicle on a road, or
(d) a person—
(i) who supervises the holder of a provisional licence while the holder is driving a motor vehicle on a road, or
(ii) whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe was supervising the holder of a provisional licence while driving, at a time when an accident occurred owing to the presence of the vehicle on a road or at a time when an offence is suspected of having been committed by the holder of the provisional licence in relation to the use of the vehicle on a road,
must, on being so required by a constable, produce his licence for examination, so as to enable the constable to ascertain the name and address of the holder of the licence, the date of issue, and the authority by which it was issued.

But, further down we have:

  [164](8  ) In proceedings against any person for the offence of failing to produce a licence it shall be a defence for him to show that—
(a) within seven days after the production of his licence was required he produced it in person at a police station that was specified by him at the time its production was required, or
(B) he produced it in person there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or
© it was not reasonably practicable for him to produce it there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,
and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.

Which makes sense out of HORT to stop silly court appearances due to having an automatic legislated defence to the offence.

Which makes the car impounding thing silly and ridiculous.  It also begs the question that if it is an automatic defence then could you claim costs at trial for having your car impounded?  Failure to produce insurance is slightly different:

[165](4) A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that—
(a) within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or
(B) it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or
© it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,
and for the purposes of this subsection the laying of the information or, in Scotland, the service of the complaint on the accused shall be treated as the commencement of the proceedings.

"shall not be convicted" isn't a defence so presumably you would have no cost or recompense at trial.

[andy_foster]

s.164(6) RTA 1988[/url]]
(6) If a person required under the preceding provisions of this section to produce a licence or state his date of birth to a constable fails to do so he is, subject to subsections (7) and (8) below, guilty of an offence.

s.165(3) RTA 1988[/url]]
(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, a person who fails to comply with a requirement under subsection (1) above is guilty of an offence.

[Radar]

Just paint yourself coffee colour and pretend not
to speak English and you'll never be bothered by the
Police for driving around in an untaxed uninsured car.

Check out N915FHE Audi on the dvla database, it's been
driven around for the last six months by a local Pakistani
and the police can't be arsed to do anything. If a English
national did that he'd be nailed as soon as look at him and
his car crushed, even quicker action would taken if he exceeded
the speed limit by a few MPH infront of a scamera van.

Radar

[jeffreyarcher]

These checks can and will be made at the roadside.
If you don’t have your insurance with you then we can always call the insurance company direct. (Subject to hour of day).

So,
a) I have a paper cover note from my broker, so insurance company don't know about it.
B) I haven't a clue what my broker's 'phone number is.
c) I am several hundered miles away from my house, where my cover note is.
c) No offence is committed.
e) I am stuffed.

"shall not be convicted" isn't a defence

On the wider point, they can seize the car within the seven days, but no conviction is possible.
Bill of Rights again; perhaps ECHR too.

[andy_foster]

Reverse burden of proof? Innocent until proven guilty?

[SafeSpeed]

Bill of Rights Act 1689

Contains:

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void

[LancashireLad]

I'm confused then.

If a vehicle can be seized under 164 but 164 can be avoided by 164-8 then how can he seize unless he pops around to your house after 7 days.

[Padfoot]

So, the Insurance Database currently runs with a 7-10 day backlog.

You get stopped, you are insured, but you have no documents with you, and because you only purchased the insurance yesterday you're not on the database......car is siezed....you turn up the next day and prove you are totally legit.....who pays the bill?

[LancashireLad]

I think that the confusion is why the thread was started.  what a mess  :roll:

[anton]

Whilst I agree with Monster  here

There are more than enough vehicles in London that are the real ‘P!%s’ takers and they are the ones that will be targeted.
At present we have limited storage and have very strict guidelines as to which vehicles will be seized.  Rest assured, all vehicles taken will have deserved it.

In normal times yes, Then there will be political times when they want a car seised and they will casually ask for your liscence you say "no it is at home" and they will use the law as it is written. and it will cost you £300+ to get it back... Look at Brighton and the parking scam. Lifting away cars in safe parking bays when a ticket would have done.

Then they might also look you up see when your insuance runs out and do a stop and produce on you as revenge to stuffing up thier scam through the website. You might have bought new insurance but not got the documents on you.... car confiscated....