Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: MID DVLA PNC etc car immpounded
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Pages: 1, 2
clean for20years
Hi all i have a problem with my sons car being impounded by an overzelous officer

Vehicle was seized for 2 reasons both beyond our control and the officer would not listen

1 vehicle not on MID insurance was bought online today so not on system yet

2 vehicle shows up as scrapped at dvla ! according to officer !

car was bought damaged on 22 november minor damage needed tailgate and bumper repaired it then booked a VIC for vosa to check it was ok and was not a ringer all fine so far

was registered cat C repairable salvage

VIC passed on 8th december

applied for v5 got this on 20th december

got duplicate MOT certificate on 22 december

Taxed car with my insurance that day all fine you would think !!

son was itching to go in it so bought insurance online

on 28 december so as far as i understand it it is insured from then !

no printable certificate though

son goes out gets stopped by police they claim car is registered as scrapped and not insured as you cannot insure a scrap car lol

my son points out that you also cannot get a v5 or mot for a scrap car but police man is having none of it takes car away on big truck

When i arrive car is already leaving i asked officer to explain how the computer can say its scrapped even though i have recent documents proving this is not the case

They now expect me to pay to have vehicle returned having now accepted they may have got it wrong

I feel i should not have to pay

I have played the game to the best of my abbility the computer is not always correct and i feel they have went to far in this case

what should i do i will contact dvla but i should not need to do this as it should have been sorted when the vic test was done this is my understanding of the system
southpaw82
So long as the correct procedure was followed then the release fee has to be paid, sorry. You can ask the police to waive it but they're under no obligation to do so.
jobo
I though the procedure involved ringing up the insurance company to check

see if you can get the local paper intrested
southpaw82
No, the legal procedure which must be followed is:

(1) Document required to be produced.

(2) Document not produced.

(3) Constable forms suspicion vehicle is being used without document.

(4) Seizure.

No checking of MID or anything else is required.
clean for20years
Another case of guilty untill proven innocent then ?

Is it a legal requirement to carry all your docs with you ?

I have been stopped a couple of times for car not showing up on database and have not had car seized he did have a copy of the policy number with him i feel this should have been enough sad.gif
southpaw82
There is no legal requirement to carry your docs. There is a legal requirement to produce them on demand. You will not be prosecuted if you produce them within seven days of the requirement but the offence is still complete at the moment of failure to produce, not seven days later.
jobo
no its another case of replying on a data base system they know is flawed and the coppers ignorance of what a cat c right off actually is

yes it is a legal obligation to produce docs when asked, they just allow a dispensation for 7 days, its actually illegal to drive unless you have received a cert of insurance. if you want to know how the telephone insurance companies get away with it, ask them

yea but im betting you've a posh car and your not 18ish, they think they have a moral obligation to get young men off the road
clean for20years
So basically that means you must have them just incase lol

Surely the fact the car was just taxed etc should have told the officer it may not be dodgy after-all

They are to reliant on computers now

I have just spent £700 getting car on the road LEGALY and they take it away because computer says no !!



The cars i got stopped in were far from posh lol

you are correct though they do seem to think young drivers are the only problem on the road

We all know that is not the case
jobo
what did they write on th paper work
clean for20years
just says seizure notice section 165a road traffic act blah blah

it does say failed to produce evidence of insurance immediately in responce to legal requirement but this is just printed on sheet i would have thought policy number would have been enough given it had only been taken out that day !
TheGeek
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 01:54) *
There is no legal requirement to carry your docs. There is a legal requirement to produce them on demand. You will not be prosecuted if you produce them within seven days of the requirement but the offence is still complete at the moment of failure to produce, not seven days later.


Suggest you read the Road Traffic Act, 1988, s165.
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (TheGeek @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 08:31) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 01:54) *
There is no legal requirement to carry your docs. There is a legal requirement to produce them on demand. You will not be prosecuted if you produce them within seven days of the requirement but the offence is still complete at the moment of failure to produce, not seven days later.


Suggest you read the Road Traffic Act, 1988, s165.


Not that sp needs anyone to defend him but I'm puzzled as to what it is you take issue with?
bluegolfboy
Can't give much advice on this unfortunate situation. Just draconian and utter nonsense.

I remember not so long ago you could drive all over Britain with NO tax, NO MoT and NO insurance... I sure ain't noticed any differences between then and now apart from a lot of people with money missing out their pockets!!!


Anyway:

Section 152 inserts new sections 165A and 165B into the Road Traffic Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"). It gives the police a specific power to seize immediately vehicles which are detected being used by uninsured drivers or drivers who do not have a valid licence, and for the vehicle to be removed, released or disposed of in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. Those regulations are likely to require payment of prescribed charges, and the production of a valid insurance certificate or licence, in connection with the release of a vehicle.

Subsection (1) of new section 165A sets out that the new powers provided by subsection (5) can be exercised only when one of the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (4) is met. The conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are that a constable in uniform has required a person to produce his licence and counterpart or evidence of insurance, the person has not done so and the constable has reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle is or had been driven by a person not appropriately insured against third party risk or without a valid licence. The condition in subsection (4) is that a constable in uniform has required a vehicle to stop, but it has not stopped or stopped long enough for appropriate enquiries and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being driven without appropriate insurance or a valid licence. Subsections (2) to (4) refer to the constable using the powers he already has under section 163 of the 1988 Act (to stop a vehicle), under section 164 of the 1988 Act (to require production of licence and counterpart) and under section 165 of the 1988 Act (to require the production of insurance documents). Under subsection (5) of new section 165A the officer would have the power to seize and remove the vehicle, a power to enter premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be in order to effect the seizure and a power to use reasonable force, if necessary for these purposes.

New section 165B allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that set the procedures and arrangements for removal, retention, release and disposal of vehicles, including prescribed charges and periods, and arrangements for notifying the registered keeper, owner or driver. The seizure power in new section 165A will not come into effect until regulations under new section 165B are made.

The provision required by subsection (3) of new section 165B excuses from any payment a registered keeper or owner who could demonstrate that he was not driving the vehicle at the time, that the seized vehicle had been used without his knowledge and consent and that he could not reasonably have prevented it from being driven.

localdriver
Sections 165A & 165B do not change section 165, they just give police additional powers that they may use, but as has been said, a little investigation at the time could have helped the situation.
But nowadays it seems, if the computer says no - it's 'NO' regardless of the situation.
Hotel Oscar 87
QUOTE (localdriver @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 13:37) *
Sections 165A & 165B do not change section 165, they just give police additional powers that they may use, but as has been said, a little investigation at the time could have helped the situation.

The problem is that the onus is on the driver to produce the insurance not for the officer to make enquiries. Where the driver is unable to do so and the officer has reasonable cause to suspect that there is no insurance in force (that is what the database was telling him) he can seize the vehicle.

QUOTE (localdriver @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 13:37) *
But nowadays it seems, if the computer says no - it's 'NO' regardless of the situation.

Sadly, Yes.
localdriver
They will often make telephone calls etc. at the scene to clarify the matter, which is what I meant. There is usually a delay in obtaining insurance and the details being entered on the database, so even if the certificate is produced, the computer says 'NO'. Enquiries like that can save a lot of problems.
clean for20years
The bit that annoys me more than the insurance issue which with some common sense could have been resolved
Is the fact that he was adamant the database said the car was scrap which in his opinion automatically meant it was not able to be insured !

the database will have something on it stating vehicle was damaged i have no idea of the wording BUT it will not say the vehicle is scrap as i have been issued with a fresh v5 having done the vehicle id check as required !

Car was bought from a reputable salvage dealer who i have bought cars from in the past most of the time they are used for parts but this one was easy to repair so i did

wish i had not bothered now !!
jobo
the vehicle is not insured becoz,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , comes up all the time, unusually from people who dont know better , but some times from the police, who should !

no matter what is wrong with the car or indeed the 'insured' driver, the 3rd party insurance is present and in place, that is, after all it purpose, to provided compensation for persons injured or incurring loss by another mis deeds. Even if the driver got insurance through deception the 3rd party element is still there

If they had seized it just because of is right off status( ie your son could produce a cert) then you would have a very good case

Damaged repairable s are a great way for the able to get a good cheap motor had a few myself
TERRYTOTTA
The last time I renewed my insurance I was pulled by the police and they were decent enough to follow me home where I produced the documents and the BIB was very apologetic. When I complained my insurance company informed me it takes up to 14 day for the insurance to register with the DVLA computer!!!! The police are aware of this so why don't they check before acting on a very unreliable and inconsistent system? I was lucky, I could have had my car seized, in future I will carry my docs with me until I've checked with askmid.

clean for20years
thats my point though they KNOW the system is flawed but insist on using draconian powers of enforcing rules that really have not been broken !!

The decency you encountered was not applied in this case my own insurance would have covered me to drive the car legally as it is a trade policy but the police did not even have the decency to let me do that they just see £ signs me thinks !
Teufel
looks like thta in law u have to pay but you should certainly make a formal complaint
to the head of the force and if unhappy to the IPCC
andy_foster
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 01:54) *
There is no legal requirement to carry your docs. There is a legal requirement to produce them on demand. You will not be prosecuted if you produce them within seven days of the requirement but the offence is still complete at the moment of failure to produce, not seven days later.


That is correct, but potentially misleading.
No offence is committed if the documents are subsequently produced within the 7 days - but if they are not, it is the initial failure to produce that is the offence.

IMHO, the legislation that allows the police to seize the vehicle on reasonable suspicion, and charge for release regardless of whether or not the suspicion was correct, encourages lazy policing and would seem to raise the question of proportionality on a number of occasions.

However, it seem likely that in order to obtain redress you would either need to go to the High Court, or the press.
clean for20years
When i get the car back i intend to advertise the way this was dealt with in a prominent location and indeed get the press involved !

I doubt myself reading all the rules that i will get it back without paying

I have had a car uplifted in past and returned free of charge but that was a different reason and the rules hint at a free return being possible in that situation although i was initially told i would have to pay untill i made a huge fuss

car was stolen while on loan to someone so i had no knowledge of the car being missing untill the police found it the rules seem to hint that in this situation a free return is possible

without a fuss the free return would not have been offered !!

The recovery guy said that was the first time he had returned a car free smile.gif

bluegolfboy
Could certainly be something to query.

Don't ask, don't get...

When are you going to be looking to get the car back? You will be incurring daily storage costs at the moment. I believe that you can use your traders policy to collect the car NOW. You would need to pay up-front for the release and then argue with the Police when the insurance documents turn up.

How long has your son had a licence for? Less than two years then there is a possibility that if you don't produce the documents he will be going to court and losing the licence under the 'New Driver' nonsense...
clean for20years
no i cannot get the car back till monday nobody to release it lol

If the osifer at the time had the decency to wait till i got there it could have been avoided by looking at my trade policy and allowing me to drive car home but to be honest the guy was not going to listen to reason he was right we were wrong!

Even when i went to the station and told them everything they looked at all the paperwork agreed it seemed ok but insisted computer says no

computers are king it would seem smile.gif

Silly thing is the officer did not say anything about the insurance all he was intrested in was the vehicle was scrapped in his words according to dvla

Having spoken to some others who know more than i the concensus is that the record says written off NOT scrapped !
bluegolfboy
Can't argue with a computer now can the Orifice? Sorry, Officer.

It would take brains and a hint of thoughtfulness for him/her to be able to question a computer and draw his/her own conclusions... smile.gif

Do you pay storage fees over the weekend if nobody is actually there doing work???

PS: I would actually consider dragging it through the courts if you are 100% certain that the insurance was in place and that you did no wrong. Reckon a small claims court would suffice. Could even be worth pursuing the Police with a threat of small claims court.

The law definitely needs to be slackened off a little with regards to the present impounding nonsense. I personally believe that you should be allowed a choice of immediate impounding OR 7 days to provide proof of insurance after which your vehicle is confiscated and a larger fine imposed (say DOUBLE the impound fee) if proof is not presented. My opinion mind....
glasgow_bhoy
I was told by a policeman never to keep my cars documents in the car as if the car was broken into/stolen then the theif would be able to make use of these documents...

Clearly the police are just doin more fundrasng

Does anybody know if it would be possible to take the police force involved to a small claims court giving that they are basically charging the OP for commiting no offences?
NeilNeil
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 23:27) *
I was told by a policeman never to keep my cars documents in the car as if the car was broken into/stolen then the theif would be able to make use of these documents...



I now keep photocopies of my licence/insurance/MOT/Vehicle Registration in my car. Is this a bad idea for the above reason?
clean for20years
They will say photocopies are not legal smile.gif

Small claims court is an intresting thought but i doubt it would get anywhere

going by the documents i have read you only pay fees for days you could actually collect but no doubt that is not what happens

calling the nice helpfull people at DVLA tomorrow to clarify what the record actually says then i will go back to see the nice policeman hopefully the insurance will be put on the database tomorrow doubt i will get a certificate till tuesday though

my other son bought his online and it went on the database same day surprisingly when i email mine it can take a week to show up
glasgow_bhoy
QUOTE (NeilNeil @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 23:48) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 23:27) *
I was told by a policeman never to keep my cars documents in the car as if the car was broken into/stolen then the theif would be able to make use of these documents...



I now keep photocopies of my licence/insurance/MOT/Vehicle Registration in my car. Is this a bad idea for the above reason?



Photocopies wont be legal but id guess they would show you have the documents. However I'd be weary of keeping photocopies in the car as if you have a copy of your liscence for example then the thief is going to have your driver number as well as all the information on it. The theif would also have your address, and so if you left your housekeys in the car then they have your address to burgal your home. If they have yor V5 thingy then they could attempt to create a fake one and then attempt to sell the car on using the fake to some unsuspecting victim.
Basically I leave nothing in my car which could identify me- even a sat nav with a home button is dodgy as it tells the thief exactly where you live if he has your keys!!
bluegolfboy
My sat nav is set to take whoever uses it to a house round the corner from me... I ain't got nowt with my address on it in the car and never will.

When out on the bike I carry NOTHING apart from cash. On the odd occasion that I carry a bank card I ensure it is very well concealed. I NEVER produce ANY identification to the Police. I sure don't feel obliged to prove who I am, I feel if they doubt who I am it is up to them to prove it. Unfortunately Britain is gone to the dogs on this one....

With regards to the insurance. One for the future could be to use this link:

http://www.askmid.com

Commonly quoted on here but I will post it again. When taking out insurance it is worth giving this a little check BEFORE driving the car. Could save a lot of hassle in the future. If your car isn't showing on there then it is time to call the insurance company and enquire WHY NOT... LoL.
Martyn_Oldman
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Mon, 29 Dec 2008 - 13:18) *
When out on the bike I carry NOTHING apart from cash. On the odd occasion that I carry a bank card I ensure it is very well concealed. I NEVER produce ANY identification to the Police. I sure don't feel obliged to prove who I am, I feel if they doubt who I am it is up to them to prove it. Unfortunately Britain is gone to the dogs on this one....


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...nding-jail.html
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/opinion-for...036;1252628.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...2/03/dl0304.xml



bluegolfboy
I fail to see the relevance of the above.

Steps of course are being taken to FORCE everyone to carry an ID card but in all eventualities a Policeman who decided to hold someone in custody for failing to identify themselves via a licence or passport or similar would be subjected to a legal challenge in the courts. There is still no legal requirement for the carrying of ID. I will not lie or attempt to pervert the course of justice. I will identify myself when required to do so BUT I see no reason at present to provide identification in any other method than oral communication. If the Orifice doesn't believe me then he/she is of course entitled to arrest me until such times that he/she is certain I am who I say I am... This is a chance I take and am more than aware of the consequences. It is something that I fundamentally believe I am entitled to do. Man is evolving far beyond what should be allowed.

We are animals at the end of the day yet for some strange reason we all believe we are soooooo much more. We are born, we live, we die... We Brits inflict pain and suffering on millions of people around the world yet a bunch of arse*oles who sit in a fancy little building THINK they are perfectly entitled to inflict yet further misery on all those around them. They blame speeders, thiefs, murderers and single mothers (to name but a few) for all of societies problems but time and again they fail to take a look at themselves and their morally corrupt thinking. They have realised what a cash cow the legal system really can be and they have entered into it not for the good of mankind but to MAKE MONEY. They consistently mis-inform the public and also take advantage of the not so intelligent. They paint pictures that involve many mis-truths. They are not able to hold down a real job so they talk for a living. They manipulate words and meanings, they close all avenues of escape from persecution and they will continue regardless of the many thousands who are now standing up and telling them they are wrong. The only thing which can fix Britain and make it GREAT Britain again is the fall of capitalism and the fall of the government and law makers.

I am under no obligation to make their job easier especially when 99% of the time I am 100% innocent. smile.gif


ANYWAY...

Off Topic there... Sorry.

Did you get your car back today? Did you also contact the DVLA to enquire as to exactly WHY it is registered as 'scrapped'? There could have been a 'procedural error' or the likes. The DVLA isn't exactly known for getting things right... smile.gif
James-76
QUOTE (NeilNeil @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 23:48) *
QUOTE (glasgow_bhoy @ Sun, 28 Dec 2008 - 23:27) *
I was told by a policeman never to keep my cars documents in the car as if the car was broken into/stolen then the theif would be able to make use of these documents...



I now keep photocopies of my licence/insurance/MOT/Vehicle Registration in my car. Is this a bad idea for the above reason?



There are some sites online that you can obtain credit etc and all they ask for is a scan or even fax of your id so in the wrong hands your copies could make somebody a few quid and get you chased by the debt collectors.

I got stopped not showing on the stupid computer but there was a trade policy to my car :s (no seatbelt got me stopped)
Although the officer was a bit touchy he did call my insurance company and verify it and let me on my way with a £30 fine haha
dave47676
I remember seeing on one of those police shows on the telly they were impounding a car and the bod asked for a producer. the response was "we no longer issue producers"

I have a Cat D car and it is marked as "DAMAGE REPAIRED" on the database.
clean for20years
QUOTE (dave47676 @ Mon, 29 Dec 2008 - 21:22) *
I have a Cat D car and it is marked as "DAMAGE REPAIRED" on the database.


That is exactly what it says for mine so i am going tomorrow to see the seargeant to get this fiasco sorted out

Guy from dvla said on the record the vehicle had been written off buy the insurance company this is all it says nothing remotely resembling scrapped !

then the vic test pass was logged the same day it passed

NO mention of being scrapped so as i knew guy was totally off the mark policy should be here in morning which will back up the insurance issue but as i have said he was saying it was scrapped which is WRONG

the scrap fact was what he claimed was the main reason for impounding

So i am going to tell them that since they made the mistake not dvla or the insurance company and certainly not me or my son that i expect the car to be returned free of charge

Wish me luck lol
bluegolfboy
I sure do wish you luck...

Just keep the temper... You're innocent after all.

If you do get angry just imagine the sergeant naked... Works for me in the courtroom...
clean for20years
Well spent 2 hours in the station and got nowhere guy still insisted the database said scrap lol

Told him dvla said it was not but he still knew best

Would not release vehicle to my son as he called insurance company and was told that the policy was not right something about not disclosing all convictions and i know he has !

It IS now on the ask mid system so someone is telling porkies

other one said the car must be motd again after repaired i said no this is not the case it needs a VIC which has been done and has passed

She took my mot and called vosa they said it is ok no need for a fresh mot smile.gif 1 up for me

They are both still sticking to the scrap story even stating that if they stopped it again they would uplift it or call the traffic police i said you should have got them on saturday they would have understood the database better lol

So i then said can you release it to me then as my insurance will allow me to drive ok says he

Comes back says no can do you are named driver needs to be your wife smile.gif

Luckily my wife was in car so she comes in with my 4 girls filling the front of the office he says right you need to drive the car wife says fine

NOW he comes out and says i need to see your license he cant it is away for change off address !

Wife says check it on the computer lol

reluctantly they do this and eventually release the vehicle but it has to be paid for as they done nothing wrong !!

totally rediculous
bluegolfboy
Seems that the guy was about as helpful as most other people involved in implementing and upholding the law... smile.gifsmile.gifsmile.gif
clean for20years
I intend to write lots of letters to anyone who i feel should be in a position to do something about the way this was dealt with not expecting much of an outcome but it will make me feel i am doing my bit

It is unfortunate that the insurance was not issued when it should have been or i would have made more fuss but my hands were tied at that point

the fact is though we did not knowingly drive or indeed intend to drive without insurance in force and i truly feel had it been me the car would not have been impounded this is wrong

Having said that they are still under the impression the car is scrap and you cannot insure a scrap car etc

SO WHY GIVE ME IT BACK lol
bluegolfboy
Was there insurance in force at the time of the offence? Did you manage to get this point clarified and obtain a certificate with the date and time of implementation on it???
clean for20years
Unfortunately no as the process online stalled at some point i did call on the monday to sort it out so at that point we had no choice but to roll over

I still argued the scrap issue as dvla assured me it said writen off v23 logged on the record this is just the insurance saying it was written off NOT SCRAPPED but i got nowhere

I think given the circumstances the judge if it gets to court should accept that we done everything we could to get insured and we have done it online in past and it always worked

He has never driven without insurance before and his old insurance for his last car was infact still in force but would not cover him we will see
bluegolfboy
Jesus... Quite a situation to get into...

The other half was in a similar situation about a year and a half ago... She bought a new car whilst she still had the old one... She had 'problems' with the new car and kept having to transfer insurance policies whilst the new one was being fixed, returned, taken away again to be fixed and then returned only to be taken away again.... This went on and on...

Police pulled her one day for driving the old car... They said it wasn't insured. Luckily the insurance company said that it was.... smile.gif

Not sure how a judge would view your situation. I suppose that in all fairness your valid points should stand and discretion should be exercised. The problem is that should it be found in your favour and something like this happen again then you'll already have had your strike and next time you'll be out.............
clean for20years
Well it will not be happening with this car as i am selling it someone else can convince robocop of its status he wont listen to me smile.gif
bluegolfboy
LoL...

Better watch you don't get caught out by the law when you come to sell it... You can't call it a road worthy car unless it is actually a road worthy car... I am assuming you will sell it as a write-off repair but I could imagine there will be a lot of further issues with the car should the ANPR system not recognise it as a fully legal car and instead a possible candidate for "Chinese washing machine of the year"... smile.gif
clean for20years
As it stands it is more roadworthy than my van but i get no trouble with that !

i do not intend to hide anything regarding its history the car is road legal and has been fixed properly

I just want an easy life chances are another officer stopping it would not have any issue with it but i do not need the agro
I can create problems myself do not need others creating them smile.gif
bluegolfboy
Oh... Sugar... Don't even remind me about vans...

I have one on my 'second' drive that I bought approx four months ago and still haven't managed to track down a V5 for... Not really my problem to be honest and I will take no responsibility for it until absolutely necessary. Not my problem if the dude couldn't find the slip and happily delivered the van to me regardless... smile.gif

I have the little counter part tear off bit though... Suppose that'll probably be enough evidence of ownership should it be required... Have lots of receipts and documents too...

Anyway... I see what your getting at with limiting hassle...
Zed Victor One
QUOTE (bluegolfboy @ Thu, 1 Jan 2009 - 21:36) *
LoL...

Better watch you don't get caught out by the law when you come to sell it... You can't call it a road worthy car unless it is actually a road worthy car... I am assuming you will sell it as a write-off repair but I could imagine there will be a lot of further issues with the car should the ANPR system not recognise it as a fully legal car and instead a possible candidate for "Chinese washing machine of the year"... smile.gif



It's illegal to sell an unroadworthy vehicle but you do not have to inform someone that a vehicle has been deemed a write off unless they ask.
clean for20years
Yes im well aware of the rules i have been in the trade 20 years and never had this happen before.

As i have said car is in no way unroadworthy and was not at the time of the stop.

The worst thing wrong with it was the exhaust was rubbing at the rear somewhere hardly makes it unroadworthy smile.gif

As for being written off it actually says the car was repaired on the documents nowadays all cat c cars get this marked on the docs after passing the mickey mouse id test so nothing to hide from punters

All this was explained to the officer but he still maintained it said scrap not written off there is a BIG difference.
clean for20years
Hi everyone a little update we now have all the documentation from the insurance company and we were insured at the time although it was not on the database obviously !!

We also have a citation to attend court smile.gif

We have 2 charges

1 the insurance this is no problem as we have everything to prove we were insured

2 the officers also claim my son was driving recklessly and doing 80mph plus UP a hill with 5 people on board a 1.4 vehicle lol

they go on to say they could not keep up and lost sight of him i tried to go up the hill at 80 in my espace i could not do it so no way the 206 could !!

how do i go about this the officers told so many mistruths in this matter i do not think they will stop now !!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.