hello folks its me again..

I got another issue need some counselling on lol..

My sisters was driving my car and got it seized by the police because they (non traffic) stopped her at night and said her driving licence had expired substantive.

Now this was a admin error by DVLA or the Law courts as back in 2008 she got convicted for no insurance and was given 6 points on her licence, The courts or dvla made a duplication error and 6 turned to 12 and she was banned and should have re applied for her licence in 2009 or later possibly when the ban comes off.

When the police took car to impound she went to police station to try to get car released. The police said they have informed her insurance company that she is currently on a ban and her insurance has been cancelled as a result and she will need new insurance. This was on Wednesday this week. She then rang DVLA and the law courts who both got in a panic and said they where sorry for he predicament but an admin error has arose and she is not banned.

The police also have made checks with dvla and can confirm that she is not banned. But the police took it upon themselves to further ring her insurance up and ask them if she declared the original 6 points on her policy which she got in 2008. The insurance said she is duty bound to tell of all points arising in the last five years and she has not mentioned these so we are still cancelling her policy. Now she can not get the car released as no new insurance company will touch her with a barge pole because she has had insurance declined in the past. She is the registered keeper of the car. I bought this car 5 days before the stop and was in the process of registering the car over to trade. I had a signed receipt from her declaring me as new owner. I had updated MID on that date with my trade insurance hence informing my trade insurance that this car has come into my ownership. The vehicle seizure notice clearly states that the driver or the owner or the registered keeper can release the impounded vehicle after showing relevant documents.

I showed my trade policy bill of sale and insurance mid update information to the police they laughed and said that old trick ?? NICE TRY WE ARE NOT SATISFIED YOU ARE THE OWNER SO LEAVE GO AWAY

they refuse to believe I am the owner event thought the registered keeper was with me saying I was the owner they refuse to give car back saying we are not satisfied you are the owner. I demanded information as to what can I show them to prove I am the owner they just laughed and told me to leave and would not reply to my question ? how do I get car back ?????? throwing it out there for any advice please ....

I'm totally confused by that bit ....when she got the 6 points was her licence ret'd to DVLA to get the points on and did she get it back with 6 points on so did she not know about the extra 6 points ...was this only found out during this recent stop?

You need to get some proof about the transfer of the insurance pre-dating the seizure, otherwise it's easy to understand the Police reluctance to take the story at face value, especially as your sister was still driving the car.

If it was your car and on your trade policy, why did she have it insured?

I see the dilemma but can also see the Police's scepticism - I can issue a invoice dated a week ago for anything!

Presumably the V5 section for being sold to a trader has been sent off? So, allowing for the slowness of DVLA it will show as such soon? As others have asked though why is your Sister still insuring/driving it? What may also help you is her (ex)insurer will have been told she no longer owns the car 5 days before the pull which may help convince the Police?.........

Her insurance policy has been cancelled but was apparently in force at the time. One thing to be aware of is that if the policy didn't cover driving other vehicles (and lots of people assume that their policy does when it doesn't) then she would be open to another charge of driving uninsured because she wasn't driving her car.

What exactly have you got that shows that ownership transferred to you five days before, that couldn't be in any shape or form created after the event?

Is the reason they stopped her in the first place possibly relevant?

If she was still driving it.. what insurance was she driving on? Or was the car seized for no ins?

Don't know it is different where you are but the 165 seizure notices that I have seen state that the owner/RK can nominate someone else (who is insured to drive the vehicle) to collect it. So attend at the Police station with your sister, she provides proof that she owns the vehicle, then nominates you as the person who will drive the car, you produce your trade policy (assuming it covers release of seized vehicles) and off you go.

Simples.

More and more domestic polices with DoV these days explicitly exclude retrieving vehicles.

Trade policies generally cover (a) vehicles owned by the holder and (b) vehicles driven in connection with the owner's business. A seized vehicle owned by someone else would be neither under such a policy.

I would hazard a guess that the OP's trade policy is of this type, which is why he's trying to prove ownership to the police. The sticking point he and his sister are finding on trying to get the vehicle back is not who is allowed to collect it but who is insured to drive it.

This bit could be key, if you could get your insurer to confirm that this happened previous to the seizure then you should be able to use that to recover the vehicle

Didn't think you could update MID oneself? How does one do that?

So the sister wasn't insured or were there two policies in place?

You need a traders policy.

yes comrades all good points raised let me try to address some of these forgive me if I miss something as I am going from memory rather then scrolling through the thread. (I can be lazy lol)

yes the sale happened between brother and sister. I told my sister that she has sold me the car very cheap as it needs a few minor things doing to it (nothing that makes it illegal on the road) to tidy car up dents and scratches etc. I said to her since at the time of sale her policy is still in force and she is the registered keeper and also she is with out a car now and she is my sister I will let her carry on having the use of the car for a further 14 days until she can or I can sort out a decent replacement vehicle for her. I gave her my permission to carry on using the car.

Note a example a husband can buy a car for his wife. The wife for purposes of insurance is registered as the keeper of the car and she insures it as well. If the event arises that said car is seized the husband can go along with the wife and explain that he is the legal owner as he bought the car and has a receipt to that effect and his wife is merely the registered keeper and insurer of the vehicle.

what I am trying to explain is you can have an owner who is not the registered keeper this can exist. With the points fiasco the licence was sent off to the courts and they wrote down six points and the licence was sent back but some error happened wit dvla and the courts and they added another further 6 points for the same offence twice then due to the totter procedure she automatically gets disqualified by dvla. The dvla admit and confirm this was an error the police admit and are aware that this is an error. the tax and mot are non issues here as they where in order. the original cause for the police to stop the vehicle was a rear brake bulb was out and after the initial pull over it transpired to them that this driver is licence expired substantive. This is due to the fact the courts mistakenly disqualified her in 2008 or 2009 and she has been insuring driving the same car for 3 to 4 years and never been stopped by the police so this matter has never come to light. As with all totter (12 pointS) offences after disqualification you have to reapply for your licence if you do not it will show up as licence expired substantive.

the licenc eissue has been cleared up the only issue is the police where I live will only release seized vehicles to the driver/owner/registered keeper only and no one else and they hate to release to motor trade as they hate motor trade policy holders in my area.

I logged on to MID website updated the said vehicle and it is showing as on date wit MID as the same date as my purchase of the car. Yes their will be two policies in force covering same vehicle this is not illegal. My trade policy would be covering me on the vehicle and her private policy will be covering her on the vehicle as she is the registered keeper until dvla updates their data base (hence 14 days ). The issue is the Sargent I am dealing with has issues with me and has made the matter some what personal and refuses to release car he keeps putting up arguments to not release the vehicle . he refuses to believe I am the owner and says he is not satisfied that I am the owner. I question him (which I have a recording to back up my story as I taped him on iphone)"how can I satisfy you sarge that I am the owner ? I repeat "how sarge can I satisfy you that I am the owner what do you require in form of paper work or other to satisfy you that I am owner?? he refused to reply and told me to leave the station.. I repeated the same question 3 times and 3 times he told me to leave. his fellow officer a big large overweight chap then proceeded to gently push me out towards the door. I left at this stage saying to the sarge at this stage that the fact he has not replied and given me recourse to appeal his decision means the police are a TYRANNY! and all bodies are regulated and an appeal process must exist he is duty bound to tell me how I can appeal his decision. He refuses to reply. I know I can go to police complaints commission the so called independent one. However I would have rather resolved this in house. I tried to complain to the duty inspector at the station but he said he his reviewing the information and looking at emailed documents his sarge as emailed him. The duty inspector spoke to me over the phone not face to face. The duty Inspector said he would ring me friday he never did. I left 3 calls to his voice mail requesting he return my calls it seems the duty inspector is not interested.

I have a few choices I am in the process of contacting my local councilor and asking him to intervene or MP the other is get a solicitor involved the third is do a stat dec at mags confirming I am owner...

And finally the last resort get my hillbillies together storm the pound and rescue my mota walking dead stylieeee yeeee haaaaaa!!

Shouldn't you be going to the 'pound' to get it released rather than the police station?

Shouldn't you be going to the 'pound' to get it released rather than the police station?

No once police seize vehicle they give you a white form to keep drivers copy and another for their records blue copy (i think) and a yellow copy (i think again not sure of colours) for the pound people to keep.


after you have gone to a police station and had your documents checked to see a legitimate person will be removing car from pound they stamp your form and counter sign it with a police officers details on. they also fax a copy to the pound so they are aware that vehicle has been signed off to be potentially released if the person with the from turns up at their premises.

with out a stamped form no car release will happen. The officer in my case is being stubborn as I have rubbed him up the wrong way and he is now being awkward (BULLY) and refusing to sign my form he also is using the argument "I am not satisfied) as his argument for not stamping form. He not being satisfied is not a legal response I should have recourse to appeal his decision but he refuses to tell me in which direction I need to go next to appeal his decision. The longer they retain my car the more storage £20 a day it keeps on going up and they have a time limit you can only get form stamped between hours 9am to 4 pm. when I go to police to try to get form stamped they keep me waiting until 4 pm then they say we are still investigating and not going to stamp form they smile and walk off. TYRANNY that is all I got to say. I am just glad financially I am well off and can ultimately write this loss of car off and let it ultimately get crushed. I am just more annoyed at the principle the system sucks and if an Insured driver is driving out of the pound and he has a licence and no owners of the property concerned object to this course of action why do the tyrants OBJECT. They can put a marker on the released car if they wish to after wards to see if it is properly insured registered and so on. The police have resources but they tend to alienate Joe public with these operations and it causes disharmony in the community and widens the gap between them and us. Soon people will stop helping police and siding with Joe public the country will go to the wall when this happens and police will ultimately be blamed. It is not in the public interest to see a good car crushed when 1) no offence at the time of stop was committed although they had suspicions that an offence was committed but they have come to understand this was due to admin errors on part of other government organisations, they should just hand car back to some one who can demonstrate they have insurance and licence to drive the said vehicle.

THE REAL ISSUE HERE

the operation to seize cars and crush them costs alot of money funded by government.. The government will quiz them later on after operation has ended or during operation for feedback. They will say we ran operation for 28 days we seized 1000 cars and out of 1000 cars we crushed 10 cars. The government man committee will not be happy no more funding overtime for such operations in the future... SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING COMRADES???


so they need to crush a certain percentage of seized cars no matter how they do it even illegally so they can report back with correct statistics and get further secure funding (all politics and greed) the police jobs are at risk to secure their jobs at a time when crime is at a ll time low they make work for them selves (THE DEVIL MAKES WORK FOR IDLE HANDS) I unfortunately am a victim of the devils Henchmen.

I would check the wording on your sisters policy as you may find that as she does not own the car then she may not be insured. You can insure a car that does not belong to you but this would need to be declared.

mrh

GOOD POINTS I checked her policy and see has third party cover in place to drive other vehicles not belonging to her so in essence when the car was sold to me she was driving the car legally insured under driving other cars section of the policy and the car in question did have insurance on it from another party (me) hence she was covered in all angles. Now all I need is this pig headed Sargent to come down from his ego trip and say I am stamping the form even thought he id not satisfied he should think with a level head and release Police time can be better spent doing other things then arguing out an issue of who is insured to drive a car out of the police pound. I have not even started to discuss the recovery fees or the storage as it stands at this stage all I want is my property back. No offence has been committed my sister is not looking at any prosecutions they have confirmed this and I have not committed any offences so what is the issue here. RED TAPE and this funding issue that I mentioned before. My MP is being made aware and I will make a petition some sort of movement to say all police officers should be wearing cameras as standard. (this will cut so much crap and help police complaints commission immensely) The police will not like it but tough you paid by tax payer like it or leave the force. after all other employers have monitoring systems in place the police should too. They have cameras in stations police cells have cameras cameras every where except on the helmets of police officers. They need to be monitored and sacked for behaviour un coming of a police officer. The joe public can act up and misbehave because they are not getting paid to wear a uniform and police us but when police officers start acting up they need to be punished. Abusing their authority position and laughing they think I am effected by the storage costs that are getting higher as time goes on in any event after 7 days they will crush the car. I believe 7 days are up on Tuesday 5th March.

Can I give you a piece of friendly advice .

If you want folk to read your posts please take some time to split them up in to paragraphs. Many people will take one look at that above and simply move
on .

true I am lazy I admit it I do not check for spellings,grammar etc did all that at UNI now no lecturer is marking my work I tend to slack off but understand your point. I really am just venting here because I am annoyed and getting it off my chest gives me some closure lol.