91 replies to this topic

[BigCopSmallTown]

I seized a vehicle under S165 the other night shift for exactly the reason stated by the OP. The vehicle did not have a valid Business policy and due to the time of day I was unable to confirm if their insurance would cover third party through MIB or the insurer so his vehicle was recovered and he was reported for No Ins and other C&U offences. Quick Contemp Interview at the roadside and away our punter went. Many policies which are SDP have a specific exclusion of business use, for hire or reward.

[MerseyLLB]

Yes but the legal argument here is whether an offence is committed under 143 until the insurance company make to avoid liability.

The CPS and many of us on here say no.

[Shogy1]

What on earth gave you the impression that I don't?

You said you don't have time. I can't see how a five minute phone call would take hours out of your day. Especially as you say if you have doubts about the insurance.

[Nelson]

You said you don't have time. I can't see how a five minute phone call would take hours out of your day. Especially as you say if you have doubts about the insurance.

I think I've made my point clear to most others and you're just being petty. If anything, my contributions to this thread should show I'm pretty keen on catching them, just not enough to include seizing cars when I perhaps shouldn't be. Perhaps you should concentrate on your own methods rather than insinuating I'm overlooking matters.

[adslegend]

Meow!!!

But he's quite right.

[General Purpose]

Just a point: is the MIB a national thing, or force specific?

[Shogy1]

Just a point: is the MIB a national thing, or force specific?

National.. If you speak to your local traffic unit they will have the contact numbers...

[Myky]

it is worth remembering that:

As part of Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), it is now a legal requirement for registered vehicle keepers to insure their vehicle(s) at all times.

You don’t have to be driving to be caught. It is an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you have notified DVLA that your vehicle is being kept off the road by means of a Statutory off Road Notice (SORN).

http://www.mib.org.u...ent/default.htm

so the car must be insured as well as the driver, if a driver is driving another persons car on their own car insurance policy, then the policy may stipulate that the vehicle has its own insurance cover.

so if mr bloggs has no insurance on his car but his girlfriend has a comprehensive policy that allows her to drive other cars (with exclusions to the effect of above) and she is stopped by the police then she is driving without insurance and the car can be seized,

[Rob90]

it is worth remembering that:

As part of Continuous Insurance Enforcement (CIE), it is now a legal requirement for registered vehicle keepers to insure their vehicle(s) at all times.

You don’t have to be driving to be caught. It is an offence to keep a vehicle without insurance unless you have notified DVLA that your vehicle is being kept off the road by means of a Statutory off Road Notice (SORN).

http://www.mib.org.u...ent/default.htm

so the car must be insured as well as the driver, if a driver is driving another persons car on their own car insurance policy, then the policy may stipulate that the vehicle has its own insurance cover.

so if mr bloggs has no insurance on his car but his girlfriend has a comprehensive policy that allows her to drive other cars (with exclusions to the effect of above) and she is stopped by the police then she is driving without insurance and the car can be seized,

I'm afraid I must disagree with you there, to my knowledge CIE is conducted by the DVLA - the power under s.165A RTA 1988 to seize vehicles only applies where the constable reasonably suspects that an offence under s.143 RTA 1988 (s.143 being the requirement to be insured against 3rd party risks) is being committed. As far as I can tell, the two offences are totally separate from one another, s.143 being the requirement to have insurance/security against 3rd party risks for using a vehicle on a road/public place, and CIE being related to keeping a vehicle, which is not declared off the road, whilst not insured. That notwithstanding, you are completely correct that many insurance policies do stipulate that the 'other vehicle' being driven must be covered independently, this is something which would merit further investigation, as it is possible that such a stipulation is not made. I would not personally be after seizing a vehicle under the circumstances described unless I was able to contact the insurer to bottom out the finer details of the policy; if that were not the case I would either issue a HO/RT1, or report them at the roadside for s.143, and make enquiries with MIB/insurance company at the next available opportunity.

Don't forget that the power under s.165A only exists to prevent an offence from continuing, where you reasonably suspect such an offence to be occurring, it is not a sanction in itself.

[richr]

so if mr bloggs has no insurance on his car but his girlfriend has a comprehensive policy that allows her to drive other cars (with exclusions to the effect of above) and she is stopped by the police then she is driving without insurance and the car can be seized,

GMP v Pryor dealt with this in some detail. The tl;dr version is that Pryor was driving a vehicle and was stopped. He produced a certificate that said he was entitled to drive other vehicles, and the certificate itself made no mention of the exclusion. The officer phoned Saga (the insurer) who said the exclusion existed, and so the officer seized the vehicle.

he police have powers to call on a driver to produce the relevant certificate of insurance for examination: section 165(1) and (2)(a). The certificate must be relevant to the question whether the vehicle was being driven in contravention of section 143. Since the certificate he produced demonstrated he was not guilty of any such contravention, it was plainly a relevant certificate.

He was not guilty of any offence under section 165(3).
For section 165A purposes Mr Burton had to produce "evidence" that the vehicle was not being driven in contravention of section 143 and as those words were defined in section 165A(9)(b), he had to produce the "document" within section 165(2)(a) namely, "the relevant certificate of insurance" which was evidence that he was not contravening section 143. I ask rhetorically: what other certificate of insurance could he produce other than the certificate issued by his insurers which did cover this use of that vehicle? The Saga certificate showed he was not guilty of an offence under section 143.

It showed clearly on its face that he was covered provided he was driving with Mr Pryor's consent and that consent was demonstrated by the testimonial written by Mr Pryor. That letter showed clearly on its face that he was using the Honda with its owner's consent. He produced all the evidence to show that the motor vehicle was not being driven in contravention of section 143. The purpose of section 165A is to give the police the power to remove from the road vehicles which are being used without third party insurance being in place to cover that use. Here that cover was in place.

Thus condition 165A(3)(b) was not satisfied. He did not fail to produce what was required. The police constables' belief, misled as they may have been by some person within Saga that the cover was only extended if the car actually being driven was itself insured by its owner, was flatly contradicted by the plain words of the certificate: the police constable's belief, no doubt honestly held, that the certificate did not mean what it said is neither here nor there. Having failed to satisfy condition (3)(b) of section 165A, we simply do not get to section 165A© as Miss Whitelaw concedes.

It all seems to me as plain as a pikestaff. The police have failed to establish grounds for their seizure of the Honda. The defendant has in those circumstances wrongly interfered with the claimant's goods. The appeal must be allowed and judgment entered for the claimant with damages to be assessed.

[Shogy1]

GMP v Pryor dealt with this in some detail. The tl;dr version is that Pryor was driving a vehicle and was stopped. He produced a certificate that said he was entitled to drive other vehicles, and the certificate itself made no mention of the exclusion. The officer phoned Saga (the insurer) who said the exclusion existed, and so the officer seized the vehicle.

But the Pryor case refers to when a certificate was produced at the time of the stop. If no certificate had been produced at the time of the stop and the vehicle seized the seizure would have been lawful.

[richr]

I disagree. Certainly, Pryor shows that the production of a certificate effectively overrides any grounds to seize on the basis of insurance, unless you have doubts about the provenance of the certificate (in which case you'll be considering summons/arrest for production of false paperwork).

However, you still need reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle is being driven without any insurance cover at all. What Pryor does demonstrate is that one ought to be careful when discussing the terms of the policy with a call centre agent, especially when you're considering depriving a motorist of their property. Given the general trend to electronic delivery of insurance certificates, I'd be very surprised if there's a motorist these days who can't provide their certificate by way of a smartphone.

[Shogy1]

I disagree. Certainly, Pryor shows that the production of a certificate effectively overrides any grounds to seize on the basis of insurance, unless you have doubts about the provenance of the certificate (in which case you'll be considering summons/arrest for production of false paperwork).

However, you still need reasonable grounds to believe that a vehicle is being driven without any insurance cover at all. What Pryor does demonstrate is that one ought to be careful when discussing the terms of the policy with a call centre agent, especially when you're considering depriving a motorist of their property. Given the general trend to electronic delivery of insurance certificates, I'd be very surprised if there's a motorist these days who can't provide their certificate by way of a smartphone.

Well the amount of motorists I stop I could probably count on 2 hands and one foot the amount that have their insurance on their phone. Even then they usually only have it so they think we'll accept it and not call the insurance company to find out it's been cancelled.. as usually there is no Insurance on the pnc in the first place..

I can't see how much more careful they could have been in that case. They ascertained that the vehicle itself had no insurance. The driver had insurance but because the car was not insured and his insurance required the car to be insured for it to be valid, then the insurance company say he had no insurance cover. Now to me this is clearly a mistake by the insurance company by not putting this on the certificate. I have to say that in the circumstances above, before this case and probably still now in the abscence of an insurance certificate at the scene I would seize.

Edited by Shogy1, 05 August 2012 - 08:03 AM.

[richr]

I can't see how much more careful they could have been in that case. They ascertained that the vehicle itself had no insurance. The driver had insurance but because the car was not insured and his insurance required the car to be insured for it to be valid, then the insurance company say he had no insurance cover. Now to me this is clearly a mistake by the insurance company by not putting this on the certificate.

They were actually too careful. As the judge said, "The police constables' belief, misled as they may have been by some person within Saga that the cover was only extended if the car actually being driven was itself insured by its owner, was flatly contradicted by the plain words of the certificate: the police constable's belief, no doubt honestly held, that the certificate did not mean what it said is neither here nor there"

The requirement under s165a only requires that the driver produce a certificate of insurance that demonstrates the 3rd party cover. Unless we have grounds to doubt the provenance, we have to accept it at face value!

in the abscence[/u] of an insurance certificate at the scene I would seize.

Prior to Pryor (ho ho!), I would have agreed. After Pryor, I'm not convinced. During normal working hours, we've got the opportunity to do some fairly comprehensive digging, but the difficulty I have is that lines of enquiry in the wee hours are limited, and I don't think "I've no way of verifying the story one way or the other" is sufficient grounds to believe that insurance isn't held, especially if the driver is adamantly sticking to his story of driving under his own policy.

That said, the other alternative is to arrest and leave the car on the side of the road - after all, we only need grounds to suspect that he's committing the offence of driving without insurance, and there's probably plenty of scope for P&EI.

I've no problem seizing a car from someone in a cut and dried case of no insurance, but, as I've previously mentioned, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we can use it as some sort of definitive action when the facts are simply unclear, or if the insurance cover is not to our liking (the S&DP courier argument that the thread started with).

Whilst there are plenty of officers who will seize at the drop of the hat (and I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with a colleague at the roadside about it!), I remain surprised that there is only the one good piece of case law about this - I can only assume that people either don't bother claiming, or that forces routinely settle out of court (I feel an FOI request coming on!). Certainly, if I'd had my vehicle seized under less-than-watertight grounds, I'd be writing letters like a man possessed. I note that Pryor was a litigant in person, so clearly a man after my own heart!

[Shogy1]

They were actually too careful. As the judge said, "The police constables' belief, misled as they may have been by some person within Saga that the cover was only extended if the car actually being driven was itself insured by its owner, was flatly contradicted by the plain words of the certificate: the police constable's belief, no doubt honestly held, that the certificate did not mean what it said is neither here nor there"

The requirement under s165a only requires that the driver produce a certificate of insurance that demonstrates the 3rd party cover. Unless we have grounds to doubt the provenance, we have to accept it at face value!



Prior to Pryor (ho ho!), I would have agreed. After Pryor, I'm not convinced. During normal working hours, we've got the opportunity to do some fairly comprehensive digging, but the difficulty I have is that lines of enquiry in the wee hours are limited, and I don't think "I've no way of verifying the story one way or the other" is sufficient grounds to believe that insurance isn't held, especially if the driver is adamantly sticking to his story of driving under his own policy.

That said, the other alternative is to arrest and leave the car on the side of the road - after all, we only need grounds to suspect that he's committing the offence of driving without insurance, and there's probably plenty of scope for P&EI.

I've no problem seizing a car from someone in a cut and dried case of no insurance, but, as I've previously mentioned, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we can use it as some sort of definitive action when the facts are simply unclear, or if the insurance cover is not to our liking (the S&DP courier argument that the thread started with).

Whilst there are plenty of officers who will seize at the drop of the hat (and I'm certainly not going to get into an argument with a colleague at the roadside about it!), I remain surprised that there is only the one good piece of case law about this - I can only assume that people either don't bother claiming, or that forces routinely settle out of court (I feel an FOI request coming on!). Certainly, if I'd had my vehicle seized under less-than-watertight grounds, I'd be writing letters like a man possessed. I note that Pryor was a litigant in person, so clearly a man after my own heart!

The first part of your reply I agree with. If they produce a certificate then its down to us to disprove it if we think there is some thing wrong

However take the actual production of the certificate out of the equation. driver produces no docs. A pnc check shows there is insurance showing driving other vehicles. Now you can accept that there is cover at this stage and leave it at that. But you contact the insurance and they say there is no cover due to the other vehicle not being insured. In the absence of that certificate then any decision to seize would be lawful wouldn't it?

Otherwise what is point of contacting insurance companies in the first place if we are not going to believe them? We have to take what they tell us at the road side as correct. As with driving licence database. You have to take it as correct unless they can show you otherwise at the road side. If you have the grounds then you can seize if you wish.

[tom3501]

After a brief chat on a shift with Traffic on Friday night this topic came up quite by accident after stopping a gent with takeaway bags on his front seat.

He was not a takeaway driver, he was just hungry, however the Traffic officer proceeded to ask me what I would do if I stopped a vehicle which was being used for delivery purposes in relation to being insured correctly.

Having never considered this before I replied that I would consult PNC to see whether the vehicle was insured for business usage as well as SDP. I was informed that although this was the right train of thought that there are currently NO insurance companies that will insure vehicles for 'takeaway delivery' as part of the 'normal' insurance purposes and this is in fact stated in the more detailed fine print of the policies that everyone agrees to but never reads. Hence they would be essentially voiding their insurance cover and therefore leaving some work to be done for the local recovery team to come pick up the car and also totally pis*ing off the poor sod who is waiting for his takeaway.

Not wanting to ruin my Saturday night curry by running the risk of my regular takeaway delivery driver being stopped and having his car seized for not insurance I diligently proceeded to ask 'How can anyone actually deliver a takeaway and be insured?'.

The reply was that there is specific insurance that can be obtained for takeaway delivery either by the driver or on their behalf by the company/takeaway which they are working for. This, I am led to believe, is not necessarily prohibitively expensive and a number of takeaways do have this insurance and this is generic-type cover which operates covering named drivers. As the conversation continued it appears that, as is the case with most 'cover all' policies, the named drivers leave, are replaced or a randomer turns up for one night as the regular driver may not turn up. This, as per terms of the policy, voids the policy as they are not named.

The bigger takeaways that have vehicles with markings on may be owned by the company and tend to carry the specific requirements as per any 'company car'.

Interestingly, or maybe something for you to take-away (couldn't resist it ) from my little rant, There are two large firms operating within the UK, both sell Pizza, one from a type of building made from wood with 'Pizza' in the name and the other which is a pub game which is little black rectangle with white spots on (come on... figure it out ), both these firms carry insurance documents at the store any delivery driver is operating from which covers the driver whilst operating in a delivery capacity, as long as the driver holds his/her own insurance. So if you were to stop a vehicle that was delivering from either of these fine establishments then you should be able to either contact the store to confirm coverage for delivery if you so wished!

[Shogy1]

I don't think that's strictly true that no insurance company will insure you for takeaway delivery. I have seen insurance certificates that state includes use for carriage of food for hire and reward. Some insurance companies may have nothing to do with that type of use but the driver needs to ask for it on their insurance policy, if they are self employed of course. If not self employed obviously the business would need the cover.