On Oct 14, 6:43 pm, Humpty Eggy  wrote:
> freepo wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 5:46 pm, freepo  wrote:
> >> On Oct 14, 5:31 pm, freepo  wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 27, 2:32 am, Alex Heney  wrote:
> >>>> So far as the police officer is concerned, it will be an access to the
> >>>> PNC.
> >>>> But that will just interface to the other relevant databases.
> >>> In "real time"?  If not then there is an added element of error, and
> >>> thus even more reason for believing the police to be acting
> >>> unreasonably.
> >>>>>>>> But the only way such a judgment could ever occur would be if somebody
> >>>>>>>> whose car had been seized (when they did in fact have insurance) were
> >>>>>>>> to sue the police for the release fees.
> >>>>> They probably wouldn't be any need to sue.
> >>>>> If the police checked their facts and established that the vehicle was
> >>>>> seized without reasonable cause then they would probably simply pay up, like
> >>>>> they did with me.
> >>>> They might.
> >>>> The law certainly does not expect them to.
> >>>> But your case was different, being one of the (few) situations where
> >>>> the law specifically states you do not have to pay.
> >>> Which situation would that be then?
> >> No need to answer this, I found your reply as follows:
>
> >> **********************************************
> >> (3) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who
> >> would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the
> >> regulations is not liable to pay it if—
>
> >> (a) he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time in question, and
>
> >> (b) he did not know that the vehicle was being driven at that time,
> >> had not consented to its being driven and could not, by the taking of
> >> reasonable steps, have prevented it from being driven.
> >> --------------------------
>
> >> In your case, since you said it was when your vehicle had been stolen,
> >> the above obviously applied.
>
> > The relevant law specifically refers to a vehicle being "Driven" and
> > even that exclusion for having to pay quoted above, refers to the
> > vehicle being not "driven" by the owner, but nonetheless being
> > "driven" by someone who had TWOC'd it.
>
> > I mention this because, I think I read of a case (in this group
> > perhaps)  where someone was sitting in a car in the drivers seat with
> > the engine running to warm up the car.  The police came by and charged
> > her of being in charge of a motor vehicle without a licence and
> > perhaps they also seized the vehicle - I can't remember.  But if they
> > did it would have been contrary to the law.
>
> > I also recently had a visit from an officer who told me he was going
> > to seize my vehicle for being uninsured in a "public place".  In
> > regards to seizing the vehicle I believe he would be outside his
> > authority, as the vehicle is not being "driven".
>
> > In regards to uninsured in a public place, s.143 says the vehicle is
> > being "used" in a public place requires insurance.
>
> > I object strongly to the word "used" being applied to a parked
> > vehicle.
>
> You can 'object' all you like. Just pay the fine on the way out though.

Oh and also I wouldn't be so quick to say that there is not a valid
defense that the car is not being 'used'

http://www.abi.org.uk/Newsreleases/viewNewsRelease.asp?nrid=10823

S.143 has not changed since 2004 except to add "public places", so how
do you explain that the website says
"The existing system relies on the police being able to spot people
who are driving without insurance."?

BTW does anyone know if they did ever create that new law of "keeping
a vehicle on the road without insurance"?