|
|
| Author |
Message |
| moto |
This post is not being displayed .
|
moto
Nitrous Nuisance
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| map |
This post is not being displayed .
|
map
Mr Calendar
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Karma :
|
 Posted: 09:44 - 02 Dec 2010  Post subject: |
 |
|
Slightly confusing if you buy insurance it's normally for 1 year as it'll cost you money to cancel or have a shorter time.
Also if you need to SORN they'll have to consider bringing back 6 month road tax for < 600cc bikes or they'll just be paying money out in reclaimed taxes.
One suspects that this idea hasn't been thought through.
Whilst designed to stop uninsured drivers/riders, which is a good thing, those that do it will still do it and it's a pain in the arse for the vast majority of people who are law abiding. Therefore bringing the law into disrepute and doing nobody any favours.
____________________
...and the whirlwind is in the thorn trees, it's hard for thee to kick against the pricks...
Gibbs, what did Duckie look like when he was younger?  |
|
| Back to top |
  |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 13:40 - 02 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, they thought it through. They're going to be sending out £100 fixed penalty notices.
That, in a nutshell, it what it is all about.
If it's on the road and uninsured, the police and DVLA already have the power to seize a vehicle and crush it. They also can't enter a private dwelling or break in somewhere to seize a vehicle.
So in other words, this new law does nothing more to prevent uninsured vehicles being on the road than the existing laws.
What it does do is provide the DVLA with extra income by issuing thousands of computer generated fines when someone forgets to declare a vehicle off the road. It's a total nonsense.
I told them as much at the consultation stage.
We had a discussion about it at the consultation stage, my reply to the consultation is in there and everything I said still stands:
https://www.bikechatforums.com/viewtopic.php?t=165425
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 19:26 - 02 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
100% agree. It's partly extra mouse-waggling to keep Swansea mongers off the dole, and partly raking in money from us law abiding types who forget to keep filling in the right 27b/6 form for things we thought we already owned but which it turns out we were just looking after for the State.
As an aside, the Exchequer is crapping its collective Y-fronts over the prospect of revenue from fuel sales dropping big time if electric vehicles take off (although this week's weather might give V-tards pause for thought). They're desperate to ensure that they know where every vehicle is so that they can slap more ownership or usage taxes on when they need to make up the shortfall.
But the harder they make it to comply, the more people just won't bother, like with 25kW restrictions. SORN and ride your luck, buy an insurance write off, "no keys, no V5" bike for cash, or (heresy!) an import bike-in-a-box that you never quite get around to registering. Ultimately, you can just slap some fake plates on (foreign, if you like), and ride with almost total impunity.
The idea becomes more tempting every year, it really does. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pinkyfloyd |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| G |
This post is not being displayed .
|
G
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pinkyfloyd |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :
|
| Posted: 23:09 - 02 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Then tomorrow I'll be starting an argument with the council about providing somewhere to park a motorcycle 
That will be fun!
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| G |
This post is not being displayed .
|
G
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 23:11 - 02 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Erm, isn't the answer to aquire acomodation where you can park your motorbike  - not sure it's up to the council, really . |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pinkyfloyd |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| G |
This post is not being displayed .
|
G
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 23:17 - 02 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, you chose kids. I chose bikes  . |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pinkyfloyd |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :
|
| Posted: 23:33 - 02 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rogerborg wrote: |
By the way the State acts. It's their belief, not mine.
Ignoring Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK State now feels free to seize and dispose of your bike or car without benefit of an 'impartial tribunal' whenever it feels like you haven't paid enough tax, or under Section 59 - the "I don't much like the cut of your jib" offence.
|
LOL WUT?
By impartial tribunal, I assume you've forgotten about the courts? If your vehicle is seized for, say, having no insurance, you have the right to not accept a PCN and instead go to the courts. If, having faced the impartial tribunal that is the magistrates or, if you like, a jury of your peers, and are found not guilty, your vehicle will be restored to you.
Indeed, if you accept the PCN (and, by doing so, admit guilt), you may have your property back by complying with the relevant conditions. Indeed, you may continue to the court stage but still reclaim your vehicle in the meantime by providing the appropriate proofs of insurance without affecting the fact that you're claiming that you're not guilty.
None of these facts affect the fact that you continue to own that vehicle until such time as the courts deem it appropriate that it is to be forfeited.
The powers of the state to sieze your vehicle exists entirely separately to the fact that you own it.
Anyway, Art 6. doesn't apply to interim orders (such as the police seizing your vehicle whilst it doesn't have insurance- you can have it back as soon as you've proved that, from the moment you reclaim it, it's appropriately insured) - Dogmoch v Germany App No 26315/03; Decn 18.9.06):
“With regard to the applicability of Article 6 § 1 under its civil head, the Court reiterates its consistent case-law to the effect that Article 6 does not apply to proceedings relating to interim orders or other provisional measures adopted prior to the proceedings on the merits, as such measures cannot, as a general rule, be regarded as involving the determination of civil rights and obligation...”
The big case (Goc v Turkey) revolved around a court of the first and only instance. There are very few matters in the UK where there is no recourse to a court, and there are even fewer matters where you cannot recourse to a superior court.
Which is not to say that it is right that the state has powers (especially s59, which is suitably vague and I am convinced that most seizures certainly wouldn't stand up to appeal- there's your Art. 6 right there!) to deprive people of their property, but those powers do not change who owns the vehicle, and this is my point; to assert otherwise misses the point in a fundamental way.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :
|
| Posted: 09:51 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| stinkwheel wrote: |
So it's still your property but they have the legal power to diseize it and destroy it at will... Then charge you for the privelage. In direct contravention of the Bill of Rights.
|
But not without due process!
| stinkwheel wrote: |
I can assure you, if you do refuse to pay a SORN "fine" (worded as an "out of court settlement") they do not take you to court for the offence, they chase you in the small claims system for an £80 debt. I think this is illegal and will happily challenge it if they ever take it that far (and the haven't). Despite having recieved 6 SORN fines, I have yet to be taken to court for failure to fill in a SORN declaration. I have been threatened with court action for not paying the £80 "out of court settlement" which I did not agree to pay. When I dig my heels in by saying I never agreed to settle out of court, they give up and look for an easier target.
There is no legal right of appeal to this continuous taxation law. It gives the DVLA the power to apply a £100 fine out of hand. If you disagree, tough shit. |
Again, I don't disagree that the fact that they're waving an £80 penalty, which they're only prepared to enforce as a debt, is on the shady side of 'well dodgy'.
But, once again, I fail to see how this affects your status as the owner of the vehicle. You still own that vehicle, and do so until the courts (not the DVLA) decide you've forfeited those rights.
Note that I don't necessarily agree with any of the powers of seizure, I'm simply challenging this myth that the the state are the legal owners of my vehicle that keeps doing the rounds, on the basis that it's wrong.
All the DVLA issues stem from the registration of a vehicle, not the vehicle itself.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on.
Last edited by multijoy on 10:33 - 03 Dec 2010; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Tristan. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Tristan.
World Chat Champion
Joined: 26 May 2007
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 13:15 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
As far as I'm aware, the seizure and eventual crushing procedure is not subject to judical appeal and in any case, is carried out within 7 days of the seizure.
You'd land up going for a judicial decision on if they were right to have crushed your car.
Case law has proven that even if they seize and crush your car incorrectly (so the vehicle WAS actually insured), the state does not reimburse the person in question.
Furthermore, if they were to seize your car and you provide documentation showing it is insured, the "recovery fee" is still payable.
I also remember reading about a case where the owner produced his insurance documentation when stopped. The police chose to disregard this saying he could have cancelled the policy after recieving the documents. The car was still seized, the owner did not have the funds to pay to get it back. The car was crushed. The owner was left with no car and an outstanding bill of £160 for the recovery. He had done nothing wrong, the vehicle was insured throughout.
Suggesting to me that there is in fact NOT a mechanism to appeal. You can fight this legislation in court but only if they choose to prosecute you for ithe offence. There is no recource to the judiciary if they choose instead to use their "powers" of seizure.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :
|
| Posted: 14:29 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| stinkwheel wrote: | As far as I'm aware, the seizure and eventual crushing procedure is not subject to judical appeal and in any case, is carried out within 7 days of the seizure. |
So at what point is the seizure permitted? It's obviously not the moment the DVLA issue the summons for the £80.
| stinkwheel wrote: |
Furthermore, if they were to seize your car and you provide documentation showing it is insured, the "recovery fee" is still payable.
|
For the tax offences it isn't, and I'd be surprised if the insurance offences are any different.
| Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997/2439 wrote: |
Part III REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL OF VEHICLES
12.— Taking possession of a vehicle
(1) A person (“the claimant”) may take possession of a vehicle which has been removed and delivered to a custodian and has not been disposed of under regulation 10, if the conditions specified in paragraph
(2) are satisfied.
(2) The conditions are-
(a) the claimant satisfies the custodian that he is the owner of the vehicle or that he is authorised by the owner to take possession of the vehicle;
(b) except where the claimant produces evidence that no offence under section 29(1) of the 1994 Act was committed or the custodian is satisfied that these Regulations did not apply to the vehicle at the time it was immobilised or removed, the claimant pays to the custodian-
(i) the prescribed charge in respect of the removal of the vehicle; and
(ii) the prescribed charge for the storage of the vehicle during the period whilst it was in the custody of the custodian; and
(c) the claimant—
(i) produces to the custodian evidence that no offence under section 29 was committed;
(ii) produces to the custodian a vehicle licence for the vehicle which is then in force; or
(iii) pays to the custodian the prescribed charge for the surety payment.
(3) On giving the claimant possession of a vehicle pursuant to this regulation, the custodian shall give the claimant a statement of the right of the owner or person in charge of the vehicle at the time it was immobilised or, where it was not immobilised or, where it was not immobilised, it was removed to appeal pursuant to regulation 17(2), of the steps to be taken in order to appeal and of the address to which representations to an authorised person made as mentioned in that regulation should be sent.
|
Para 10 of part III of the regulations allows disposal after 14 days (seven for a vehicle of no economic value) if the owner hasn't responded to a notice sent by post that allows them to reclaim the vehicle under the terms above. Para 10 also allows destruction at any time if the owner decides to sign the vehicle over.
So if your vehicle is taxed/sorned and it is seized, you can recover it for no cost if you can demonstrate no offence has been committed. Presumably a court saying 'not guilty' is ample proof.
Even then, the seizure isn't permitted until the vehicle has been immobilised for 24 hours, and the powers to immobilise don't apply to
| Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, Sch 2A wrote: |
(a) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a dwelling-house, mobile home or houseboat and which is normally enjoyed with it, or
(b) any place which is within the curtilage of, or in the vicinity of, a building consisting entirely (apart from common parts) of two or more dwellings and which is normally enjoyed only by the occupiers of one or more of those dwellings.
|
So the spectre of the DVLA coming round your house and rummaging through your garage is a bit far fetched.
It does rather suggest that SORN is completely unenforceable, however, unless there are some specific amendments that I'm not aware of (and I've been using westlaw, so it's pretty current!).
| Stinkwheel wrote: | I also remember reading about a case where the owner produced his insurance documentation when stopped. The police chose to disregard this saying he could have cancelled the policy after recieving the documents. The car was still seized, the owner did not have the funds to pay to get it back. The car was crushed. The owner was left with no car and an outstanding bill of £160 for the recovery. He had done nothing wrong, the vehicle was insured throughout. |
I've not been through the RTA seizure powers but I would suggest that they don't differ all that much, so I'm not at all convinced that the police acted lawfully in seizing the vehicle and the custodian acted lawfully in destroying the vehicle. Certainly if he wasn't charged (I'm assuming he wasn't daft enough to accept a PCN), there's no proof of an offence being committed and no grounds to seize and subsequently the vehicle.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:03 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
I stand corrected regarding the s165A seizures!
The only cop-out is if the vehicle was stopped whilst stolen, in which case you're not liable for those charges (Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005/1606).
I suppose the assumption behind the fairly straight regulations is that you either have a licence and insurance, or you don't; it doesn't even countenance the fact that Murphy is the patron saint of insurance paperwork!
It's not clear what the circumstances are if you decide to not to accept a PCN or caution, but get found not guilty in court- I can only assume that the courts can award a refund of the costs. Indeed, if the CPS decided to take no further action, I can only assume you'd have to apply directly to the police force concerned and make it some sort of civil matter.
It's not really clear what the score is with these points! That said, the uninsured, unlicensed driver who knocked my mrs off her CB500 had his car seized under those grounds, so I'm not entirely anti-them, but the ability to reclaim those costs ought to be mirrored as per the VED regs.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 15:09 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
They are meant to have reasonable grounds to believe that the vehicle isn't insured. I would say that being presented with insurance documents removes any reasonable grounds from it to any resulting seizure is not legal.
Could be interesting to take the individual copper involved to the small claims court for the costs you have incurred from their seizure of the vehicle .
All the best
Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rogerborg |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rogerborg
nimbA
Joined: 26 Oct 2010
Karma :
|
Posted: 16:25 - 03 Dec 2010  Post subject: |
|
|
Sigh. I didn't mean that the State owns your vehicle in a legal sense. Are we still allowed to speak hyperbolically? I haven't checked the case law on that, post Chambers.
Here's the nub of my gist: there's not always a direct connection between what the law is, and how the State acts. I'm more concerned with the latter.
If your vehicle is seized and you'd rather fight than pay up, then of course you still retain ownership, and are welcome to have the lump of crushed metal back.
Want to get compensation? Well, who do you sue? Any private contractors were only following procedure - obeying ze orders. Sue a public body? The Magistrates' courts are a lottery, and the judiciary doesn't appear keen to bite the hand that feeds it.
To be clear, I'm not claiming that there's some giant mechanical Child-Catcher roaming the country, scooping up bikes and crushing them willy nilly in its adamantium jaws, although that would make a good film.
However, plod does currently stop and seize vehicles that are, or appear to be, uninsured or untaxed. And now in some areas - good old Westminster - coppers and bailiffs are operating wee-small-hours roadblocks to stop and take walking possession of vehicles for outstanding debts - yes, you have or are supposed to have had your day in court before the seizure, but afterwards? Best of luck.
Finally, there's parking. Quite apart from the rogue clampers, Westminster (at least) have parking regulations that allow them (or more precisely their private contractors) to seize bikes on the mere suspicion that they haven't paid. Not "reasonable ground", suspicion. They haven't been using those powers yet, but they do have them.
I'm just blowing off steam here, but it boils my piss that there appears to be a creeping culture that vehicles are fair game to be seized and held ransom while disputes are played out. As you note, Article 6 appears to offer no protection against such seizure. I'm not disputing whether that's the law, I'm saying that if it is, then the law is an ass. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| stinkwheel |
This post is not being displayed .
|
stinkwheel
Bovine Proctologist
Joined: 12 Jul 2004
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:43 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| multijoy wrote: |
So at what point is the seizure permitted? It's obviously not the moment the DVLA issue the summons for the £80.
|
As soon as they see it on the road without insurance as far as I'm aware. As has been the case for several years now.
That doesn't really worry me other than the potential for error and the lack of a mechanism to appeal in the case of such an error. It'll actually remove uninsured vehicles from the road but I can't see it removing MORE uninsured vehicles. I keep my uninsured bikes in a locked garage in any case.
What really irks me about this piece of legislation is that it gives the DVLA, a non-elected government office, the power to issue fines to private citizens out of hand. If they follow the same course as they have with the SORN fines, they send out the penalty charge notice (cleverly worded so it is couched as an out of court settlement), if you ignore it, they treat it as a debt, if you pay it, they pocket the money. I'm not sure what you have to do to actually get them to take you to court for the offence. Possibly return the PCN with "fuk the dvla!" smeared across it in your own excrement?
In any case, the form they send out demands you send proof you are not guilty with it if you believe you are not guilty. Last time I looked, it wasn't my job to prove my innocence, it is their job to prove my guilt and "Because I say so in a letter." doesn't constitute proof.
Actually, what they have done with the SORN fines is farm them out to a debt collection agency called Intercredit who then pester you incessantly (they phoned me at 7am for three days on the trot until I told them to either fuck off, take me to court or face a private prosecution for harrassment. They chose the former.).
If I had more time and money, I'd dearly love to play this one out with a good barrister. I think there are several very good grounds for the whole caboodle being illegal in the first place (starting with the bill of rights) and several other pieces of legislation I reckon they fall foul of. Especially in Scotland where I reckon their behaviour could well constitute extortion.
I can see the new insurance legislation going exactly the same way. The only way you'll take an uninsured vehicle off the road is by someone (ie a copper) physically finding it and having it removed. The sending out of fines is just a means of earning revenue for the DVLA and will do exactly nothing to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on the road.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Kickstart |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Kickstart
The Oracle
Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| multijoy |
This post is not being displayed .
|
multijoy
World Chat Champion
Joined: 03 Oct 2008
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:08 - 03 Dec 2010 Post subject: |
|
|
| Rogerborg wrote: | Sigh. I didn't mean that the State owns your vehicle in a legal sense. Are we still allowed to speak hyperbolically? I haven't checked the case law on that, post Chambers. |
Sorry, I thought you one of the people who literally believe the state own your vehicle!
| Rogerborg wrote: | Here's the nub of my gist: there's not always a direct connection between what the law is, and how the State acts. I'm more concerned with the latter. |
If the state takes your vehicle and they're not entitled to do so, I see no reason why you shouldn't fight it tooth and nail. Whilst I wouldn't possibly suggest that anyone represent themselves if they could possibly avoid it, in the matter Stinkwheel alluded to, I could see no reason why the owner shouldn't turn up to the magistrate's court and say "Sir, I presented my documents to the police on request", at which point the CPS will mutter something about not having the facts and that, in retrospect, there is no case to answer. Court awards costs, job done. (Overly simplistic and assumes the clerk hasn't fallen asleep after eating too many biscuits, but you see my point).
| Rogerborg wrote: | If your vehicle is seized and you'd rather fight than pay up, then of course you still retain ownership, and are welcome to have the lump of crushed metal back. |
For tax issues, as illustrated, the crushing only happens if you don't attempt to claim the vehicle or sign it over. Looking at the RTA regs, it appears that if you attempt to claim the vehicle, that stops the clock on the disposal aspect.
| Rogerborg wrote: | Want to get compensation? Well, who do you sue? Everybody except the State was only following procedure - obeying ze orders. Sue a public body? The judiciary doesn't appear keen to bite the hand that feeds it. |
If they were following procedures, your vehicle (assuming everything is in order and you are not committing the offences) should not have been seized. If the fault of no insurance lies with the insurance company, they should compensate you. If the copper simply couldn't be arsed to do more than a cursory check, then the police force should compensate you, and I doubt it will be that much of an uphill struggle once the court have cleared you of the offence.
From what I can tell, the judiciary are more than happy to slap down the executive whenever they get the chance. Judicial activism is on the rise, but the magistrates and the crowns aren't where you see it
| Rogerborg wrote: | However, plod does currently stop and seize vehicles that are, or appear to be, uninsured or untaxed. In some areas - good old Westminster - coppers and bailiffs are operating roadblocks to stop and take walking possession of vehicles for unpaid court fines - yes, you have or are supposed to have had your day in court before the seizure, but afterwards? Best of luck. |
Whether the powers of seizure for uninsured and untaxed vehicles are right is not for me to say, but if you've unpaid court fines and you're not bothering to pay them (even through the easy instalment plans the courts offer), then you deserve to have your vehicle seized. Sorry. Fines as a punishment have a lot more weight if people realise they'll be enforced.
| Rogerborg wrote: | Finally, there's parking. Quite apart from the rogue clampers, Westminster (at least) have parking regulations that allow them (or more precisely their private contractors) to seize bikes on the mere suspicion that they haven't paid. Not "reasonable ground", suspicion. They haven't been using those powers yet, but they do have them. |
London authorities as a whole have powers to clamp and remove vehicles. The costs, however, are regulated and there is recourse to the parking tribunals. I've had my fair share of PCNs from westminster, camden et al, but I've never had one upheld and never had any threat of removal. As far as I can tell, the costs that a london authority can recover for removing a vehicle are no more than the actual costs they incur, and probably less- the only incentive for them to remove a vehicle is when it's impeding traffic.
Of course, as the NTBPT mob point out, the law doesn't allow councils to make money from parking and, given westminster's less than stellar behaviour in that area, it's unlikely to change anytime soon.
Private clampers, however, get my goat. I've had no end of complaints about them pass across my desk and, frankly, it's astonishing that they've got away with it as long as they have. I'm entirely happy that it's due to be outlawed (and I understand the difficulty that this may put private landowners under and it would have been better if costs and practices were heavily regulated from the get-go, but thugs and cowboys took the piss and I'm glad it's being stopped).
| Rogerborg wrote: | I'm just blowing off steam here, but it boils my piss that there appears to be a creeping culture that vehicles are fair game to be seized and held ransom while disputes are played out. As you note, Article 6 appears to offer no protection against such seizure. I'm not disputing whether that's the law, I'm saying that it ain't right. |
As far as I can tell, your vehicle can be seized if:
it's untaxed and on the public road
it's declared SORN and on the public road
it's uninsured on the public road
it's being driven by someone who doesn't have a licence to do so
it's parked on the public road in a manner that contravenes a local regulation
it's subject to a court order for unpaid fines
it's (or you) subject to some other court judgment
it's parked on private land and the landowner doesn't like it
The only bit of that list that I can really get angry with is the latter, and that's due to be outlawed (and for every 10 people who've been stitched up by clampers, there's 1 person who's parked their car on a stranger's drive for two weeks and gone off on holiday!). The first three can be simply avoided by taking a vehicle off the road (preferably not some stranger's drive!), the rest, with the exception of the last point, are simply avoided.
____________________
'11 CBF1000A, '99 C90, '98 CB500
silky666: He rode amazingly well considering his bike is the weight of a small van and had slicks on. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 15 years, 82 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating