Stopped by Police ,please i am worried sick.

I was stopped by a normal patrol car, and they claimed that there was no insurance for the vehicle that i was in. Now i had purchased the vehicle as a present for my daughters 18th birthday, she was not yet 18 (this was in 2 weeks) my own vehicle was due to have some work carried out so in the meantime i had used numerous day insurance for the days when driving. Some of them were on my banking app on my phone and some were on my wife's. The police were not very helpful and one in particular used language that i found unacceptable around my 6 year old son, the car was recovered pending valid insurance paperwork, the next day i went to the Police station with my insurance documentation and showed them , i explained that i don't understand why this and any of the previous insurance did not show up on the Police insurance network as i had proof. He did say to "be careful as for some reason it was still not showing and i may get stopped again" but let the recovery know that i could take the vehicle which i did. Some weeks later i received an offer to accept 3 points and a fine or go to court, i called the West Yorkshire traffic office as i was confused, i had valid insurance so assumed it must be a mistake, i must have called this number a hundred times with no answer, it would either be engaged or go to voicemail so i left a voicemail. I also emailed them (it was at the height of the pandemic so you could not visit in person) asking them what what was going on and that i was very confused as i had insurance and had shown my documentation to the Police and the recover impound. Again no one responded to me, now i am also a key worker and i work nationally, rightly or wrongly it had escaped my mind to follow up (also i had recently lost my father) but i had thought that they would realise they had made a mistake. Now i have just received a summons to go to court because i had not responded to the conditional offer, im absolutely fuming, i have tried and tried to contact them regarding this issue and i have been ignored, i presented my documents to both the Police AND the recovery agents. Surely this can not be allowed to happen, please PLEASE can someone help me with this as i am worried sick and i need my license for work. I have never had so much as a speeding ticket in 23 years of having a license.

could this be of help?

https://unchainedremedy.com/

or this:    https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AL9ILpUtHFNQaaU&id=44599616503609D8%21287392&cid=44599616503609D8

from the same site, look at letter 2, it may be of help.

When I had my last speed ticket 3 yrs back I had similar experiences, as in they will not engage unless its in thier favour & you are giving an amount of cash.

this will not be of much help but it may comfort you to know its essentially about job creation, creation for other wise unemployable people IMO, when creating these jobs its all administration, no criminal intent, its all about the flow of cash - commerce nothing else, I posted this:

LionsShare wrote:please also watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U60T1gssUBs

FFD 8:45 & look at the definitions of Born & Birth. The bottom of the birth cert' tells us in the UK 'A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY'. Minister Emoven tells us in her vids & others also, we do not have exclusive right to use the NAME - the all UPPER CASE - Mr., Mrs. etc CAPITALIZED NAME - Mr. JON HENRY DOE, that's the Crown Copy Right.

What is evidenced is that in col 2, our Christian name & that's our respective person in the private. So on any Birth Cert' 2 persons are evidenced, & for using the IDENTITY we all get punished because we use the Mr., Mrs. etc CAPITALIZED NAME, we suffer penulties such as parking fines, speed tickets, going to jail, & a whole raft of..... total BS to plunder our b' cert Estate. Its all over cash value (paper & ink) not real money (gold, silver, etc), its all over a whole lot of nothing - FIAT currency - a fake, false, worthless entity. Its all for NOTHING!

This is completely crazy!

same vid FFd 13:40 there are some other possible nuggets there too?

in this thread:   https://goodf.forumotion.com/t4916p50-know-who-you-are

ultimatley its over nothing!

Anonymous1975 wrote:I was stopped by a normal patrol car, and they claimed that there was no insurance for the vehicle that i was in. Now i had purchased the vehicle as a present for my daughters 18th birthday, she was not yet 18 (this was in 2 weeks) my own vehicle was due to have some work carried out so in the meantime i had used numerous day insurance for the days when driving. Some of them were on my banking app on my phone and some were on my wife's. The police were not very helpful and one in particular used language that i found unacceptable around my 6 year old son, the car was recovered pending valid insurance paperwork, the next day i went to the Police station with my insurance documentation and showed them , i explained that i don't understand why this and any of the previous insurance did not show up on the Police insurance network as i had proof. He did say to "be careful as for some reason it was still not showing and i may get stopped again" but let the recovery know that i could take the vehicle which i did.

The database that the Police access doesn't get updated right away, so your day-by-day policy may not show up. However the Police are aware of this so although they might pull you over they should give you the opportunity to show cover is in place, and they should take steps to check it if they aren't convinced by what you show then (for example phone the company for confirmation).  They should accept electronic evidence, ie from your phone, the same way as they would a paper certificate.

Some weeks later i received an offer to accept 3 points and a fine or go to court

Are you sure that was for insurance?  Fixed penalty for no insurance would be 6 points and £300.  However if it is for insurance then assuming your insurer will confirm you were covered at the time of the stop then that should be enough to get get the charge dropper, or an aquittal.  At any stage did you show them evidence of cover at the time of the stop, as opposed to cover when you recovered he vehicle?

It took about 7 days for my car to show that it was insured on the MID. Knowing this from previous experience I made sure to print out the insurance certificate and kept it in the glovebox just incase I was stopped. In any case the police should have given you a producer also known as a seven day wonder. Hort1 alows you 7 days to produce your driving documents at a police station that you nominate.

https://www.motordefencesolicitors.co.uk/offence-guides/hort1-producers/

Clear abuse of power and I would be making a complaint of theft against them, it is not your responsibility to prove your case as it is their duty to prove you have no insurance.

All lice carry work mobile phones and after showing your mobile phone they should have telephoned the named insurers and verified it had valid insurance, they failed basic due diligence and any costs incurred should be dealt with in a claim, the MID database is inaccurate and they know this and abuse this to have vehicles not showing up recovered (money again) even though they are legitimate.

LionsShare wrote:could this be of help?

https://unchainedremedy.com/

or this:    https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AL9ILpUtHFNQaaU&id=44599616503609D8%21287392&cid=44599616503609D8

from the same site, look at letter 2, it may be of help.

When I had my last speed ticket 3 yrs back I had similar experiences, as in they will not engage unless its in thier favour & you are giving an amount of cash.

I wasn't speeding though, my vehicle didn't show up as having insurance at the time (but it did) should i submit a DSAR for all information regarding attending the Police station and proving my documents?

assassin wrote:Clear abuse of power and I would be making a complaint of theft against them, it is not your responsibility to prove your case as it is their duty to prove you have no insurance.

All lice carry work mobile phones and after showing your mobile phone they should have telephoned the named insurers and verified it had valid insurance, they failed basic due diligence and any costs incurred should be dealt with in a claim, the MID database is inaccurate and they know this and abuse this to have vehicles not showing up recovered (money again) even though they are legitimate.

I wasn't aware of this, is this basic Police procedure for insurance disputed? I showed them my phone to show that there were numerous payments made to day insure companies, and for this i paid more than i would do had it been for a long term policy. I did not have the latest one as that was made on my wife's phone app. But what i was trying to prove to the officer was that every time the vehicle is used it was insured, and they did not show up on the national computer so obviously there is an issue. I had to pay £150 to release my vehicle.

midnight wrote:It took about 7 days for my car to show that it was insured on the MID. Knowing this from previous experience I made sure to print out the insurance certificate and kept it in the glovebox just incase I was stopped. In any case the police should have given you a producer also known as a seven day wonder. Hort1 alows you 7 days to produce your driving documents at a police station that you nominate.

https://www.motordefencesolicitors.co.uk/offence-guides/hort1-producers/

I asked the officer "i should be given 7 days to produce my documents" and he replied no this does not apply anymore.

flyingfish wrote:

Anonymous1975 wrote:I was stopped by a normal patrol car, and they claimed that there was no insurance for the vehicle that i was in. Now i had purchased the vehicle as a present for my daughters 18th birthday, she was not yet 18 (this was in 2 weeks) my own vehicle was due to have some work carried out so in the meantime i had used numerous day insurance for the days when driving. Some of them were on my banking app on my phone and some were on my wife's. The police were not very helpful and one in particular used language that i found unacceptable around my 6 year old son, the car was recovered pending valid insurance paperwork, the next day i went to the Police station with my insurance documentation and showed them , i explained that i don't understand why this and any of the previous insurance did not show up on the Police insurance network as i had proof. He did say to "be careful as for some reason it was still not showing and i may get stopped again" but let the recovery know that i could take the vehicle which i did.

The database that the Police access doesn't get updated right away, so your day-by-day policy may not show up. However the Police are aware of this so although they might pull you over they should give you the opportunity to show cover is in place, and they should take steps to check it if they aren't convinced by what you show then (for example phone the company for confirmation).  They should accept electronic evidence, ie from your phone, the same way as they would a paper certificate.

Some weeks later i received an offer to accept 3 points and a fine or go to court

Are you sure that was for insurance?  Fixed penalty for no insurance would be 6 points and £300.  However if it is for insurance then assuming your insurer will confirm you were covered at the time of the stop then that should be enough to get get the charge dropper, or an aquittal.  At any stage did you show them evidence of cover at the time of the stop, as opposed to cover when you recovered he vehicle?

No i could only show them all of the previous day insure that i had used (and these were all in a month so should show up on the MID) as the current insurance (which was now on permanent cover rather than day insure as my daughter was taking possession of the vehicle) was paid for on my wife's app.

assassin wrote:Clear abuse of power and I would be making a complaint of theft against them, it is not your responsibility to prove your case as it is their duty to prove you have no insurance.

Actually in this case the onus is on the driver to show that insurance was in place.  If you think about it there would be no way for the police to prove absence of insurance, unless you expect them to phone every single insurer to ask whether they are covering it!  I don't know if I've seen it stated but I expect that the onus on the driver is "balance of probabilities" at the time of the stop.

However if the OP had been able to provide at least some details of current cover then you're correct in your second paragraph, if the Police were in any doubt they should have attempted to check with the insurer before seizing the vehicle.  However I don't think we know exactly what the OP did in fact produce at the time.

Anonymous1975 wrote:No i could only show them all of the previous day insure that i had used (and these were all in a month so should show up on the MID) as the current insurance (which was now on permanent cover rather than day insure as my daughter was taking possession of the vehicle) was paid for on my wife's app.

OK so now you need to make sure you have something that you can produce, to show that you were insured at the time of the stop. This can be an insurance certificate, or you can see if you can get a Letter of Indemnity from the insurer stating that cover was in place and that your use of the car was covered.

Anonymous1975 wrote:should i submit a DSAR for all information regarding attending the Police station and proving my documents?

There is no harm in trying, it may help, but I don't see how it would either?

(2200)

Anonymous1975 wrote:

midnight wrote:It took about 7 days for my car to show that it was insured on the MID. Knowing this from previous experience I made sure to print out the insurance certificate and kept it in the glovebox just incase I was stopped. In any case the police should have given you a producer also known as a seven day wonder. Hort1 alows you 7 days to produce your driving documents at a police station that you nominate.

https://www.motordefencesolicitors.co.uk/offence-guides/hort1-producers/

I asked the officer "i should be given 7 days to produce my documents" and he replied no this does not apply anymore.

The officer is talking out of his backside and my guess is that he new it. Hort1 does apply and has always been available to the police.

midnight wrote:

Anonymous1975 wrote:I asked the officer "i should be given 7 days to produce my documents" and he replied no this does not apply anymore.

The officer is talking out of his backside and my guess is that he new it. Hort1 does apply and has always been available to the police.

Yes you should be allowed to produce your documents within seven days, and if you do so then you can't be convicted of failure to produce them on the spot. However this doesn't stop the vehicle being seized, if they believe you're uninsured they're not going to let you drive around for seven days before acting.

In these cases I always recommend people look at the actual laws.  Section 165 covers the requirement to produce proof of insurance, and 165(4) covers the seven day "grace period".  Power to seize is covered by Section 165A(3) and there is no such provision.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165  
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A

Anonymous1975 - where are you in your case now, have you presented your insurance evidence to the Police yet?

[quote="flyingfish"]

assassin wrote:Clear abuse of power and I would be making a complaint of theft against them, it is not your responsibility to prove your case as it is their duty to prove you have no insurance.

Actually in this case the onus is on the driver to show that insurance was in place.  If you think about it there would be no way for the police to prove absence of insurance, unless you expect them to phone every single insurer to ask whether they are covering it!  I don't know if I've seen it stated but I expect that the onus on the driver is "balance of probabilities" at the time of the stop.

However if the OP had been able to provide at least some details of current cover then you're correct in your second paragraph, if the Police were in any doubt they should have attempted to check with the insurer before seizing the vehicle.  However I don't think we know exactly what the OP did in fact produce at the time.[/quote

Incorrect, you only have to produce your insurance documents if you are carrying them at the time of the stop, then it reverts to a producer HORT 1 and you have to produce them within 7 days at a nominated lice station.

Lice rely upon the Motor Insurance database and they know its inaccurate and present this as irrefutable factual evidence despite knowing its flaws and that its inaccurate.

If they intended seizure then they are bound by the law, they then have to PROVE the vehicle has no insurance, is not in trade, or is not on any other policy; I have my vehicles on one policy and they show as a group policy and not insured as individual vehicles. The law requires them to investigate to establish this proof and the only way they can do this is to ring the insurer on their mobile phone and verify it is insured at the time of driving. Incidentally its contrary as no lice car is insured, neither are ambulances or fire engines and most royal parks vehicles as they are bonded.

This c*unstable claimed there is no HORT 1 which is fraud by false representation as they still exist and they failed to conform to the law and failed in their due diligence and this cost the OP money and this is recoverable through a claim, they failed to consult a traffic lice who would have told him to issue a HORT 1.

Many people get their insurance online and get online certificates and never print them off and they rely upon the insurer to put them on the MID, many insurers also send them once a week at ungodly o clock when the internet is quiet, you can have insurance from 06.00 on Monday and the insurers might not send the data to the MID until Friday night/Saturday morning and despite being insured the system fails to show it for a week.[/quote]

Have a look at the actual law, it's all there, including how they treat electronic evidence.

Section 165A wrote:165APower to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1)Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2) The first condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence F2... for examination,
(b) the person fails to produce them, and
(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).

(3) The second condition is that—
(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

So breaking that down, in order to seize the vehicle the cop has to firstly ask for evidence of insurance, the driver fail to produce it and in addition the cop needs to have reasonable grounds to believe there is no cover in place.  It does not state that they need to prove it, only that there are reasonable grounds

However to some extent the seize is water under the bridge now, it was seized, and released when evidence of insurance sufficient for release was provided.  I can't see any benefit in trying to argue that it was unlawful.

We still have to deal with the allegation of driving without insurance.  This is a serious issue and not really the place of Internet hearsay or freemen on the land theories.  I really do not advise standing up in court, making no defence except to say "the police need to prove there was no cover in place".

Two issues here addressed in the High Court:

Po-lice have to establish there are "reasonable grounds" and to do this they will first check the MID for insurance and if it shows as none then they have to undertake reasonable investigations and they were defined as taking all necessary steps to investigate and verify, at the roadside, that the vehicle is not insured. This then comes down to part two which is due diligence.

What can they reasonably do at the roadside? the OP showed him his oline temporary insurance and he should have investigated before siezure.

the High Court determined on the doctrine of reasonableness and stated that a c*ntstable could telephone the insurers and verify the vehicle was covered, they could radio their control room and get them to telephone the insurers, or that they could contact an experienced traffic cop who would issue a HORT 1 and give them 7 days to produce the documents.
They based their reasoning on the fact that only 95% of vehicles were on the MID, that a recently insured vehicle may take several days to be entered onto the MID and that vehicles in trade could show as insured but may not be used in connection with that trade and not insured, or that someone could take out a policy meaning it was insured and the insured may stop making payments and the insured may have their insurance cancelled.

Hence the reasonableness; if they could identify the driver and the driver showed online payments for short term insurance, or showed an insurance certificate on a mobile device then they have no reasonable suspicion and they based this decision on both the police codes of conduct and the Nolan Principles.

So break it down again, the OP proved his identification, showed them online payments and the only reasonable option was to issue a HORT 1 and if he failed to rpoduce documents they could go to his address and arrest him.

We both know the po-lice interpret the law to suit themselves.

assassin wrote:Two issues here addressed in the High Court:

Do you have details of that case, it sounds useful?

Sorry for the late response, tings go from bad to worse, my mother in law has been seriously ill so we have been looking after her and then i received the funeral bill for my father which couldn't have come at a worse time. Ok so when my wife let me know over the phone about this letter she hadn't read it correctly (understandable as she was worried sick about her mum at the time) so it wold seen there was a letter sent out for doing 38 in a 30mph zone and they had requested the information of the driver. Now genuinely we have not received this letter, had we done then we would have responded. This latest letter is because we failed to inform them of the driver we are being fined, we think that this is completely unfair as we received no letter. This letter (the single justice procedure letter) gives 21 days which expired a week ago, we haven't been here so couldn't respond until now. I am calling them now to see what we can do, but i am asking for any advice in the meantime please. Can i make a statutory declaration for this? what i find shocking is that they can send out these letters as standard post and that is proof of receipt (even in a pandemic April 2021) but if i am to send anything then it has to be recorded delivery or it is classed as not received if they do not receive it.

Well worth joining (£10) in think.

Go to file section ,2 great templates for this.

https://unchainedremedy.com/

Anonymous1975 wrote:there was a letter sent out for doing 38 in a 30mph zone and they had requested the information of the driver. Now genuinely we have not received this letter, had we done then we would have responded. This latest letter is because we failed to inform them of the driver we are being fined, we think that this is completely unfair as we received no letter. This letter (the single justice procedure letter) gives 21 days which expired a week ago, we haven't been here so couldn't respond until now. I am calling them now to see what we can do, but i am asking for any advice in the meantime please. Can i make a statutory declaration for this? what i find shocking is that they can send out these letters as standard post and that is proof of receipt (even in a pandemic April 2021) but if i am to send anything then it has to be recorded delivery or it is classed as not received if they do not receive it.

You may not yet be at the stage where a Statutory Declaration is needed, that would be if they had convicted. The court should be able to tell you, and you can also check your licence online.  If needed we can help with the SD wording and/or procedure.

For the moment let's assume that although you missed the SJPN deadline, it has not yet become a conviction. So on that basis how you handle this will depend on whether they are charging both the S172 (failure to provide driver's details) and the underlying speeding. If you are the Registered Keeper and were driving at the time, the procedure is to plead Not Guilty to both. Then at the hearing offer to plead guilty to speeding on the condition that the S172 is dropped.  Don't make that offer in advance as at this time they can't convict speeding as they have no evidence of who was driving, and at the moment you'd find it hard to defence the S172.

Forgot to include, court fines are generally higher than fixed penalties, but there is guidance to cover this situation, recommending that the court impose no more than if you had received and taken up the fixed penalty offer. If it reaches this stage you can draw their attention to and ask them to apply this guidance.

where a penalty notice could not be offered or taken up for reasons unconnected with the offence itself, such as administrative difficulties outside the control of the offender, the starting point should be a fine equivalent to the amount of the penalty and no order of costs should be imposed. The offender should not be disadvantaged by the unavailability of the penalty notice in these circumstances. Please refer to the list of offences for which penalty notices are available, and the amount of the penalty.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/out-of-court-disposals/5-penalty-notices-fixed-penalty-notices-and-penalty-notices-for-disorder/