Car Impounded by police

[SMC1989]

Because your insurance will in most occasion state that you must hold a valid driving license. There are some companies which don't but they are few and far between.

[SMC1989]

This will be driven by DVLA input towards police systems. Where motoring is concerned, The PNC is only as good as the information provide by DVLA and MIB.

 

My belief is that the photo card not being renewed for such a long period of time would lead to a temporary revocation of the license. Perhaps a DVLA expert can clarify

[Aretnap]

Because your insurance will in most occasion state that you must hold a valid driving license. There are some companies which don't but they are few and far between.

Actually, in my experience it's the other way round - the large majority say "holds a valid licence or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence", or some such form of words. And in any event, as above the licence remains in force even if the photocard has not been renewed.

[Aretnap]

My belief is that the photo card not being renewed for such a long period of time would lead to a temporary revocation of the license. Perhaps a DVLA expert can clarify

That's not one of the reasons for which a licence can be revoked under subsection 3, and in any event the DVLA would be required to inform the holder of the fact that the licence had been revoked.

[smokejumper]

Recently (last 6 months) was acussed of not having insurance and went to court over this.

 

Told court I had insurance, they gave me a form to produce insurance at a police station.

This form also required driving license. I took both to police station and they said license was out of date ( i knew this but ignored as it was a money making think by dvla).

 

However the police went on to say license was ok, just photo and not an offence, however dvla can fine you.

 

They then made checks on insurance, which was valid and signed and stamped my form.

 

Took form back to court and they agreed I was insured, why police could not do this at roadside I do not know.

 

So police are wrong in your case and you need to throw your weight around.

 

Where do you live, I have motor trade insurance and can collect car for you if you get stuck.

 

I am getting on a bit now and it may be the reason, but I am seeing more and more incompetence and unprofessionalism from the police. They definately are living up to the old "guilty until proven innocent" line of policing.

[afcwben]

Thanks for the offer he has now picked up the car after paying police storage charges and money to dvla only them would they release the car. I have told him to get them to reimburse him

[Conniff]

You need to dig deeper into this, if they did a roadside check and you weren't shown on MIB, then it is your insurance company that should reimburse you and not the police.

[smokejumper]

You need to dig deeper into this, if they did a roadside check and you weren't shown on MIB, then it is your insurance company that should reimburse you and not the police.

Are you replying to the original poster or myself?

In my case I was not on the MIB for the vehicle I was driving, however, this has happened before and a roadside call to my insurance company will confirm I have insurance to drive any vehicle. I now carry certificate of insurance with me, but this still hasn't speeded up the process.

 

In regards to original poster, as I understand it, the police did not dispute an insurance was in force, they deemed it invalid due to the photo ID out of date, Therefore it should not have been ceased, as it was still valid. At the worst , he should not have been permitted to drive it. It would still be legal to park it on the road.

 

All in all, there might be areas or points we are not understanding, I suspect if you wrote a few letters or even a complaint, you would get an apology and your monies back and then up to you if you want to go further.

 

I myself would not bother taking any further if I got a refund and apology ( police have to be careful to not give an admission of guilt)

[SMC1989]

Agree with the post by conniff.

 

Police PNC check the insurance against the mib database and driving license against the DVLA database.

 

If either check shows issues.... In this case the DVLA shows a discrepancy with the license.

 

It would be the DVLA and not the police at fault. Unfortunately some people feel the need to criticise our police force at every opportunity.

[afcwben]

They didn't check at the time the policeman looked at his photocard licence said it was out of date therefore his

Insurance is invalid. They impounded the car I don't think they wanted to admit the cock up

[Aretnap]

Agree with the post by conniff.

 

Police PNC check the insurance against the mib database and driving license against the DVLA database.

 

If either check shows issues.... In this case the DVLA shows a discrepancy with the license.

 

It would be the DVLA and not the police at fault. Unfortunately some people feel the need to criticise our police force at every opportunity.

If the driver produces a valid driving licence and/or a valid certificate of insurance as required then the police have no authority to seize the vehicle. What the MIB or DVLA database say or what the officer believes in that situation are neither here nor there (though it's unclear whether it applies in the OP's son's case). This is in section 165A of the Road Traffic Act and confirmed (with regards to insurance at least - but the same principles apply to licences) by Pryor v Greater Manchester Police.

[Conniff]

They aren't very keen on pieces of paper any longer. The amount of people that take out ins and then cancel the direct debit but retain the certificate has made them very warey.

[afcwben]

They aren't very keen on pieces of paper any longer. The amount of people that take out ins and then cancel the direct debit but retain the certificate has made them very warey.

 

That is why they have the insurance database. however if a policeman chooses to ignore this and decide you are not insured becasue your photocard is out of date what is the point of the database?

[Dick Emery]

This thread has confused me. I have an original old style driving license (no photo) I have had since I passed my test many years ago. Is this not longer valid? If so why was I not informed by DVLA

[Aretnap]

This thread has confused me. I have an original old style driving license (no photo) I have had since I passed my test many years ago. Is this not longer valid? If so why was I not informed by DVLA

It's still valid. You're under no obligation to "upgrade" to a photocard licence until you change address, add entitlements etc. There is legislation giving the DVLA the power to recall all the remaining old style licences and require you to get a photocard at any time, but it has not yet been invoked, and probably won't be invoked until there are sufficiently few old style licences to ensure that cries of outrage from people forced to pay to get a photocard are not too loud. In the meantime the old style ones are being phased out be stealth by forcing people to get a photocard when they change address.

[cerberusalert]

I still have my old paper licence as I refuse point blank to add to the DVLAs coffers. If they want me to have a plastic one, as far as I'm concerned it's up to them to provide it at their expense.

 

The only problem I've had although not very often, is when I've been asked to provide some form of identification and was told that the old licence wasn't acceptable. A few choice words and me explaining the error of their ways usually has the desired effect & makes them reconsider.

 

I've still got this licence which is stamped on the 'endorsement page' "Licenced to drive all vehicles".

 

[tedmurphy41]

Firstly, you really need to start doing this in writing, as suddenly you may find none of it happened at all. (Alternately tape calls).

 

S88 is about licences and not insurance as they claimed for the reason re holding the car. Basically s87 states a person must have a licence, and s88 tells the exceptions when a person does not need to have a licence but is entitled to be treated as if they had one.

 

So effectively the police are asking for your insurance company to state your son is covered by an exception to driving without a licence, which obviously is impossible/irrelevant/complete rubbish as insurance companies being able to check licences in real time is not being introduce until shortly in the future (you will list your licence number when applying for insurance, and it will reveal your convictions automatically as 25% of people purported lie).

 

The police can check if you have a licence on their computer obviously, but I am now guessing this wont highlight if a picture has been updated timeously.

 

Returning to what I mentioned above, if the police have stated they will be happy if shown s88 can be complied with - and has already stated it to be an insurance issue - THEN LOOK OUT THE COVER NOTE/CERT. OF INSURANCE AND SEE WHAT IT SAYS, as this will show your entitlement to insurance on the vehicle.

 

There is very little to look through - here is the entire (edited) content from mine...

 

 

 

Term 5 basically is very similar to s88.

 

I honestly didn't know that the police were so underworked that they have got the time to seize cars from owners whose only crime is not having updated their photocard.

I wonder what the circumstances are regarding passports? If you own a ten year one, do you have to upgrade the photograph at any time within the ten years??

tedmurphy41.

[marcswales]

Unless the position has changed recently, you do not need a licence to drive a vehicle. "What", I hear you cry. Of course you do need to be licenced to drive, but you don't need a driving licence. But aren't they the same thing? Well, no actually. You need to have passed a test to be allowed legally to drive certain classes of vehicle. I don't think anyone would argue with that. Your so-called, 'driving licence' is actually merely proof that you are licenced to drive. Other forms of proof are acceptable such as a printout from DVLA. A driving licence is convenient but not essential. How do I know all this? Because I was told by[EDIT] , Head of Legal Services at DVLA (although she works for the DfT), during a court case I brought against DVLA for failing to provide my personal data. She told me that DVLA had NEVER prosecuted someone for not having a 'driving licence' and never would. For example, suppose that you have to send your licence to DVLA for some reason. Does that mean you cannot drive until they return it? Of course not. What would happen if DVLA lost it or took for ever to process it for some reason? It would cause untold havoc.

 

So, what do you do if you are stopped? You simply say that your licence is at DVLA. Don't show an outdated photo-licence because that may very well be unlawful (I can't say as I don't have a photo-licence) but not having a licence at all is fine. Bizarre or what? Like a lot of issues we have today, it's all bull, bluff and bluster.

 

I would advise the gentleman who has had his car impounded to ask for proof that the police have the power to do that even to the extent of issuing a notice under the Freedom of Information Act. I have noticed that whenever you ask for proof of something, you find that the bullies don't actually have the power. A couple of years ago, I spotted that the courts were unlawfully retaining personal data of some categories of people. These are the very people who are supposed to carry out the law! I demanded that the Ministry of Justice stop breaking the law, and a new Statutory Instrument was issued - in other words, the law was changed. Remember - bull, bluff and bluster!

 

If this position has changed since my conversation with[EDIT] at Manchester County Court, then perhaps someone could enlighten me.

 

[EDIT]

[EDIT]!

 

 

In 1978 I was charged with "Not possessing a driving licence" and also " Not producing a driving licence" ( Which they just said I didn't have)

 

DVLC were on strike at the time and I had just washed ( again) my green licence. Rock up in court, absolute discharge on both counts.

Edited July 25, 2012 by ims21
erm!

[caro]

Not sure if this has been posted before. Apologies if it has. http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/@motor/documents/digitalasset/dg_078131.pdf

[lamma]

When did the law change and please cite the law. Out of date photo did not used to invalidate the licence. Although the police have always been 'sketchy' on this.

[kathdj]

What I don't understand is

If it's not compulsory to have a driving licence (as opposed to a licence to drive) and it's not compulsory to have a photo driving licence (which I haven't got) on what basis could the DVLA enforce a fine of £1000, which by the way seems completely disproportionate to any loss or damage incurred!

My partner has just sent in his new photograph which is virtually identical to the one taken 10 years ago!

[Raykay]

What I don't understand is

If it's not compulsory to have a driving licence (as opposed to a licence to drive) and it's not compulsory to have a photo driving licence (which I haven't got) on what basis could the DVLA enforce a fine of £1000, which by the way seems completely disproportionate to any loss or damage incurred!

My partner has just sent in his new photograph which is virtually identical to the one taken 10 years ago!

 

The fine of £1000 is the maximum that a Magistrates Court (not DVLA) can award for the offence of failing to update the photo, the actual fine is would be income based (and a lot less!!).

[Raykay]

Unless the position has changed recently, you do not need a licence to drive a vehicle. "What", I hear you cry. Of course you do need to be licenced to drive, but you don't need a driving licence.

 

s.87, Road Traffic Act 1988:

'It is an offence for a person to drive on a road a motor vehicle of any class otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class.', which means that you have to be licensed.

 

s.98, of the same act:

Form of licence.

(1)A licence shall be in the form of a photocard of a description specified by the Secretary of State or such other form as he may specify and—

(a)the licence shall state whether, apart from subsection (2) below, it authorises its holder to drive motor vehicles of all classes or of certain classes only and, in the latter case, specify those classes,

(b)the licence shall specify (in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine) the restrictions on the driving of vehicles of any class in pursuance of the licence to which its holder is subject by virtue of section 101 of this Act and any conditions on the driving of vehicles of any class in pursuance of the licence to which its holder is subject by virtue of section 92(7ZA) of this Act, and

©in the case of a provisional licence, the licence or its counterpart shall specify (in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine) the conditions subject to which it is granted.'

 

Which means that a licence to drive is a photocard, known as a 'Driving Licence'.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

All correct the arcane prattle which has formed much of this thread is

certainly no going to assist in any way when confronted by a police

anpr vehicle and a very experience traffic officer!!!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The Law is as posted up by RayKay!!

Emm Wasting Police Time and Tax Payers Money by lying to an officer

in the course of his/her duty hardly moral high ground in my opinion.