Jump to content

  •  

Photo

Section 165 of RTA.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
24 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   Pieman

Pieman

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 164 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 02:10 PM

Hi all,

I havent been here for some time! Well since joining 3 years ago.

I have a board interview on Friday for an RPU post. I am doing some reading up on the legislation but I am having some difficulty finding a good explanation of section 165 and the seizure of vehicles for no insurance. Does anyone have a "Plain" English explanation of this of a condensed version easily absorbed as the sponge is nearly full!!

Thanks very much in advance.

#2 OFFLINE   jemz

jemz

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 04:38 PM

Under s165A a constable may seize a motor vehicle under this section if when required under s165, by a constable in uniform to produce evidence of insurance, a person fails to do so and the constable reasonably believes that the vehicle was being driven without such insurance. (PNLD)
Pretty straight forward.

#3 OFFLINE   jemz

jemz

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 04:40 PM

Or in plain english 'if they can't prove they have it, and you don't believe they have it, you can take it' :joker:

#4 OFFLINE   M.I.A

M.I.A

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,087 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 08:13 PM

You have to be in uniform, one of the questions from sgts exam.

you also can seize it up to 24 hours retrospectively after the offence
. I.e nick someone for drink drive and get back to nick and find out they are disqual, you can go and seize the car after.



Also 3 scenarios

1. Plain no insurance
2. Disqual
3. Driving otherwise in accordance with licence

Edited by McGremlin, 18 April 2008 - 10:31 AM.


#5 OFFLINE   jemz

jemz

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,223 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 08:40 PM

you also can seize it 24 hours retrospectively after the offence. I.e nick someone for drink drive and get back to nick and find out they are disqual, you can go and seize the car after.

Didn't know that one! Thanks.

#6 OFFLINE   M.I.A

M.I.A

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,087 posts

Posted 17 April 2008 - 08:58 PM

always happy to help!

#7 OFFLINE   Pieman

Pieman

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 164 posts

Posted 18 April 2008 - 10:08 AM

Thanks all, I am now officially brickin it! Interview at 14:00hrs......................

#8 OFFLINE   Larkford

Larkford

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts

Posted 18 April 2008 - 03:00 PM

Give us an update - how did the board go? :thumbsup:

Are you going to come over the dark side?

#9 OFFLINE   Dr_Spock

Dr_Spock

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 435 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 11:09 AM

One of the best pieces of legislation ever. They hate it, we love it. :clapping:

#10 OFFLINE   Dragonfly

Dragonfly

    UKPO Admin

  • Admin
  • 616 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 12:44 PM

It needs tightening though with the DOC ext for recovery of the vehicles afterwards

#11 OFFLINE   Soren

Soren

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 12:59 PM

We also need to be aware that we must 'believe' the vehicle is uninsured. Belief means to be "almost certain". That belief needs to be stronger than just relying on an 'insurance not listed' marker on pnc when an honest john with no CRO number is telling you that he is insured.

Remember, if in doubt we can report, and leave them with the car. That way we may get it wrong on occasions, but at least we'll retain the power for the long term.

#12 OFFLINE   Pieman

Pieman

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 164 posts

Posted 19 April 2008 - 07:53 PM

PASSSED MY BOARD.................YEEESSSS!!

Give us an update - how did the board go? :thumbsup:

Are you going to come over the dark side?



Oh yehhh!

#13 OFFLINE   Larkford

Larkford

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 449 posts

Posted 20 April 2008 - 11:31 AM

Well done. Now I suppose you'll have to wait for a vacancy, if it's anything like our force!

I waited over 2 years - but it was worth it!

Congratulations again. :clapping:

#14 OFFLINE   Dragonfly

Dragonfly

    UKPO Admin

  • Admin
  • 616 posts

Posted 20 April 2008 - 01:52 PM

We also need to be aware that we must 'believe' the vehicle is uninsured. Belief means to be "almost certain". That belief needs to be stronger than just relying on an 'insurance not listed' marker on pnc when an honest john with no CRO number is telling you that he is insured.

Remember, if in doubt we can report, and leave them with the car. That way we may get it wrong on occasions, but at least we'll retain the power for the long term.


Unlike what we see on the television programmes such as road wars, traffic cops etc :innocent:

#15 OFFLINE   Soren

Soren

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 20 April 2008 - 04:10 PM

Unlike what we see on the television programmes such as road wars, traffic cops etc :innocent:



:iagree:

How often do you hear Jamie Theakstone at the end of the show saying...

"And the '08' BMW X5 seized was actually insured for Ms Bunny Boiler's use"

#16 OFFLINE   Traffic Bob

Traffic Bob

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,435 posts

Posted 20 April 2008 - 04:35 PM

It needs tightening though with the DOC ext for recovery of the vehicles afterwards


:iagree:

There should be a two strike rule - once a vehicle is recovered under 165 for the second time, it gets crushed.

#17 OFFLINE   Dragonfly

Dragonfly

    UKPO Admin

  • Admin
  • 616 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 03:01 AM

:iagree:

There should be a two strike rule - once a vehicle is recovered under 165 for the second time, it gets crushed.


I was led to believe the ABI was looking at the issue on behalf of ACPO with a view to all insurance companies placing a clause on their policies to prevent the DOC extension being used to recover a vehicle previously seized by a Government Agency for whatever reason.

However this was sometime early part of last year and I ain't heard anything since then [ unless anyone else has any idea's ]

#18 OFFLINE   Pieman

Pieman

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 164 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 08:48 AM

Well done. Now I suppose you'll have to wait for a vacancy, if it's anything like our force!

I waited over 2 years - but it was worth it!

Congratulations again. :clapping:


There are a few vacancies just waiting for a release date, maybe a change in divisions though, and a longer journery to work. But it's what I want to do, so short term inconvienience.

#19 OFFLINE   Richard6

Richard6

    I'm New !

  • Resident Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 06:10 PM

Where does it say about being able to seize the vehicle upto 24 hrs after an offence?

I have had this issue before and was told by the traffic bods where I work that we cant??

Cheers

#20 OFFLINE   Soren

Soren

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 21 April 2008 - 07:50 PM

Where does it say about being able to seize the vehicle upto 24 hrs after an offence?

I have had this issue before and was told by the traffic bods where I work that we cant??

Cheers


Sec 165A(7) RTA 1988 which was amended by Sec 152 of SOCPA 2005 contains the detail...

From PNLD

165A(7)(RTA 1988)
If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.


HTH

#21 OFFLINE   Richard6

Richard6

    I'm New !

  • Resident Members
  • Pip
  • 14 posts

Posted 22 April 2008 - 12:53 PM

Cheers mate!!!!

#22 OFFLINE   Wee Kev

Wee Kev

    I'm New !

  • Newbie Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 23 April 2008 - 10:30 PM

You can also seize motorbikes or scooters(125cc and the likes) if the person is failing to display L Plates assuming that they are the holder of a provisional licence as they are driving else with in accordance with a licence. And the 24hr thing is correct. Best peice of lgeislation that we have been given in a long time.







My hat is white and I'm proud of it

#23 OFFLINE   Soren

Soren

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Newbie Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 02 May 2008 - 04:25 AM

You can also seize motorbikes or scooters(125cc and the likes) if the person is failing to display L Plates assuming that they are the holder of a provisional licence as they are driving else with in accordance with a licence...


I use that a lot, although I've only seized twice with it. It's an excellent threat to ensure the local learners have their L plates well secured onto their bike, and carry a spare incase the ones on their bike get stolen. (As if... :whistle2: )

#24 OFFLINE   Dr_Spock

Dr_Spock

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Resident Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 435 posts

Posted 02 May 2008 - 08:17 AM

Sec 165A(7) RTA 1988 which was amended by Sec 152 of SOCPA 2005 contains the detail...

From PNLD


HTH


The 24 hour rule is another great piece of legislation because you can force entry to a premises to seize the vehicle (which I have done recently :clapping:) They don't like it up 'em.

#25 OFFLINE   Traffic Rat

Traffic Rat

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,229 posts

Posted 02 May 2008 - 10:30 AM

I was led to believe the ABI was looking at the issue on behalf of ACPO with a view to all insurance companies placing a clause on their policies to prevent the DOC extension being used to recover a vehicle previously seized by a Government Agency for whatever reason.

However this was sometime early part of last year and I ain't heard anything since then [ unless anyone else has any idea's ]


My force have basically taken it upon themselves to make it hard to get seized cars back, Owner must turn up with V5 IN THEIR NAME, and insurance likewise to claim vehicle.
Desk staff check re Insurance, ensure Ins Co aware vehicle has been seized for No Ins in first place and owner has notified them of impending prosecution :clapping:

Trade Policies need to goto a single station in the county no matter where seized, produce business registration, VAT Info, Accounts info etc before they get it back on a trade policy :clapping: :clapping:

Currently a release of seizure takes them about 40 mins if everything goes well