Suspect Abandoned car parked illegally

Vehicle is still parked over pavement and full of rubbish.

It is making access difficult and make the road look scruffy.

Vehicle is not reported as stolen and does have a current VEL (tax) in force.

It is however showing no insurance on the MID - maybe worthwhile making a call to your local police.

I had a similar situation outside my house in Ramsden Heath. I called the police and they looked into it. After attaching a Police Aware type sticker they then removed it after giving the owner a chance to come and move it.

Still there, has not moved since before Christmas. the vehicles is obviously being used as a junk store and is still parked on the pavement obstructing baby buggies and possibly wheelchairs, it also is a road hazard as it's blocking the road for traffic.

Car is still parked ove the pavement and full of junk. Still appears to be dumped and hasn't moved since before christmas.

There just happened to be a Police Community Officer looking at the vehicle yesterday (3rd April) and I asked her what was being done. They know who it belongs to (and the Officer said "you don't want to know") and they've spoken to the person that owns the vehicle who basically doesn't care. The Council won't do anything, the Police can't do anything because it's taxed (we said we'd heard it was uninsured but they can't do anything about that unless it's being driven) I suggested that it might be something to do with the Travellers as I'd seen another vehicle seemingly 'visiting' the offending one (registration V797 FYA)that was also a wreck and full of junk and the Officer didn't say no (but then the Officer should'nt, should they ?).

The PCSO is misguided to think they have to physically SEE a person drive it. The offence is complete when someone uses -causes - or permits a vehicle to be on the road without Insurance. If they were to tap the door of the owner and ask the simple question - " Did you or do you give another permission to drive and park it there " The answer recorded after caution would be sufficient to commence a prosecution. To assist - I paste the facts- so we can all learn the basics of law- You will commit an offence if you use, or to let another person use, a motor vehicle on a road or public place which does not have in force in respect of it an insurance policy which at the very least insures against third party risks and which complies with section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

If you have been charged with this offence then you should contact keepmedrivingas soon as practicable so that we can advise you on the options open to you. This is a complicated area of the law and there are a number of defences which can be brought.

It is important that you realise that it is not necessary for you actually to be driving the vehicle – merely use it. Therefore, if the vehicle is stationary or parked on a public road and there is no valid insurance the offence will have been committed. However, it will have to be shown that you actually had use of the vehicle for a case to be proved against you. Thus it may be a defence to show that at the relevant time you had leant or sold the car to a third party and could not therefore be regarded as having any control or use of the vehicle. Note, however, that it is not a defence for you to say that you were unaware that it was not insured.

It is quite common for allegations to arise where company cars are involved. For example, the employee may not be aware that the company has failed to insure the vehicle. If this instance arises then you should contact keepmedriving as a matter of urgency since you will be the one who is regarded as having control of the vehicle and therefore be ‘using’ it for the purposes of this legislation.

Finally, even though you may have committed a technical offence, it may be possible for us to argue that you should not receive a ban or penalty points there are special reasons which apply. This could include, for example, that the insurance company had cancelled your insurance without notifying you or that you believed that insurance had been effected by your employer but without your knowledge it had not been finalised or the insurance company had not issued a policy.

In the event that you are convicted of this offence then you face a penalty of between 6 and 8 penalty points, a fine of up to £5,000 and even the possibility of disqualification. The extent of the sentence will depend to an extent upon whether the court believes that the offence was not committed deliberately and possibly without your knowledge.

The PCSO is correct in what he/she says in relation problem.

The offence of no insurance is committed by using a vehicle (this has been held to include a vehicle being parked on a public road.

However to seize the vehicle section 165A requires the vehicle to be driven.

165A Power 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 and its counterpart 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.

(4) The third condition is that—

(a) a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,

(b) the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and

(c) the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

(5) Where this subsection applies, the constable may—

(a) seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

(b) enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;

(c) use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6) Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—

(a) in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;

(b) in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section.

But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

(7) 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.

(8) The powers conferred on a constable by this section are exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 165B are in force.

(9) In this section—

(a) a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage;

(b) a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

(c) “counterpart” and “licence” have the same meanings as in section 164;

(d) “private dwelling house” does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

I have checked the vehicle again again the systems and the result is as before not recorded as stolen PNC has current VEL but showing a marker for no insurance on the MID (It is possible that it does have insurance - but highly unlikely.

The other vehicle that has been seen visiting the vehicle in question V797FYA a Citroen Xsara Exclusive Hdi again not reported as stolen, current VEL but this too has a no insurance marker on the MID

What can the police officer do if the vehicle IS insured, but not currently taxed or MOT'd ?