Reasons to be cheerful… Part 2.

I write in response to your ‘star letter' of issue #417 March 2021, ‘Number plate warning', by Paul Nicholls. There are a host of regulatory issues relating to vehicle registration plates, mostly regarding their size and the size, thickness and spacing of characters. However, where police identify any element of non-compliance in the registration mark attached to a vehicle, the correct method of dealing with such issues would usually be by the issue of a vehicle defect rectification scheme notice, to the user of the vehicle, which allows for rectification of the fault and inspection of that rectification by an MoT Testing Station, without any penalty cost. Where a number of faults are identified on the same vehicle, the officers may then report the user for summons for those multiple faults. A vehicle may also be ‘prohibited' from use if it is found to be in a dangerous condition.

What Paul Nicholls describes as the experience of his friend, who was riding a new vehicle, suggests that the matter of the registration plate was the only issue. Without any further information of the actual registration plate, it is not possible to speculate here as to the manner of the identified fault. All I would say about that is that the fact of the plate being of black, pressed aluminium, does not necessarily mean it did not comply with the law. I ride a 1957 Mklll LD with its original black, pressed aluminium plate and have a 1972 sports car with similar. No problems here, although, where they are original fixtures on classic machines, Construction and Use regulations under the Road Traffic Act can make a difference. Owners and users of vehicles are required (and this is important), to notify their insurers of any modifications to vehicles.

Coming back to the issue reported by Paul, what police cannot do is ‘presume' to know what insurers will and will not cover in specific circumstances; certainly not without any actual communication with the insurer themselves. Paul's letter allows the presumption that his friend did have insurance cover for his Royal Alloy GP300. If that is correct, then the police officers acted unlawfully in seizing the vehicle solely on the basis of the registration plate and the insurance policy in force could not be said to have been invalidated.

Paul's letter makes no mention of the police having reported his friend for an offence of no insurance; if the officers asserted that his friend's use of the vehicle in the circumstances had invalidated his insurance, then that would be the obvious consequence, and an offence of uninsured use is far more serious. However, that could not be done if the vehicle was covered by a policy of insurance at the time. This adds further weight to the assertion that seizure of the vehicle was unlawful in the circumstances. What troubles me though, is the fact that the officers were apparently in an unmarked car; this suggests that they were traffic officers, who are far more expert in traffic law than most other police officers. What happened next, in respect of his friend's recovery of the scooter is largely inconsequential. I would suggest that Paul's friend should make a written complaint to an inspector at the police station where those officers were based, and that seizure would be identified as unlawful, rescinded and all attendant costs should be reimbursed by the police authority.

Kind regards,

Richard Pembridge

Hi Richard,

Insurance matters are complex and every case turns on the T&Cs imposed by the insurer. However we've spoken to some of our more user-friendly contacts in blue and they're all surprised by how this matter was dealt with. Although insurers can invalidate cover for many reasons, The Road Traffic Act 1988 section 148(2) sets out a list of reasons that they cannot validly restrict a policy. One of these (paragraph 148 (2)(b) is, “The condition of the vehicle.” This DOES NOT mean that failing to disclose modifications won't affect your cover, it means that the insurer can't retrospectively revoke the basic level of insurance required by law, commonly known as third party insurance. In simple terms if Paul's friend's TG had been stolen or damaged while displaying that number plate and the insurers had discovered that fact, he may not have been able to claim on his policy. However if he'd damaged another car he would. For anyone mulling over loopholes at this point it's also important to note, in those circumstances insurers would be within their rights to recover their losses due to his friend's conduct. However you slice it, not disclosing modifications is a risky business.

A police officer can lawfully seize an uninsured vehicle and as Paul's friend discovered, the hidden penalties for recovering it can be considerable. However, it is for insurers, not a police officer, to decide whether the policy has been invalidated. Although patrols have access to the Insurance Database this only lists vehicles that have no recorded certificate of insurance. Unless the officer spoke with the insurance company at the roadside they had no way of knowing whether or not cover was invalidated by the incorrect number plate. Number plate offences come under the category of Construction and Use in the same way as a defective stop light. For all the reasons above these types of offences are usually dealt with by way of Fixed Penalty Notice. We all make decisions that have consequences, in the case of an incorrect black and silver number plate that's a fine of up to £1000. When we're caught we have to be big boys and girls, accept it and pay the fine with grace. However, and without knowing all the facts in this case, this would appear to be an act of ‘over-enthusiasm' by the police officer concerned. Our advice is that if Paul's friend wants to challenge this he should speak to his insurers and/or a solicitor. If the insurance policy contains no specific mention of registration plates rendering the policy invalid, he may have a case for recovering costs incurred.

Stan