Fishtits

I hate to say it, but the onus is on you to prove the restriction in this case... It's the same as a car showing up with no insurance. If it says no insurance then the car is being towed and it's up to the driver to then go on to prove that insurance exists.

The bike has been seized under s165 Road Traffic Act 1988 as the officer has reasonable grounds to believe you don't have a suitable license to ride the bike (i.e driving other than in accordance with a license.)

I've not heard of this plate thing you mention, sounds like a load of crud personally, however if the copper has reasonable grounds to believe it's not restricted (for whatever reason), then it's enough to have it seized. If he/she can prove they had a belief (note a belief, not suspicion), then they're justified.

Unfortunately it's not a case of innocent until proven guilty. If it were someone suspected of driving with no insurance and Police let them drive away, then shortly after they ploughed into your bike, how would you feel? Again, the onus is on you to prove it. The legislation is written to get uninsured/unlicensed vehicles off the road straight away, and quibble over it later, it's just a pain for the owner if it's a mistake.

If you can prove the bike is restricted and thus within the restrictions of your license, you won't have to fit the bill, the Force will.

Sorry that's no help whatsoever, and i'm sure i'll get flamed by the majority of the forum, but there ya go..

Have to say though, you were mad to let them take your bike without leaving your a copy of s165 notice!