"33bhp?" Yes "i dont believe you, I'll seize your bike and take you to court"

Originally Posted by Bibio

yes but this is usually in the form of a 7 day ticket to 'produce'

Not always. We as a Force have phased out producers except in exceptional circumstances (such as PNC being down etc). And a producer (HORT/1) is actually an Officer doing you a favour (not that many will see it that way!). It's an offence to not be able to produce your license and insurance on request, however in the real world hardly anyone carries, therefore you're given an opportunity to produce it later. They don't *have* to give you that period.

Talk of this 'plate' aside, the crux of this is that the Officer at scene believes the bike to be unrestricted - rightly or wrongly. He may be misinformed with regard to this plate, he may have other reasons why he suspects it to be unrestricted, but in his mind the bike he is looking at is not restricted. The rider is unable to produce a valid license entitling him to ride the bike which he believes to be unrestricted, therefore it has been seized.

And having looked into it, yes the onus of proof IS on the driver/rider, not on the prosecution. Which means your car/bike can be taken off you until YOU prove you're entitled to ride it (which is what you do when you take your license into a Police station along with insurance and get your receipt stamped to claim the bike back).

I can see where this Officer is coming from in that giving you a receipt would enable you to get your bike back without it being tested first - and the outcome of this test is what the whole incident is over so needs to be conducted; is the bike restricted or not? Once it's tested there will be two outcomes;

1) Bike comes up at 33bhp and will be released to the rider. Force will meet the costs and you can try pursue any complaints.
2) Bike comes up over 33bhp and the rider will have to prove they are entitled to ride over 33bhp. If they can't they will be prosecuted. The bike will only be released once someone with a D/L and insurance covering them to ride that bike produces those documents.

That's how I see it anyway. I completely agree that the manner in which this investigation so far has been conducted has been awful to say the least, and the manners, knowledge and communication skills of these Officers seem a lot to be desired. But I can see some reasoning behind the decisions made.

Originally Posted by Ch00

Can the OP please either answer this question or just state they have seen it and dont want to answer. I don't want to keep on!

Yes i have passed my cat a motorbike test (restricted), received a pinky back in October that shows on the card i can ride anything up to 25kw (33bhp)

Along with the licensed I am, of course fully insured taxed and motd

Originally Posted by Bibio

why not do it now. if there is one thing breiffs hate and thats being dragged out on a sunday night, if you understand what i mean.

they have theoretically 'stole' your bike m8 and if you dont understand that then there is more to this post than what you are saying.

if it were me, i would be going ballistic and would have had to lock me up by now. at which point i would have spoken to my breiff.

They haven't stolen it. There is no 'dishonesty' and no 'intention to permanently deprive', so therefore no theft. You're also only entitled to a Duty Solicitor in Custody, which the OP isn't. He would have to see a solicitor off his own back and his own expense, which isn't going to happen on a Sunday evening!

[Speedy]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

They haven't stolen it. There is no 'dishonesty' and no 'intention to permanently deprive', so therefore no theft.

But they still should have issued paperwork/reciept for taking the bike, SURELY!?

Originally Posted by Speedy

But they still should have issued paperwork/reciept for taking the bike, SURELY!?

The bike can't be released until it's been dyno-tested and the restriction proved/dis-proved.

The s165 notice given the driver is a receipt which you get stamped at a Police station. The OP could have taken it to a Police Station the next day with his license and insurance and the Civilian behind the desk would have happily stamped it saying he'd seen the two documents, thus allowing the OP to go to the compound and get it released immediately. The Civvie wouldn't have known the reasons behind the seizure, he'd have just seen a bike seized, a license with a bike category, and insurance for that bike, and thus released it.

I assume therefore it's for this reason that the notice was withheld. It will still have been written out with the necessary details, however the driver's copy retained until the status of the bike confirmed. I've never seen it done for that reason but it makes sense...?

I've seized cars for no insurance before having seen them driven on the road and withheld the drivers copy because I don't want it released immediately. I assume it's the same thing, though as I say, never heard the reason being a dyno-test.

Though it's poor form that the OP wasn't given contact details of the Officer and a detailed explanation of what was happening and why.

(Edit: The seizure notice must have been completed because the recovery company that came and collected it require a copy. Certainly where I work they do anyway.)

[Speedy]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

The bike can't be released until it's been dyno-tested and the restriction proved/dis-proved.

The s165 notice given the driver is a receipt which you get stamped at a Police station. The OP could have taken it to a Police Station the next day with his license and insurance and the Civilian behind the desk would have happily stamped it saying he'd seen the two documents, thus allowing the OP to go to the compound and get it released immediately. The Civvie wouldn't have known the reasons behind the seizure, he'd have just seen a bike seized, a license with a bike category, and insurance for that bike, and thus released it.

I assume therefore it's for this reason that the notice was withheld. It will still have been written out with the necessary details, however the driver's copy retained until the status of the bike confirmed. I've never seen it done for that reason but it makes sense...?

I've seized cars for no insurance before having seen them driven on the road and withheld the drivers copy because I don't want it released immediately. I assume it's the same thing, though as I say, never heard the reason being a dyno-test.

Though it's poor form that the OP wasn't given contact details of the Officer and a detailed explanation of what was happening and why.

(Edit: The seizure notice must have been completed because the recovery company that came and collected it require a copy. Certainly where I work they do anyway.)

Yes, definitely. I would have wanted some kind of proof of where the bike was going etc.

Are the police empowered then to require dyno tests of a bikes output?

Surely if restriction certs. are used/issued when a bike is restricted, (I know people can derestrict their bikes themselves after restriction), this should suffice!?

Well the bike has been seized because it's believed to be unrestricted, so to decide if there is a case to answer or put forward a test will have to be done. The Police believe (rightly or wrongly) an offence has taken place, so there is an investigation ongoing to establish the facts.

I would guess the cost of the dyno test will either be passed to the OP in Court if the bike is over 33bhp, or the Force will foot the bill if no case is put before a Court.

With regard to the restriction certs imagine you are the Officer stopping the bike. The rider explains it's restricted and shows you a letter and a cert from the place they say they got it restricted, enabling you to maybe call the garage to check and conduct the investigation at the roadside. The more evidence the rider puts infront of you there and then, the more likely you are to believe them.

Yeah it may not be a legal requirement to carry a restriction certificate, but it's only going to go in your favour if you have a photocopy in your jacket or under the seat etc.

im sorry to hear this and i hope every thing goes ok, i just thought that i would let you know that my sv was restricted by suzuki and no plate was placed on the bike showing it was restricted only a certifcate which i have never carried when on the bike. however when my gsxr750 was restriced again by suzuki a plate was placed on the frame (which id never seen before on any bike???) there was nearly two years between the two differnt bikes being restricted.

this situation has made me think twice about keeping my pink licence with 25kw writen on it riding two full power bikes now my restriction is finished.

again hope all goes well.

scott

[Speedy]

Originally Posted by Fishtits

Well the bike has been seized because it's believed to be unrestricted, so to decide if there is a case to answer or put forward a test will have to be done. The Police believe (rightly or wrongly) an offence has taken place, so there is an investigation ongoing to establish the facts.

I would guess the cost of the dyno test will either be passed to the OP in Court if the bike is over 33bhp, or the Force will foot the bill if no case is put before a Court.

With regard to the restriction certs imagine you are the Officer stopping the bike. The rider explains it's restricted and shows you a letter and a cert from the place they say they got it restricted, enabling you to maybe call the garage to check and conduct the investigation at the roadside. The more evidence the rider puts infront of you there and then, the more likely you are to believe them.

Yeah it may not be a legal requirement to carry a restriction certificate, but it's only going to go in your favour if you have a photocopy in your jacket or under the seat etc.

Yes, I agree. But like you said, it's not law to carry proof of restriction. And therefore cannot be enforced.

So producing the restriction certificate/evidence should be enough to enable the OP to get his bike back.

I think if the evidence is produced, surely potentially wasting money out of that police services budget on a dyno test is silly and a waste of time.

I hear where you're coming from, just think the officer(s) in this instance are chasing after something that will probably (hopefully) bite them on the bum!

[Bibio]

so the plod have the right to seize any motorcycle if the owner is on a restricted licence and they 'think' the bike is de-restricted. even though the owner can produce an MOT, Insurance and a licence.

i'm sorry but in this case i think there is something very very smelly going on and it smells of pork and pizz.

i'd be in the cells by now screaming the roof off and generally making a complete nuisance of myself .

oooohhhh and what happens if the bike comes back as 36bhp then the plod have won and seize his bike then charge him.

lets face it the police can do what they want and we are expected to just sit back and let them.... **** that.