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

Originally Posted by davepreston

get on the phone NOW to the police and inform them your vehicle was seized by them but you were not give any documents to the fact and you demand for this to be resolved imediately or you intend to have whichever officers charged with theift

Don't do that, don't jump off in the deep end ranting and won't work.

Originally Posted by husky03

get down to the station now and start asking questions-speak to someone above the rank of sargent if you can-if you are shown any doubt in there knowledge of this allegation jump on it and kick up a stink-stay civil and calm and don't end up getting the pokey

Agreed. I am a cop and on a restricted licence. I checked with numerous traffic cops and sergeants and I read the legislation surrounding it and we came to the conclusion that there is no LEGAL requirement to have a certificate proving restriction. Double check with either Bluepete or Red Herring but AFAIK, this is correct.

Insurance companies may ask for a certificate and may void your insurance if you don't have one. This hasn't happened has it? Did they call MIB regarding your insurance?

I am not sure what the powers are surrounding seizing a bike to have it checked for restriction, certainly never heard of it being done...and my force is pretty tight on traffic offences...like, on a par with North Wales!

As for seizure without any written documentation, they should have issued you with some sort of seizure notice. Our force issues one with all the details of where the vehicle, etc, is taken.

Can you tell us how the stop came about and what exactly was said? Something certainly doesn't sound right to me.

Originally Posted by Milky Bar Kid

..........
As for seizure without any written documentation, they should have issued you with some sort of seizure notice. Our force issues one with all the details of where the vehicle, etc, is taken.

Can you tell us how the stop came about and what exactly was said? Something certainly doesn't sound right to me.

It doesn't sound right does it - hence I think I'd call the local police straight away.

Also even if there only has to be a suspicion - what was that suspicion and surely they have to be able to back that up?

Could have been seized as evidence of an offence... Issuing a summons or a producer etc would allow the rider time to go away and tinker with the bike (restricting it if not done so already etc). Not saying that's why it's been seized this time, but just an idea...

The belief that it's not restricted could have come from anywhere... Intelligence, a loud can, the manner of riding and speed, the rider's attitude etc.

[husky03]

got a bad feeling you might have been pumped mate

Originally Posted by 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!

Pending the OP getting back to us with the circumstances surrounding the stop...I would suggest that there is no reasonable grounds to suspect that the OP hasn't restricted his bike.

Due to the fact there is no legal requirement to have a certificate, and the thing about the bike being plated is complete and utter nonsense, then if not having a certificate or "plate" was reasonable grounds to be seizing bikes from riders with restricted licences then everyone on 33bhp stopped would have their bikes seized...

[husky03]

and a check on the system would show the terms and limits of his insurance held for the bike-would state that it was restricted.

Originally Posted by Fishtits

Could have been seized as evidence of an offence... Issuing a summons or a producer etc would allow the rider time to go away and tinker with the bike (restricting it if not done so already etc). Not saying that's why it's been seized this time, but just an idea...

The belief that it's not restricted could have come from anywhere... Intelligence, a loud can, the manner of riding and speed, the rider's attitude etc.

Erm, seriously! That is in no way "reasonable cause to suspect". If it was, it would be happening all the time.

As for seizing it as a production (evidence) instead of a S165, they would near a helluva lot more cause to suspect an offence had taken place!!!!!!

As I said, the belief could come from anywhere, but providing those reasons exist then they're within their rights to have the bike away. The only person who is going to know that is the Officer who has seized it.

If they're going as far as a summons i'd guess the belief is reasonably strong otherwise it's a LAOC-job.

s165 works on reasonable grounds to believe, which if anything is a higher burden of proof.

I'm not saying that's the reason it's been done, i'm speculating on possible reasons.

no such thing as a restricted plate, but as far as im aware( biker of 26 yrs) you should have a restriction cert'...even if only for ins purposes!!!..if u wasnt given any papework when they impounded the bike, id start to worry....ALOT