independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00556/17 July 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

Transcription

1 independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00556/17 July 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland

2 What we do We obtain all the material information from Police Scotland and the applicant. We then use this to review how the complaint was dealt with and conclude whether the complaint was handled to a reasonable standard*. In doing so, we consider factors such as: whether sufficient enquiries into the complaint were carried out by Police Scotland; whether Police Scotland s response to the complaint was supported by the material information available; whether Police Scotland adhered to the relevant policies, procedures and legal provisions in dealing with the complaint; whether Police Scotland s response was adequately reasoned; and where the complaint resulted in Police Scotland identifying measures necessary to improve its service, that these measures were adequate and have been implemented. Finally, where we deem appropriate, we give reconsideration directions, make recommendations and identify learning points for Police Scotland. *Sections 34 and 35 of the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 as amended ( the Act ) provide that the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner ( the PIRC ) may examine the manner in which particular kinds of complaints are dealt with by Police Scotland. 1 P a g e

3 Executive Summary The Complaints The complaints in this case arose following the seizure by police officers of the applicant s vehicle, on the grounds that the applicant was driving without insurance. Three complaints were reviewed, namely: 1. that, on 12 December 2016, the applicant was wrongly defined as a metal dealer and using his vehicle for metal dealing by a police officer; 2. that, on the same date, the applicant s vehicle was seized wrongly by police officers; and 3. that the applicant s vehicle was scrapped and he thereafter received letters from the DVLA fining him for not having tax on his vehicle. Police Scotland s Decision As a result of its investigation into the complaint, Police Scotland did not uphold any of the applicant s complaints. Our Findings Having reviewed the handling of the complaints, we have found that Police Scotland handled all three complaints to a reasonable standard. We have made no recommendations. 2 P a g e

4 Background On 12 December 2016, Police Scotland officers stopped the applicant while driving his van, as part of a multi-agency road check operation to check vehicles carrying scrap metal to local dealerships. Constable A approached the applicant s van, once it had been escorted into the check site, where he noticed that the van contained a small amount of scrap metal. Constable A carried out a Police National Computer check on the applicant and the van. The check showed that the vehicle had no motor insurance in place. The applicant provided details of a recent insurance policy taken out for the vehicle and Constable A contacted the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) who confirmed that the applicant was a named driver on this policy. Constable A was joined by Constable B, who also spoke to the applicant. The officers and the applicant subsequently gave conflicting accounts of the ensuing conversation, specifically as to the stated purpose of the applicant s journey with the scrap metal. Constables A and B s position was that the applicant confirmed he was carrying the scrap metal for the purpose of selling it. The applicant s position was that he told the officers he was only in the area to purchase a child s bicycle and intended to dispose of the scrap metal at a waste dump elsewhere. While Constable B was with the applicant, Constable A confirmed with the applicant s insurer that the applicant s policy would not cover the carriage and sale of scrap metal. The officers afforded the applicant an opportunity to have insurance cover put in place for such a purpose but no cover was forthcoming. The applicant was cautioned and charged with not having a valid policy of insurance for his vehicle. Constable B thereafter seized the vehicle under the Road Traffic Act 1988 ( the RTA ) and it was removed from the road by vehicle recovery agents. As the applicant was unable to pay for the return of his vehicle from the recovery agents, the vehicle was retained and ultimately scrapped. In the meantime, the applicant received letters from the DVLA fining him for not having tax on his vehicle. The applicant made his complaints via Police Scotland s online reporting form on 22 August Inspector C was appointed as the enquiry officer and the applicant received a response to his complaints in a letter dated 5 December 2017 from Chief Inspector D. 3 P a g e

5 Complaint 1 The applicant complained that, on 12 December 2016, he was wrongly defined as a metal dealer and as using his vehicle for metal dealing by Constable B. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 1 (not upheld by the police) In investigating all three complaints, the enquiry officer, Inspector C, took statements from the applicant, Constable A and Constable B. In his response to Complaint 1, Chief Inspector D noted the officers position that the applicant had told them he had travelled from his home town to attend a nearby merchants yard to sell the scrap metal. He further noted that there was no mention in the officers statements of the applicant seeking to purchase a children s bicycle in the area. Chief Inspector D commented that neither officer had defined the applicant s occupation as a metal dealer or stated that the applicant was using his vehicle as an actual metal dealer. He advised that the officers passed the circumstances of the applicant s journey to his insurance company, but they did not give the insurance company the applicant s occupation. He further advised that the officers had recorded the applicant s occupation on the fixed penalty notice issued as recycler. As part of his investigation, Inspector C had access to a recording of a telephone call from the MIB Police Helpline to the applicant s insurance company. Chief Inspector D confirmed that the recording showed that there was a policy in place, on which the applicant was a named driver, covering the business use of waste disposal but not covering carrying scrap metal for the purpose of selling it. Chief Inspector D confirmed that the officers told the MIB that the applicant was transporting scrap metal to sell at a scrap merchant yard in the area. He explained that he considered this to be correct information. With regard to the alternative possibility that the applicant was intending to dispose of the scrap metal as waste, Chief Inspector D considered that the applicant would have had ample opportunity to have done so at a number of refuse sites during his journey that day. In his conclusion, Chief Inspector D considered that the information provided by the officers to the insurer was accurate, that the officers did not define the applicant as a metal dealer and that the officers had in fact noted the applicant s occupation as recycler. He concluded that, in view of these circumstances, the allegation was not upheld. Our Review of Complaint 1 Police Scotland has provided us with its complaint file, which includes the statements of both Constables A and B, the applicant s statement, and the recorded telephone conversations between the MIB and the applicant s insurance company, amongst other items. In reviewing the handling of the applicant s complaints, we have considered each item in full, together with Chief Inspector D s final response letter. There is clearly a discrepancy between the officers and the applicant s statements as to the reason the applicant gave for his journey with the scrap metal. The standard of proof applied to non-criminal 4 P a g e

6 complaints involving Police Scotland is the balance of probabilities. When faced with conflicting accounts, as is the case here, the enquiry officer must use their own professional judgement to decide, based on all the available evidence, whether one account is more probable than the other 1. It is worthwhile noting that this is a less onerous standard than that applied in criminal cases, where allegations must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is therefore possible that something might be established on the balance of probabilities which would not be proven in a criminal case. In Chief Inspector D s final response letter, there was a brief general reference to the balance of probabilities test. While Chief Inspector D provided a detailed summary of the findings of Inspector C s investigation and clearly attaches more weight to the officers version of events, there was little by way of additional explanation as to exactly how the balance of probabilities test was applied to the conflicting accounts. The response would have been enhanced by the inclusion of this. Nonetheless, it is apparent from the available evidence that: the applicant acknowledged that he was carrying scrap metal; the applicant had picked up the scrap metal from someone else; in a recorded call with the MIB Police Helpline, the applicant s insurance company stated that, while the applicant s policy covered the carriage of his own goods as a refuse collector, the policy did not cover picking up other people s scrap metal; in a recorded call to the applicant s insurance company, the applicant s partner (who was the main policyholder) admitted that when the policy was taken out, it was supposed to include the carriage and sale of scrap metal as an insured use; in the above call, the applicant s partner made no mention of the applicant taking the scrap metal to a council dump to be disposed of as waste; the insurer confirmed to the applicant s partner that the policy did not cover the carriage and sale of scrap metal; and in the fixed penalty notice issued, Constable B noted the applicant s occupation as recycler. Having assessed these points during our review, we consider on balance that they add more weight to the officers accounts than to the applicant s. It was therefore reasonable in our view for Chief Inspector D, in his consideration of these points, to have concluded that the applicant was carrying scrap metal for onward sale, particularly as this use was anticipated by the applicant s partner when she took out the insurance policy and she did not suggest any alternative reason for the applicant to be carrying the scrap metal. Based on the available information, we consider the crux of the applicant s complaint to be that, due to Constable B allegedly defining him as a metal dealer, the applicant s insurance policy was wrongly invalidated. The applicant asserts that Constable B told him that anyone who carries or sells scrap metal in Scotland is a scrap metal dealer a definition the applicant disputes. In Chief Inspector D s response to the applicant, he noted that, in their statements, neither officer defined the applicant as an actual metal dealer. It is not clear whether, during his investigation, Inspector C asked the officers about whether they expressly defined the applicant in the manner the applicant alleges. As there was no recording of the call between Constable A and the MIB Police Helpline, we are unable to confirm whether the applicant was defined this way to the insurer. Constable A stated that he enquired with the MIB Police Helpline as to whether the applicant s insurance policy would cover the carriage and sale of scrap metal. In the recorded calls with MIB and with the applicant s partner, the insurer confirmed that the policy did not cover the carriage and sale of scrap metal or the picking up of other people s scrap metal. This evidence adds weight to Constable A s 1 Paragraph of Police Scotland s Standard Operating Procedure on Complaints About the Police 5 P a g e

7 account of having asked whether carriage and sale of scrap metal was insured, as opposed to having literally defined the applicant as a scrap metal dealer. Furthermore, in issuing the fixed penalty notice, Constable B defined the applicant s occupation as recycler. In light of this information, it is again reasonable for Chief Inspector D to have concluded that the available evidence tips the balance of probabilities in favour of the officers accounts, i.e. that they did not literally define the applicant as a scrap metal dealer to the insurer and instead enquired about the carriage and sale of scrap metal. For the reasons given above, we consider that Chief Inspector D s response was supported on balance by the material information available and, on the whole, was adequately reasoned. Consequently, we conclude that this complaint was handled to a reasonable standard. As stated above, Chief Inspector D s response would have been strengthened by a clearer explanation of his application of the balance of probabilities test. However, as we have included such an analysis in our review, no further action is required of Police Scotland in this regard. Our Conclusion on Complaint 1 We conclude that Police Scotland handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required. 6 P a g e

8 Complaint 2 The applicant complained that, on 12 December 2016, his vehicle was seized wrongly by police officers. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 2 (not upheld by the police) In his response, Chief Inspector D referred to the RTA and explained that Section 165A(1) gives a police officer the power to seize a vehicle if they believe it is being driven without insurance. In the circumstances, Chief Inspector D believed that the officers had reasonable cause to suspect the applicant was in contravention of the RTA and therefore had power to seize the vehicle. He further stated that the officers actions were supported by police guidelines and advised that, where such powers exist, there is a presumption they will be used. He noted that, had the officers allowed the applicant to drive away, they would have been acting outside their guidelines. Chief Inspector D concluded that, in light of the circumstances, he was satisfied that the officers acted proportionately and lawfully in seizing the vehicle. He therefore did not uphold the complaint. Our Review of Complaint 2 In our review of Complaint 1, we concluded that it was reasonable for Chief Inspector D to determine, on the balance of probabilities, that the applicant was more likely than not transporting scrap metal for the purpose of selling it. Having determined the probable use of the vehicle, Chief Inspector D had already established the context for considering the applicant s second complaint. The next steps in responding to such a complaint would be to assess: (a) whether it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the applicant was not insured for that use in accordance with the RTA; and (b) whether the officers were therefore entitled to seize the applicant s vehicle. We will review how Chief Inspector D handled steps (a) and (b) in turn. In relation to step (a), Chief Inspector D stated accurately in his response that driving without proper insurance was a contravention of Section 143 of the RTA. He determined that it was reasonable for the officers to conclude that the applicant was driving without proper insurance in contravention of the RTA. He explained that this was based on the information the officers had at the time and the information provided by the applicant s insurer. Of particular note is that the insurer had stated it would not cover the applicant s vehicle for carrying scrap metal if the metal was being transported for the purposes of sale. The applicant also acknowledged in his statement that his insurer would not provide him with cover. It is therefore reasonable to infer that, at the point he was stopped, the applicant was not properly insured. We therefore consider that Chief Inspector D s determination in respect of step (a) is supported by the material information available and that he gave adequate reasons for such a determination. Step (b) was for Chief Inspector D to then determine whether the officers were entitled to seize the applicant s vehicle. Chief Inspector D explained that officers have the power under Section 165A(1) of the RTA to seize a vehicle if, amongst other things, they believe the vehicle is being driven in 7 P a g e

9 contravention of Section 143 of the RTA. He also explained that Police Scotland s guidelines support this position. We have considered these guidelines 2 and can confirm that they support the statutory position. In particular, they state that seizure can be considered if a constable in uniform has required a person to produce evidence that a vehicle is properly insured, the person fails to provide such evidence, and the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of Section 143 of the RTA We consider therefore that Chief Inspector D s determination in respect of step (b) is supported by the material information available, as well as the relevant policies and legal provisions. We also consider that Chief Inspector D gave adequate reasons for this determination. In light of the above, and having regard to the conclusions reached in relation to Complaint 1, we conclude that Police Scotland handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. Our Conclusion on Complaint 2 We conclude that Police Scotland handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required. 2 Part 8 of Police Scotland s Standard Operating Procedure on the Seizure of Vehicles (see Appendix II) 8 P a g e

10 Complaint 3 The applicant complained that his vehicle was scrapped and that he thereafter received letters from the DVLA fining him for not having tax on his vehicle. Police Scotland s Handling of Complaint 3 (not upheld by the police) Chief Inspector D advised that the applicant s vehicle was seized and removed from the road by authorised vehicle recovery agents for Police Scotland. He noted that, at the time of the seizure, the applicant was given details of where his vehicle would be taken and the procedure for retrieving it. He further noted that the applicant was issued with a notice and a letter was thereafter sent out confirming that the applicant had fourteen days to collect the vehicle. Despite this, the applicant did not collect the vehicle. Chief Inspector D acknowledged that the applicant received letters and fines from the DVLA for not having valid vehicle excise on the vehicle. However, he also advised that it is the responsibility of the owner of a vehicle to ensure the DVLA are notified if a vehicle is sold, transferred, taken off the road, written off or scrapped. In addition, Chief Inspector D explained that the applicant s finance company notified the recovery agents that there was outstanding finance relating to the vehicle and instructed the agents to dispose of it. In view of these points, Chief Inspector D concluded that the allegation was not upheld. Our Review of Complaint 3 With regard to the applicant s vehicle having been scrapped, Chief Inspector D noted that the applicant had been issued with a seizure notice which explained the vehicle retrieval process and confirmed that the applicant had fourteen days to collect the vehicle. The applicant did not dispute that he was aware of the retrieval process. Indeed, the applicant acknowledged in his statement that he did not have the funds available to retrieve his vehicle from the recovery agents. The seizure notice makes it clear that failure to collect the vehicle and pay the charges empowers the police to dispose of the vehicle. This is in accordance with the relevant standard operating procedure 3 and the statutory regulations covering the disposal of seized vehicles 4. The applicant was aware of the consequences of not collecting the vehicle. Moreover, the applicant s finance company authorised the disposal on the basis that there was outstanding finance on the vehicle. We consider that Chief Inspector D s response provided an adequate explanation for the scrapping of the vehicle which was supported by the material information available. With regard to the applicant having received fines from the DVLA for the vehicle being untaxed, Chief Inspector D explained in his response that the onus was on the applicant to notify the DVLA that the 3 Part 19 of Police Scotland s Standard Operating Procedure on the Seizure of Vehicles (see Appendix II) 4 The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005, as amended 9 P a g e

11 vehicle had been taken off the road. Chief Inspector D directed the applicant to the UK Government website, which makes clear that, in the absence of such a notification, the vehicle must continue to be insured and taxed and that failure to do so will result in a fine. Chief Inspector D advised that it was not the responsibility of the police or recovery agent to notify the DVLA of any changes in the status of the vehicle, which is in line with the DVLA s online guidance. The applicant had the opportunity to make a Statutory Off Road Notification to the DVLA, but appears not to have done so. In light of these points, we consider that Chief Inspector D s response in respect of the DVLA fines was supported by the material information and was adequately reasoned. Having considered the handling of both points, we conclude that Police Scotland handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. Our Conclusion on Complaint 3 We conclude that Police Scotland handled this complaint to a reasonable standard. No further action is required. Gavin Grant Review Officer Peter Innes Senior Review Officer 10 P a g e

12 Appendix I Copy of Police Scotland s response letter dated 5 December 2017 (Redacted and paragraphs numbered) 1. By way of introduction, I am the Local Area Commander for Road Policing in [area]. 2. As part of my role, I am responsible for all Road Policing operational matters including discipline relative to Officers and members of Police Staff who fall under my remit / portfolios. 3. I refer to your recent complaint about the Police, which has been recorded by the Force Professional Standards Department as Irregularity In Procedure following your initial dealings with Police on Monday 12 December 2016, at [location]. 4. The investigation into your complaint was conducted by one of my management team, Inspector [C], who I understand met with you on 24 September I am now in receipt of his report, and will take this opportunity to comment upon the issues raised. 5. I understand you have made the following allegations: On 12 December 2016 I was defined wrongly as a metal dealer and using my vehicle as a metal dealer by [Constable B] On 12 December 2016 my vehicle was seized wrongly from [location] putting me out of business and causing my family trouble and financial hardship My vehicle was scrapped and I still received letters from DVLA fining me for not having tax on the vehicle. 9. I would like to highlight that in making my determination of a complaint, it is based on the available evidence and the balance of probabilities. This does not mean that where a complaint is not upheld that I question the veracity of the complaint, merely that I consider there to be insufficient evidence to uphold it, which can often be the case when there are opposing versions of events. 10. Your three allegations arose following a multi-agency road check operation in [location] to check vehicles carrying scrap metal 11. At this road check your vehicle was seized under the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 165A(1), as the Officers had reasonable grounds to believe your vehicle was being driven without a policy of insurance covering the purpose for which it was being used. 12. In relation to your first allegation, you stated at the time of the road check that the Officers defined you wrongly as a metal dealer and the Officers wrongly stated you were using your vehicle as a metal dealer in [location]. 13. I understand from your statement provided to Inspector [C], you provide that in December 2016, you were employed as a refuse collector and not as a metal dealer. I understand you further stated to Inspector [C] that the sole purpose you were driving in [location] on the date in question, was to 11 P a g e

13 buy a children s bicycle, and the metal in the back of your van was a small quantity of scrap metal left over from a recent waste disposal task you had completed. 14. On reviewing the witness statements submitted by [Constables B and A] both Officers confirmed that you had scrap metal items and a plastic pipe in the rear of your vehicle. Both Officers stated you told them you had travelled from [one location] to attend a scrap merchants yard near [another location] to sell the metal. Neither Officer stated you had made any mention of a social, domestic or pleasure reason for your journey viz, a children s bicycle purchase, being the only reason for your visit to [the other location]. 15. In their statements neither Officer defined your occupation as a metal dealer or stated you were using your vehicle as an actual metal dealer as alleged in your complaint. 16. On the fixed penalty ticket issued by [Constable B] your occupation was given as Recycler. I understand the Officers passed the circumstances of your journey to your insurance company but did not give the insurance company your occupation. 17. Prior to seizing your vehicle [Constable A] phoned the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) Police Helpline from the roadside, to ascertain your insurance status. I am advised that the MIB Police Helpine do not routinely record their calls, so no recording was available from them as part of Inspector [C s] investigation. 18. I understand that during this phone call from [Constable A], the MIB Police Helpline made an internal call to [the applicant s insurance company] who are underwritten by [name of underwriters]. 19. A recording of the phone call from MIB Police Helpline to [the applicant s insurance company] has been obtained from [the applicant s insurance company] and reviewed by Inspector [C]. 20. This call recording confirmed that your partner [name of applicant s partner] did have a policy of motor insurance for social, domestic and pleasure use and for carrying out the business of waste disposal with [the applicant s insurance company], and confirmed that you were a named driver on this policy. 21. During this recording MIB Police Helpline checked with [the applicant s insurance company] and [name of underwriters] if your vehicles policy of insurance would cover your journey if the reason and purpose of your journey was as you stated to the Officers at the roadside viz, transporting scrap metal to the scrap merchants yard to sell it. 22. The Officers also passed the circumstances of what you were witnessed carrying in your vehicle, i.e. scrap metal. [The applicant s insurance company] and [name of underwriters] confirmed they would insure your vehicle if it was being used for refuse collection, but stated that the would not cover your vehicle for carrying scrap metal if it was being transported for the purposes of selling it. 23. [The applicant s insurance company] stated this specific information on your proposed use of the vehicle was not disclosed to them at the time of the insurance policy being taken out. In the phone recording, I am advised the MIB Police Helpline confirmed that the Officers said you were transporting scrap metal to sell at [location] scrap merchant yard when stopped. This information provided to MIB was correct, given what the Officers witnessed being carried in your vehicle, and what you stated to them was the purpose of your journey when stopped. 24. I understand from your conversation with Inspector [C] / statement, that you confirmed that you had travelled up from [one location] to [another location] with the metal in the rear of your vehicle, and would have passed near to either of the [name of recycling centres] on your journey. Both these 12 P a g e

14 centres were open from 9am to 5pm on said date, and would have afforded you the opportunity to dispose of any material prior to travelling up to [location]. 25. In fairness to you, the Officers provided you with the opportunity to contact [the applicant s insurance company] from the roadside at the material time to arrange the appropriate insurance cover to prevent a vehicle seizure. Despite a phone call from the policyholder, your partner [applicant s partner s name], to [the applicant s insurance company], the company were unwilling / unable to do this. 26. I also understand that [the applicant s insurance company] refused to upgrade your insurance to include the carriage of scrap metal as one of the uses of your vehicle. 27. The recordings of said phone calls have been obtained and reviewed by Inspector [C] during his investigation, and are available for you if required via [the applicant s insurance company]. 28. In view of these circumstances I am advised that the information provided to the MIB Police Helpline and [the applicant s insurance company] by Officers was accurate. 29. In your Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty issued to you at the roadside, your occupation was noted as Recycler. 30. I am further advised, that at no time did the Officers state they had defined you as a metal dealer or stated you were using your vehicle as an actual metal dealer. 31. In view of the aforementioned, this allegation is Not upheld. 32. In relation to your second allegation, the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 165A (1), gives a Police Officer power to seize a vehicle if, amongst other things, they believe the vehicle is being driven 33. by a person otherwise than in accordance with a licence authorising him to drive a motor vehicle of that class, or 34. in contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 143 (the requirement to have insurance) 35. If either of these conditions applies then Police have the lawful authority to seize the vehicle. Based on the information the Officers had at the time they stopped your vehicle, and the information provided to them by [the applicant s insurance company] at the roadside, they would have had reasonable cause to suspect you were driving your vehicle in contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Section 143 (the requirement to have insurance), and therefore had power to seize your vehicle. 36. Given the circumstances presented to me, I believe the Officers acted within their powers. The guidelines issued to Officers support this, and there is a presumption that where powers exist to seize vehicles under this legislation, then that is the course of action which Officers will follow. 37. Whilst I note there was a degree of flexibility shown by the Officers at the time in giving you the opportunity to obtain a suitable policy of motor insurance at the roadside, any other course of action, for example allowing you to drive the vehicle away, would have resulted in the Officers acting out with their guidelines. 38. Given the circumstances and information provided to me via Inspector [C], I am satisfied that the Officers who seized your vehicle acted proportionately and lawfully. 13 P a g e

15 39. In view of the aforementioned, this allegation is Not upheld. 40. In relation to your third allegation, your vehicle was seized and removed from [location] by [Police Scotland s vehicle recovery agents]. This removal took place in your presence. I understand that at the time of the seizure you were given details of where your vehicle would be taken, and the procedure to retrieve your vehicle was explained to you. You were issued with a notice at the time of the seizure and [Police Scotland s vehicle recovery agents] sent out a letter to you the following day explaining vehicle retrieval details, and confirming you had 14 days to collect your vehicle. 41. I understand from Inspector [C s] investigation, you did not take the opportunity to retrieve your vehicle within the stated time period and your vehicle was subsequently disposed of for the purpose of scrapping. I note from your complaint that you received letters and fines from DVLA for not having a valid Vehicle Excise Licence on your vehicle following its seizure by Police. 42. Inspector [C] on checking the DVLA section on the GOV.UK website, has advised it is the responsibility of the owner of a vehicle to ensure DVLA are notified if a vehicle is sold or transferred to someone else, taken off the road (SORN), written off by your insurance company or scrapped at a vehicle scrap yard. 43. He further advises in the case of your vehicle, your finance company [named finance company] notified [Police Scotland s vehicle recovery agents] that there was still outstanding finance on your vehicle. As a result of that, [named finance company] gave [Police Scotland s vehicle recovery agents] instructions to dispose of the vehicle. Given the aforementioned, it is not the responsibility of the Police or recovery agent to notify DVLA of any changes in your vehicle s status, and in view of these circumstances, I have determined that this third allegation is Not upheld. 44. [Applicant s name], I regret that on this occasion in your dealings with Police Scotland you felt the need to complain. Complaints about the Police are treated seriously by Police Scotland as they provide a valuable opportunity for us to learn and improve our service to the public. 45. If you are not satisfied with the way in which your complaint has been handled, you may contact the Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (PIRC), 2 nd Floor, Hamilton House, Caird Park, Hamilton, ML3 OQA. If you decide to contact PIRC, you must submit an application from to them within 3 months of the date of this letter, otherwise they may not be able to deal with your complaint. 46. Yours sincerely 47. Chief Inspector D Road Policing 14 P a g e

16 Appendix II Extracts from Police Scotland s Standard Operating Procedure on the Seizure of Vehicles Part 8 8. Section 165 Licence / Insurance 8.1 Authority exists under Section 165A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a constable in uniform to seize a motor vehicle being driven in contravention of Section 87(1) or 143 of the Act. Section 165A is designed to remove motor vehicles from use until valid documents are produced or disposal is arranged. This power is not an alternative to prosecution and must not be used in isolation. In all circumstances where removal is effected, the driver will be charged and either a Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty (COFP) or standard police report (SPR) will be completed. For further information see Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty Scheme Traffic Offences SOP. 8.2 Certain conditions must be satisfied before seizure can be considered, any one of which must apply before seizure: (a) Condition 1 - A Constable in uniform requires, under Section 164, a person to produce his/her licence and counterpart for examination; and, - The person fails to produce them; and, - The Constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the motor vehicle is, or was, being driven by the person in contravention of Section 87(1). (b) Condition 2 - A Constable in uniform requires, under Section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is or was being driven in accordance with Section 143; and, - The person fails to produce such evidence; and, - The Constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the motor vehicle is, or was, being driven in contravention of Section 143. (c) Condition 3 - A Constable in uniform requires, under Section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle; and, - The person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough for the Constable to make such lawful enquiries as he/she considers appropriate; and, 15 P a g e

17 - The Constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is, or was, being driven in contravention of Section 87(1) or Where a vehicle satisfies those removal conditions outlined above, the Act requires that officers must warn the driver that the vehicle will be seized unless documents are produced immediately. 8.4 Prior to considering removal, officers are to carry out database checks for the existence of relevant documents. Driving licence checks may be made using the # DL facility on PNC. Basic insurance checks may also be made via the PNC, which holds data from the Motor Insurance Database (MID), operated by the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) Information Centre. Private motor vehicle policies are automatically updated to MID by insurance companies. Company vehicle policies are updated by fleet managers. 8.5 Where the PNC indicates insurance not held but the driver claims to be covered, the enquiry officer or ACR staff may telephone the MIB police helpline. As a minimum, MiB staff require details of the enquiry officer, the driver and the insurance company or broker. Staff will then make direct contact with the insurer or broker to obtain up to date insurance information. In general terms, if the MiB confirm insurance is not held this is sufficiently accurate to provide reasonable grounds to justify seizure of a private vehicle. 8.6 In all other circumstances, i.e. out with office hours, or where an MiB check is inconclusive; officers are not to rely solely on the MID to ascertain if a policy of insurance exists. One other corroborative factor must be established before vehicles are seized. In addition to any admission by the driver, reference should also be made to PNC (Statutory Off-Road Notification (SORN) / Vehicle Excise Licence (VEL) expiry), the Vehicle Test Certificate database, Scottish Intelligence Database (SID), in an effort to establish reasonable grounds to suggest an absence of insurance. Provided some other corroborative factor supports the MID, the vehicle may be seized. Part Retention and Disposal of a Seized Vehicle 19.1 Regulations, made under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005, provide for the retention, safekeeping, release and disposal of vehicles seized The Road Traffic Act 1988 (Retention and Disposal of Seized Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2005 include the charges that may be levied on the owner before a seized vehicle is released to them. The Regulations provide circumstances where the owner will not be liable for the charges provided that they can demonstrate that when the vehicle was seized they: Were not the person driving it at the time of seizure; and, Did not know it was being driven; and, Had not consented to its being driven; and, Could not reasonably have taken steps to prevent its being driven. 16 P a g e

18 19.4 Where the driver of the vehicle is not the registered keeper or owner of the vehicle, the reporting officer shall also, as soon as he is able after the vehicle has been taken in to custody, take such steps as are reasonably practicable to give a seizure notice to the registered keeper and to the owner where that appears to be someone different The notice must include the following information: The name and address of the person issued with the notice and date of issue; The registration mark and make of vehicle; Where the vehicle was seized; Where it is now being kept; That it must be claimed within 14 days of the date of issue of the notice or it will be disposed of; That before the vehicle is released to the owner they will have to pay; and The prescribed charges to meet the costs of its removal and retention To retrieve their vehicle the owner must first present themselves at a designated police office with a valid driving licence authorising that person to drive the vehicle and a certificate of insurance authorising the driver s intended use of the vehicle. The vehicle release will thereafter be authorised and the owner should then attend at the specified CVRS garage with the release notice, identification and proof of ownership. On payment of all outstanding fees the vehicle will be returned to them. 17 P a g e