Purely hypothetical musings on the failure to display registration marks...

They might not be able to do you directly for a failure to display a registration but the question is, what other laws does it break that a prosecution can be made on by proxy?
 
The only benefit of removing front and rear plates is to avoid getting caught by speed cameras, which I'm sure the police would try and find some way of doing you for an offence related to that as well.

Removing the front plate only is quite popular though and makes some cars look sooo much better without. Also I can imagine the chances of getting a tug would be drastically lower if you had a rear plate.
 
"it fell off guv"

I would be hugely surprised if a first time offender received more than a slap on the wrist and/or a £60 fine, unless of course the police witnessed them flying through speed cameras but then that's essentially a totally seperate offence and the lack of plate would be more sinister.
 
Al Vallario said:
My interest was piqued recently by a video on Shmee150's YouTube channel of a Ferrari 360 Spider driving on public roads, in and around London, with no number plates (or at least no rear plate):


(Fast-forward to 4:00 for the car in question)

Now this got me thinking. The offence of not fixing a registration mark to a vehicle is given by Section 42 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, but the maximum penalty upon conviction is only a fine of level 3 on the standard scale (£1,000).

Obviously the risk of being pulled and summonsed is extremely high in the case of not displaying either front or rear plates, and the fine would be prohibitive for most, but hypothetically speaking, if you were ludicrously rich and money were no object would this not be a sustainable practice?

Presumably the offence is not sufficient for the police to impound your vehicle (this is provided you can provide proof of registration, insurance, etc. if questioned), and surely the number of times you can be convicted and fined for the offence is limited somehow; is it possible to have two ongoing court cases for the same offence? :confused:

Is there some other disincentive for this practice? I understand the DVLA can rescind registration marks and assign non-transferable Q-plates to individuals who persistently misrepresent their mark, but can they do the same in cases where marks aren't being displayed in the first instance? Would it even matter if you had a Q-plate assigned, given that you don't display the marks, and don't care about the effect it might have on resale value?

Obviously these are purely hypothetical questions. It just struck me as rather bizarre that a) people are willing to do this; and b) upon looking into it, the law doesn't seem to have the teeth to go after those that do so.
Click to expand...

This bit made me chuckle. I mean Its not like the courts let chavvie theiving druggy scumbags off with a warning 100's of times.


Nope the motorist will get sent to prison for a second offence.


I tried to find where its says where the registration mark should be placed upon the vehicle but must have missed it. Do they have to be where they normally are
 
I can understand front plates but just the rear plate? Almost makes me think it was just stolen. :o

Will Gill said:
"it fell off guv"

I would be hugely surprised if a first time offender received more than a slap on the wrist and/or a £60 fine, unless of course the police witnessed them flying through speed cameras but then that's essentially a totally seperate offence and the lack of plate would be more sinister.
Click to expand...

My best mate got his car towed and they had it in police impound over night + £60 fine + paying £200 something to get it back out. Bit harsh imo. :eek:
screenshot20110922at110.png

Screenshot2011-09-22at105433.png

Screenshot2011-09-22at105449.png
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk47 said:
My best mate got his car towed and they had it in police impound over night + £60 fine + paying £200 something to get it back out. Bit harsh imo. :eek:
screenshot20110922at110.png
Click to expand...

what was it towed for? if it was receiving a second section15/ASBO in a year then that's fair enough, I would be amazed if they towed him there and then for having a dodgy plate.

also, anyone else wondered why all police officers put their hands in their 'gillets' in this manner? are they taught the position at police school? is it supposed to be menancing? It's clearly subconsiously bothered me for some time because I'm feeling traces of genuine anger flowing through my fingers and into my keyboard!
 
Will Gill said:
what was it towed for? if it was receiving a second section15/ASBO in a year then that's fair enough, I would be amazed if they towed him there and then for having a dodgy plate.

also, anyone else wondered why all police officers put their hands in their 'gillets' in this manner? are they taught the position at police school? is it supposed to be menancing? It's clearly subconsiously bothered me for some time because I'm feeling traces of genuine anger flowing through my fingers and into my keyboard!
Click to expand...

He had been stopped by police before on several occasions but only got a warning/fixed penalty fine. This time they did say you might be getting a letter from the dvla and that they can ban your plate and put you on a Q plate or something. (I didn't really understand it all at the time). Though no letter so far.

Oh and put down the Cool Aid. :p
 
Will Gill said:
also, anyone else wondered why all police officers put their hands in their 'gillets' in this manner? are they taught the position at police school? is it supposed to be menancing? It's clearly subconsiously bothered me for some time because I'm feeling traces of genuine anger flowing through my fingers and into my keyboard!
Click to expand...

I always thought it was to keep their hands warm.
 
Al Vallario said:
Sounds to me like the officers — assuming they had dealings with him in the past for the same offence? — took exception to their authority being challenged and decided to cause your mate the most inconvenience they could.

I'd file a complaint over that. Impounding a car for incorrect spacing on the number plate? Is that even legal? :confused:
Click to expand...

Of course its legal, especially after repeated warnings?

You'd feel a complaint over action being taken after you broke the law?
 
Will Gill said:
also, anyone else wondered why all police officers put their hands in their 'gillets' in this manner? are they taught the position at police school? is it supposed to be menancing? It's clearly subconsiously bothered me for some time because I'm feeling traces of genuine anger flowing through my fingers and into my keyboard!
Click to expand...

I have wondered this as well.
 
Al Vallario said:
What purpose exactly does seizing the car serve?
Click to expand...

It sends a message to the owner who has repeatedly ignored previous nice and friendly requests?

You can't keep just having a chat and issueing a ticket if it doesn't stop the problem.

I'm fairly certain the police do not have the authority to seize cars simply for incorrectly spaced number plates.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain that they know more than you do and don't generally go around stealing peoples cars from them. On what grounds do you feel you are more informed on the circumstances in which a car be siezed than the people who are tasked with making such a judgement?

I'm pretty sure you can sieze a car for repeated numberplate offences. If you can't then they were presumably siezing it for something else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom