Police towed Bristol driver thanks to out of date database
A Bristol motorist had his car towed away because police thought he had no insurance – thanks to of an out-of-date database.
And the driver then had to pay £150 to get his car back.
Financial accounts manager George Onyeahasi, aged 43, was left at the side of the road as police towed his car away because he was not able to prove to them that he was insured.
He had in fact renewed his insurance just hours earlier and was a legal driver, but the database the police use to run checks on motorists' details had not been updated.
Mr Onyeahasi, from Brislington, was stopped at 2.30am on Sunday February 1, as he drove his silver Mercedes ML270 – with the private number plate G5 ORG – towards the Clifton Triangle from Whiteladies Road.
The police initially stopped him because they believed he was braking erratically, which is characteristic of drink driving.
Officers gave Mr Onyeahasi a breath test, which was negative as he had not been drinking, and they also checked the details of his car.
The Motor Insurance Database wrongly showed the car was uninsured, but instead of giving Mr Onyeahasi seven days to produce his details, they impounded the car immediately.
His old insurance had run out at midnight, but having renewed his policy with Swinton Insurance, he knew he was covered.
He said: "From the start, the police seemed to be trying to find a reason for why I had been pulled over.
"When the officer first approached my car, he said I'd been pulled over because I'd been braking a lot – which I said was ridiculous.
"They then breathalysed me, which was negative because I hadn't been drinking as I was the designated driver for the evening.
"It was then that they said the database showed I was uninsured.
"I knew they were wrong and even offered to take the officers to my house to get the insurance certificate, a short 10-minute drive at that time of night, but they preferred to wait an hour for the tow truck to arrive."
Mr Onyeahasi was left stranded at the side of the road, with no money to pay for a taxi home.
He added: "If I hadn't renewed my insurance I'd have held my hands up, but I shouldn't be left out of pocket because the database is not up-to-date. That's not my fault."
Two contradicting laws led to Mr Onyeahasi having his car taken away that night.
If motorists don't have their documents – insurance or driving licence – on them when police ask to see them, drivers have seven days to take them to a police station, or face prosecution.
But police also have the power to seize vehicles if they believe they are being driven without insurance.
As police only had their database to go on, they had to believe the car was uninsured and a danger to other drivers if left on the streets.
But even when he went to Trinity Road police station the following day armed with his insurance certificate, Mr Onyeahasi was made to pay £150 to get his car back.
He says he cannot understand why officers did not allow him seven days to produce his certificate, instead of taking his car.
His new insurance policy had come into effect hours before he was pulled over, but his insurers say it can take seven days for the database to be updated.
The Motor Insurance Database is managed by the Motor Insurers' Bureau.
It claims insurers have access to the database around-the-clock and can update it every hour, should they need to.
It was set up nine years ago to reduce the number of uninsured cars on the UK's roads.
Department for Transport figures estimate one in 20 motorists do not have insurance.
Mr Onyeahasi's insurance broker Swinton Insurance told the Post the law allows it seven days to update the database.
A company spokesman denied the mix-up was its fault and refused to reimburse Mr Onyeahasi.
She said: "We can confirm Mr Onyeahasi's car was fully insured at the time of the incident.
"The fact this did not show up on the database is due to the reason it can take up to seven days to register a customers' insurance details
"The police need to recognise this timeframe and establish a protocol for making contact with insurers and/or brokers either at the roadside during office hours or at the earliest opportunity at other times. This is an unfortunate situation for Mr Onyeahasi."
Police spokesman Martin Dunscombe said officers had been right to impound the vehicle.
He said: "Officers were alerted to his car as it was braking a lot – this is a common trait of drink-drivers.
"Initial checks undertaken suggested the car did not have insurance and so there were reasonable grounds to stop the car.
"... when insurance could not be confirmed at the roadside the decision was taken to impound the car. There are no plans to reimburse the money as officers followed procedure and acted in good faith."
John Franklin, an RAC spokesman, said: "The police need to look at this again because Mr Onyeahasi should not be out of pocket. This man's car should never have been impounded and after it was Mr Onyeahasi shouldn't have been charged to get it back."
49 Comments
View all
by mark, Devon
Monday, September 21 2009, 1:12AM
“Oh and as others have pointed out, if they towed his car for "no insurance", why wasn't this man arrested for "no insurance"? Possibly because he could have sued for wrongful arrest, yet its ok for them to take his car.”
by lisa, bristol
Wednesday, February 11 2009, 2:12PM
“To A hater of personalised plates, Bristol
I would just like to state that if u buy you insurance online u get sent ur insurance certificate through a email which you print and keep, swiftcover for example do this, they do not send documents through the post, so he could be telling the truth and did have it at home!! also does it really matter when he insured his car? 1 week before or 1 hour before his previous ran out the fact is he was insured!!”
by Paul, Bristol
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 9:06AM
“Mr Onyeahasi should go to a "No Win No Fee" lawyer and sue the police for all he can get.
Refund of his £150 of course.
Sue also for unjustified deprivation of property.
Sue for the inconvenience of being kept at the roadside for an hour, for left stranded there, and for the time and trouble of getting his car back.
As a Financial accounts manager, his time should be worth at least £20 an hour.
Maybe if the Police are forced to pay out a few £000, they may think twice before shooting first and then charging to sort it out later.
Equally, it is time we told these so-called MP's who abuse rather than represent us where to get off and to stop passing nonsense laws.”
by Paul, Bristol
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 8:51AM
“What we have here is outrageous police abuse of our civil rights.
We may be sure that totalitarian regimes like those of Goebbels, Stalin and Mugabe would approve of this kind of stamp down on the people.
As Napoleon said, "Let them hate as long as they fear"
Well, as someone who has direct personal knowledge of similar abase, yes I do fear. Yes I do hate.
It is so sad the way the Parliament is so determined to stamp their rule on us and make sure that no guilty person gets off that they trample over the innocent and law-abiding like this.
Remember, it is not safe to carry your documents as if robbed your identity is in danger.”
by GingerRog, Bristol
Tuesday, February 10 2009, 6:54AM
“Considering there is an estimated 20% of uninsured drivers on our roads, I think the Police made the right decision in this case. It has absolutely nothing to do with race!
I agree with Mike B and A Hater of Personalised NP's ~ something does not quite add up in this article.”
by Michael, Bristol
Monday, February 09 2009, 11:42PM
“It seems the Police are operating a two tier system when it suits them. We have situations where more dubious people are driving and let off without checking their details or given a producer. Others if of darker complexion are not given those options and have their vehicles confiscated immediately. Definitely a bias!”
by A hater of personalised plates, Bristol
Monday, February 09 2009, 11:19PM
“Rob of Bedmister -
"He had in fact renewed his insurance just hours earlier". He was caught at 2.30am - hence the middle of the night renewal conclusion I drew.
Therefore, I think my conclusion from the information provided that he would not have a cover note or insurance certificate at home is correct.
I'm not suggesting that the database is perfect, but that the paper proof would not be possible to provide in the timescales quoted in the EP.
And no, I have not been in the position of driving around in the middle of the night as I have two children and also renew my insurance at least two weeks before it's due. It's called giving myself time to find best value for money and having two kids!”
by stop the evening post negativity against police, Bristol
Monday, February 09 2009, 10:37PM
“When will the evening post stop its negative campaign against the police??
First of all i would like to say what happened to the gent must have been frustrating for him and he does deserve an apology.
However i believe the paper has blown it out of proportion. headlines like 'overzealous' i thought i had picked up one of the cheap national papers. Did it need to go on the front page? Is there other news which could have appeared there?
I appreciate that the police can't always get it right and the officers will have relied on their equipment which may not always be up to date. Like all computers there will be problems. Has anyone used a card machine before only for an chip and pin machine to say it has declined even though there is enough money in there?
Lets not forget the reason for why that piece of law has been introdcued. Years ago if a motorist was stopped at the side of the road and couldn't produce their driving documents they would be given a producer and some would never be seen again or produce their documents and would continue driving. They might be involved in a collision with another car and won't be insured. Nowadays, vehicles can be taken of the road straight away which is surely safer? Although it has caused a great deal of distress to this guy when it went wrong.
It leads me back to my point, instead of explaining this the paper likes to 'beef' it up a little. Why can't you show support for your police? or do you just use them when you need them? You have no idea how damaging these continuous negative stories are to public perception.
I would even challenge the editor to leave the comforts of his/her office and spend a week on the streets in the city centre and see what the police really do and the things the police have to contend with. This might influence their decisions in the future. However that will never happen.
Always read beyond the story and never lose faith in YOUR police.”
by Rob, Bedminster
Monday, February 09 2009, 9:29PM
“Maya, you mentioned:
"His advice from the Police is he must keep all his documentation in the car at all times because he is likely to get pulled again and european law states that his car can be impounded if he cannot produce requested documentation at the roadside. How safe is that given the current crime rate on vehicles and and identity theft?"
If this is true, it's nothing short of scandalous and I would take the details of the officers concerned and write to the Chief Superintendent to clarify this advice and the forces policy on possession of documents at all times. It's
I was mugged in Bristol whilst carrying a drivers license. With just the license the mugger was able to obtain store credit in my name and walk out of a store on CCTV with a 3 grand television. The police failed to solve either crime but suggested to me that I shouldn't carry documents that can be used as identification. It makes sense, but when I read what they have told this driver I get the impression the police just say whatever is required to make victims feel at fault and have no official policy of their own. What they've told this driver is unforgivable. Besides identity theft, leaving any documents of this type in a car would provide a home address at which car keys or associated valuables could be obtained. Their advice is casual, utterly complacent, and smacks of palming off the driver in order to deflect blame away from their own mistaken handling of this matter.”
by Rob, Bedminster
Monday, February 09 2009, 9:12PM
“'Hater of personalised plates', while I agree with your dislike of personalised plates, there are no elements to this story which fail to add up. Nowhere does it say he left renewing his policy so late, it mentions he was the designated driver, suggesting he was out rather than doing anything with his insurance. As such he likely WAS relying on the automatic renewal on his policy which you mention, this is why the renewal was dead on midnight, not because he was sat by a computer (I think this much can be inferred from the article). In such cases the new policy is sent after the renewal date so he's in the unfortunate but blameless position that is described. You're probably only suspicious about this story as you've never been in a position of being pulled over in the early hours soon after your insurance company renew a policy. That's such a rare coincidence I doubt many people would think that it's possible, but by the sounds of the RAC spokesman it does exist. The police's response is typically pathetic.”