Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

surely that cant be legal?? over here they would have to list the specific tread depth on the defect or prohibition notice and if they are writing something clearly untrue you could easily challenge it at the scene, make a scene and get it easily sorted. A copper would never get away with saying a tyre has too little tread if it has 2.5mm.

Or is it still a case in NI that if you argue with the RUC you get dragged in the back of an armoured land rover for a "talking to" and let out some time later with a bloody face???

Brendan

iTrader: (1)

This has a lot to do with the fact that there are a few idiots out there that have what can only be described as "death traps" and the hyper risk adverse majority are running so scared that they push the police into a blanket approach to get them out looking for these cars without resourcing the operation correctly. To train all the police officers to the correct standards would cost, and it probably is in there interest to find fault with you car anyway as if they didn't it would not look good for their statistics.

NoRubNoDub

It's more a case of who do you argue with? They will always back each other up so there is no winning. You just make them focus on you more. If you make a scene about it you are threatened with a court appearance where they will lie through their teeth. It's a rule of thumb that if you challenge them in courts your going to end up worse off than if you had just taken it in the first place.
We do have a different MOT system over here I think standards are tighter. We have mot2 where as in the rest of the uk it's vosa?

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

but you cant deny physical evidence even in court. The tyre either has over 1.6mm tread or it doesnt.

thats a simple provable fact not open to interpretation.

Even the PSNI cant make the law up and decide 2.5mm is illegal and win in court.

If they won that then theyd set a legal precedant that the police officers opinion overrides nationally set legislation

NoRubNoDub

The decision on the road side is final, they revoke your mot whether you complain or not. If you want to take it to court they normally trump the charge up to driving a vehicle unfit for the road or whatever it is called. In court they say the tires were worn, in a bad condition etc and if you provide evidence proving otherwise i.e photos of the tires, mechanics report they will just say "at the time of inspection blah blah" basically you have no way of proving that their decision was wrong. At best they will drop it but you have already been inconvenienced and have had to have your car retested or inspected.
Its a no win situation.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

why are the PSNI such cocks then???

Mainland police would never get away with such lies as a formal complaint would bowl out the truth on such an obvious lie.

NoRubNoDub

It probably because of the amount of complaints they get that none are taken seriously. I'd say there are hundreds of formal complaints every day for he/she didn't/did do this because i'm protestant/catholic. Motorists are a easy target to get numbers. On any given night unmarked traffuck branch cars out number marked cars 5-1 in my town. They jump on traffic related incidents and aren't really bothered with other crimes.
I.e if you get stopped for a defective car or a motoring offence you can expect 3 cop cars to land out and go though you and the car with a fine toothed comb.
Where as if its a normal crime I.e (and this is true example)
If you decide to rob a cash machine out of a wall with a digger and someone reports it WHILE you are doing it, the cops land out 9!!! hours later.

Psycho Warren

iTrader: (5)

They clearly have their priorities all fucked up