Police screw up. legal help please?

The insurer will pay. You of course, have to pay your excess first though. The small amount involved though would be lower than excess and the cost of increased insurance in future years would probably be higher than paying yourself.

Next people will be saying sue the police because they recovered it without the owners consent!

I'm quite shocked that the OP is unhappy with the police. They've done the right things. Your car was found quickly, and was safely stored until you could reclaim it.

All you need to do is claim your £105 back from your insurance company and if possibly claim your excess and any other losses back from the thief if they are caught.

If the excess is greater than £105, then that is the choice you took when you purchased your policy.

Your car was stolen. If the car had not been recovered, you'd be making a claim, be without a car and face the resulting costs of coping without it, and also paying your excess. You are lucky that the car has been recovered so quickly and that the police did a good job.

changkra wrote: »

In my area there was a write up in the local paper about a guy who was stopped and had his Caz checked etc. Anyway their computer said he didn't have insurance but he did, It was with the AA. Anyway the police towed his car away and charged him for storage which he refused to pay a he could prove he had insurance so they crushed it, and he was Left with no car. 30 days is the max i believe if you don't pay within 30 days they will crush your vehicle.

dunstonh wrote: »

The police are on dodgy grounds with that one. A small claims court claim action against them would have good chance of success. You cannot crush someone's car like that whilst a dispute is going on. Especially when they have impounded the car illegally. Failure of a computer system to show correct data is not an excuse.

If the vehicle was seized under section 165 A & B of the Road Traffic Act ie No insurance then all the owner would have had to do was attend a Police Station with his valid certificate of Insurance. There would be no dispute, he is either insured or he isn't - the certificate would be evidence that he is, end of story. Unless of course there is more to the story than meets the eye, a failed monthly payment direct debit can lead insurance companies to cancel a policy so although you would still be in possession of a certificate of insurance the policy would no longer be in existance and you wouldn't be covered.

I see your point about the database but does that mean that every driver who is driving around uninsured doesn't have their car seized as there might be an error on the database? I do feel sorry for the owner but the car needn't have been crushed, all he had to do was show his Insurance certifiacte within 14 days.

Edited to add:

I think the OP would probably receive less negative posts in response to his original post if he were to edit the title, it's not a 'Police screw up' it's what he deems to be an 'Unfair Police policy'.

derrick wrote: »

That still means the OP will pay as he will be claiming and his premiums will go up,(even with protected NCB), heads he loses, tails he loses.


Personaly I wolud take it up with the chief constable,(they wanted the car for finger prints without owners consent), and then if necessary sue in the small claim court

Personally if it was me, Id be so blooming pleased they got the car back for me Id be happy to pay £100 or my excess to get it back. Its a gamble you take when you put an excess on an Insurance policy. And Id be more than happy for them to do a SOC to try and get the person who took it. Sometimes the Police really cant win. If they dont recover things or make no attempt to trace the people responsible they get criticised, and now it seems when they do recover a stolen veh and try to get evidence, they still get criticised.

Small claims court? I cant believe people would think that way.

Cant the OP just appreciate hes got his car back?? If it had never been recovered hed have had to pay his excess anyway AND have the inconvenience of no car and waiting for the insurance to stump up for a replacement.