Police screw up. legal help please?

derrick · 13 July 2007 at 3:05PM

starlight_xx wrote: »

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

Why not

that is what it is there for, to be used

ringers · 13 July 2007 at 3:20PM

derrick wrote: »

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

I think the police would use the defence of lawful excuse in any court case. As has been previously mentioned the police have a duty to protect property.

Secondly. The aggrieved has reported the vehicle as stolen and obtained a crime number(without which he wouldn't be able to claim on his insurance at all). On reciept of the report the police are then duty bound to invetigate the offence to the best off their ability. Surelythe reporting of the crime implies consent for removal.

derrick · 13 July 2007 at 3:30PM

ringers wrote: »

I think the police would use the defence of lawful excuse in any court case. As has been previously mentioned the police have a duty to protect property.

Personally I would still do it, nothing ventured nothing gained

Surely the reporting of the crime implies consent for removal.

Can't see how, is everything reported as stolen removed to a secure facility with a hefty fee to get it back? No, it is just the motorist again being taken for a costly ride!

.................

ringers · 13 July 2007 at 3:38PM

The link below is to Gwent police vehcile recovery policy, unfortunatley Northumbria don't post thers on the net, (I can't find it anyway). I assume Northumbria will have a policy and should let you view it, if not you can apply under the freedom of information act.

http://www.gwent.police.uk/documents/f_o_i/policies/Vehicle_Recovery_Policy.pdf

4.1. of the Gwent policy states
" Recovery of vehicles using statutory powers will not become a financial liability for Gwent police. Vehicles recovered for evidential purposes will create a liability"

So if they recover a vehicle for fingerprinting etc they pay!! If it's for an obstruction etc you pay!!

I assume you will be liable for charges for storage from the time they have completed the fingerprinting and have informed you that it is ready for collection.

As all the police forces of England and Wales are bound by the same legislation, Northumbria should have a similar policy.

starlight_xx · 13 July 2007 at 3:38PM

derrick wrote: »

Why not that is what it is there for, to be used

For claims like this? People should be ashamed of themselves. Id hope a claim like that would be thrown out on its ear.

Isnt that what we have Insurance for... as I said the Police cant win, damned if they do, damned if they dont :rolleyes:

ringers · 13 July 2007 at 3:41PM

I know my last two post seem somewhat contradictory, It's amazing what 18 minutes of research can do!!!

However I still think the critisism of the police is unfounded and unnecessary.

derrick · 13 July 2007 at 3:50PM

starlight_xx wrote: »

For claims like this? People should be ashamed of themselves. Id hope a claim like that would be thrown out on its ear.

Isnt that what we have Insurance for... as I said the Police cant win, damned if they do, damned if they dont :rolleyes:

We pay the police to do a duty, they are split into divisions, this would have come under car crime/robbery,so would be pursed by traffic or CID so why to all intents and purposes pay twice?

Yes but the police compounded the offence in my opinion by removing the vehicle thus incurring the OP costs,(insurance excess at least which wouldn't be payable if the police did not, at their discretion, take the car), and according to ringers post above,#106, they are liable as they took it,(without consent), for fingerprinting.

rosysparkle · 13 July 2007 at 3:51PM

I wouldn't throw away the court fees on a surefire loser. IMO the OP has no chance of succeeding in small claims - it's clear from the citation of Mr Clarke's appeal (on a previous page of this thread) that the courts do not consider this fee unlawful.

ringers · 13 July 2007 at 3:58PM

Derrick, I think you need to get over this consent issue. The police don't need consent, they will be protected by legislation,it might be the Hackney carriage act of 1765 or some other long forgotten act, but they will still be covered by it. If they weren't they would be breaking the law and some bright spark human rights lawyer would have already sued.

derrick · 13 July 2007 at 4:02PM

rosysparkle wrote: »

I wouldn't throw away the court fees on a surefire loser. IMO the OP has no chance of succeeding in small claims - it's clear from the citation of Mr Clarke's appeal (on a previous page of this thread) that the courts do not consider this fee unlawful.

The post you elude to (#44), is not the same, the claimant was not the owner of the car and that was the main reason the claim failed,(that post should not have been on this thread for that reason, it is not relevant). Plus a different judge in a different court with a different mind and the same set of circumstances, could easily come to a different conclusion.

Police screw up. legal help please?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free