car stolen - trying to charge me even though i dont want it back!

anewman

darich wrote: »

Completely agree.

However, most pondscum are never captured and even the few who are have no means of paying.

Well if a big beating isn't legal, then maybe a few years in a prison. Oh yeah, and please make the food crap - and take away the pool table, sky TV, internet, games consoles etc away from the prison to make those years horrible.

Moon_Boi

Wig wrote: »

That's exactly it, stoneman, the police don't think with common sense, stolen car found on the side of the road, not causing any obstruction, the first thing they should do is contact the owner.

Most of the filth are on back handers from the recovery companies.

joannaemmas

Or they could have just left it there to be stolen again? If they had left it there they would surely have had to have left an officer there with it until you had picked it up? I can see it now...stolen car stolen again after being left! I'm presuming it was insecure and was probably rocovered for its own good!

Most people would be glad a good job had been done and it was located!

x_raphael_xx

If you're not fussed about getting the car back...why ring the police to claim it as stolen?

Thomas_Crown

Moon_Boi wrote: »

Most of the filth are on back handers from the recovery companies.

What a ridiculous thing to say. As has been previously stated in this thread, their are garages/recovery companies contracted to pick up stolen vehicles. Most of these companies also recover damaged vehicles following an accident that renders the vehicle undriveable.

The Police can't win, they get criticised if their agents recover the vehicle or the same if they leave the vehicle in situ & somebody causes further damage to it or steals it again. How many stolen cars left unsecured at the roadside get vandalised or set on fire & end up totally destroyed? Nationally, there must be hundreds every week.

darich

Wig wrote: »

I don't agree, if the car has a current policy covering it, it is covered, having been stolen or not. But, having said that, it becomes immaterial anyway. Even if it is not insured, the police have no right to seize the vehicle unless it is seen being driven. RTA S165A. Merely parked at the side of the road, does not allow seizure,

I don't think this is correct. Once the car is stolen it effectively becomes the property of the insurance company. The policy taken out would have been for a car owned/registered by the policy owner. So once the car is effectively transferred to the insurance, the policy is invalid.

And with the vehicle reported stolen, the police would then know it is uninsured. They would have every right to remove it from the public highway. If the car rolled down a hill and crashed into another car or a house, would the OP's policy be claimed? The police remove the stolen uninsured vehicle for the safety of other road users since the police don't know what mechanical condition the car is in.

Wig wrote: »

all they could do would be to require the RK to provide evidence of insurance within 7 days. However in the event the car was reported stolen, the RK would have commited no offence unless the RK allows the car to remain in a public place for an unreasonable amount of time after having it's location made known to him/her.

Once again the insurance has lapsed since the ownership of the car has been transferred leaving the RK with no valid insurance to produce. Secondly, if the RK does have insurance and the car is on the public road what offence is committed by leaving the car parked up?

Wig wrote: »

The only exception AFAIK is if the car is in a dangerous or obstructive position, but even then I'm not sure they would be allowed to remove it completely if it was practicable to just move it a short distance to a safe position, providing it's not in a dangerous condition of course

If the car is in a dangerous position then the police will move it - forcibly if necessary. Highly unlikely they would drive it (although not unknown) given they would have no idea what mechanical condition it was in.

Wig wrote: »

I think there is room for the OP challenge the police that he was not asked to consent to the vehicle removal, assuming it was in an otherwise safe place and condition.

The police priority in the case of recovering a stolen car is the safety of other road users, not whether someone will complain about a storage bill. If the car is uninsured on a public road and known to be stolen then the police will be required by law to remove it to ensure the safety of other road users since the mechanical condition is unknown. They won't phone the RK and ask if it can be removed and if so when.

The size of the bill for storage could be argued but whose fault would it be if it was your car and it was left by the police after telling and was then responsible for damage to property (or worse)? According to you it would be your fault since it's your car and your insurance is still in place. how the car got there is immaterial - it's your insurance.

Once reported stolen the insurance is cancelled and the police would have removed the vehicle on the grounds of safety.

darich

anewman wrote: »

Well if a big beating isn't legal, then maybe a few years in a prison. Oh yeah, and please make the food crap - and take away the pool table, sky TV, internet, games consoles etc away from the prison to make those years horrible.

Having been the victim of one car theft, another attempted theft and several breakins i would take great delight in dishing out whatever punishment i could think of to the scum who take other's property because they're simply too lazy to work for their own.

Locked up and the key thrown away would work for me. Would also be cheaper since they'd starve in a few days and would be cheaper than Sky, pool tables etc!!

hewhoisnotintheknow

i can understand it being annoying having to paying for it, but saying they didnt ask does not really work

Imagine if you wanted the car back but they had to wait until they had contacted you, what if you were on holiday, would you want your car sitting dumped somewhere with the doors open etc attracting all the scum bags?

anewman

£150 plus £12 a day storage is hardly a reasonable price for the service you didn't ask for anyway. What's the actual costs involved?

A tow truck goes to pick up a car. Doubtful the entire thing takes over an hour for them to leave the compound and bring it back - so one hours wages £10 say for argument's sake. Fuel cost £10. Tow truck purchase, plus wear and tear £30. Some paper work in the office taking 10 minutes £2. So £52 actual cost with conservative estimates, I make that £98 profit for one tow. And how much would the land cost to rent?! Probably not more than the £20,000 they'd be asking for to store 4 cars.

The £12 a day is just their way of rubbing the salt in the wounds. These people are obviously making lots of money from the "service" they provide.

Seems quite similar to the private parking companies slapping a £60 charge on windscreens when people are 1 minute longer than they should be. Unfortunately it seems you can't ignore these costs like you can private parking charges though.

vix2000

This recently happened to a friend of mine. The police told her the company demanding the money for storing the stolen vehicle was nothing to do with them. However the company kept telling her they WERE the police!!!!! Anyway, to cut a very long story short, she got extremely upset at this disgusting practice of charging victims of crime rediculous amounts to reclaim their stolen property, (could only happen here though couldn''t it) and she said that out of principle she would rather go to court than to be ripped off by these robbers. As she stood outside crying with frustration a very nice man came out and said if she repeated it he'd deny it but they don't take anyone to court. Maybe they know that if they did, and someone like Martin got on the case, they'd lose the goose that lays the golden egg???? And I also can't believe there are people on here who think this practice is fair.