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

Tally-Ho_2

The reason Stolen Vehicles are recovered by a contractor to the police is down to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Guidleines. which state all stolen vehicle should be removed to a place of safety by an approved recovery operator. This is legislated for under Section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

There is further info about it and the reasons why stolen vehicles are recovered on this link for Wiltshire Police but it applies in England/Wales etc and most likely Scotland as well.

http://www.wiltshire.police.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=385&Itemid=291

If you google 'ACPO guidlines' and 'recovery of vehicles' most forces follow the same guidelines.

'So, basically blame ACPO (not the bobby on the ground!!).

Tally

stoneman

You must badger the police over this, it is scandalous that you are being charged so much money for the recovery. You are supposed to be asked by the old bill if you want it recovered if it is found and they did not do that. You might have had cover in your insurance for just such an incident, I know I have, specificly it says my company will pay up to £100 for recovery of my vehicle if it has been stolen (so that throws the argument of the car not being insured once it is stolen out of the window then). You might even have had RAC cover for the same event (I have that to) As in my previous post I stuck to my guns and got a result, they know they are in the wrong so make them admit to it. How on earth is it right that you have had your car not only stolen and probably wrecked, but then someone comes along and kicks you in the b****cks by wanting to hold you to ransom with the threat of a financial penalty or a CCJ if you don't bend over and take it like a man (all metaphors in the rant are assuming you are a man, my apologies if you are not)

stoneman

darich wrote: »

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.

WRONG, see above

Wig

darich wrote: »

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.

If the owner does not make a claim, the car remains the owners property. If the owner makes a claim, the car becomes the insurers property when the claim is settled, not before, a claimant can pull out of a claim at any time before settlement.

As already said a S165A seizure for no insurance can only take place if the car is seen (by a uniformed officer) being driven. so we know this does not apply. Some other user has since brought up RTRA 1984 S99.....Abandoned vehicles or vehicles permitted to remain....

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the removal of vehicles which have been permitted to remain at rest— (a) on a road in contravention of any statutory prohibition or restriction, or

(b) on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to cause obstruction to other persons using the road or as to be likely to cause danger to such persons, or

(c) on a road, or on any land in the open air, in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to appear, to an authority empowered by the regulations to remove such vehicles, to have been abandoned without lawful authority,

or which have broken down on a road.

(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) may provide, in the case of a vehicle which may be removed from a road, for the moving of the vehicle from one position on a road to another position on that or another road;

Subsection 4 says a notice must be fixed to the vehicle giving notice of it's intended removal, excluding subsection 1 a) & b). When it is a stolen vehicle, police would also be reasonably expected to notify the owner they found the vehicle and intend to recover it after the notice period.

Subsection 4 is basically saying IMHO that a vehicle having been stolen which is otherwise road legal and in a legal position, cannot be automatically lifted, that a notice period must be applied. Which is presumably why my force had as part of the "reporting car stolen paperwork" the question of what *I* wanted *them* to do if it was subsequently found in a safe position.

Subsection 1 b) refers to the car in a dangerous position - we can all agree that there could be such circumstances that automatic removal would be necessary, but Subsection 2 a) refers to regulations, which without reading them could be saying that rather than recovering the vehicle it may be moved from one position to another, so the recovery can be said to be not compulsory AFAICS.

1a) refers to recovering vehicles that have been permitted to remain at rest in contravention of prohibitions and restrictions. I am still not convinced this applies to suspecting there is no insurance in force because the police cannot just assume the car is not insured by virtue of the innaccurate MID, IMO they must have reasonable grounds to *believe* the car is not insured not assume but believe it to be, and with no RK around they have no-one to make those enquiries to. However in the event the car has been reported stolen, then the RK has not permitted it to remain, until he has been notified of its position and given a chance for it's removal. The law is unclear on what is meant by "permitted". Thankfully it appears my local police are willing (on paper at least) to give the owner the chance to recover the car if it is not insured. thus they are interpreting "permitted" as the RK permitting, rather than the pondscum permitting IYSWIM.

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.

Already disagreed with

If the car rolled down a hill and crashed into another car or a house, would the OP's policy be claimed?

Yes it would.

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.

If it appears to be in a safe spot and good condition, they have no grounds to remove it, especially if it is insured. If not insured then perhaps.... "permitted" argument above.

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?

I was talking about an uninsured car that was reported stolen as such and then a car not reported stolen but which appeared to be uninsured. I suiggest we let this drop as it is muddying the waters..

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.

agreed

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.

If the car is in safe position, there's no problem with notifying the owner. My police certainly told me that is exactly what they would do.

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.

Yes

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

Not at all.

DirectDebacle

The problem here is not with the police or recovery company who did their job. Stolen property was recovered and arrangements made for it to be stored safely on behalf of the owner.

The problem is with the OP. He owns a worthless vehicle and does not want to pay for its storage and disposal. He is required by law to have third party insurance to cover such eventualities, but for reasons of his own is not willing to claim. That being the case then his only correct option is to pay for it himself.

One analogy is that a shop window is smashed during the night. The police have no contactable keyholder so arrange for a boarding up service to attend to make the premises secure. The shop owner will receive a bill from the boarding up service and the shop owner will have the choice of paying the bill himself or claiming on insurance.

anewman

DirectDebacle wrote: »

One analogy is that a shop window is smashed during the night. The police have no contactable keyholder so arrange for a boarding up service to attend to make the premises secure. The shop owner will receive a bill from the boarding up service and the shop owner will have the choice of paying the bill himself or claiming on insurance.

Many shops have the number of a glass company in the window indicating they wish that company to be used in the event of breakage. A car does not have a sign in saying in the event of recovery after theft I wish to use RIP Off Tow and Stow Ltd.

Happychappy

Moon_Boi wrote: »

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

Wondered how long the !!!! would take to appear ? read it in the News of the World did you

DirectDebacle

anewman wrote: »

Many shops have the number of a glass company in the window indicating they wish that company to be used in the event of breakage. A car does not have a sign in saying in the event of recovery after theft I wish to use RIP Off Tow and Stow Ltd.

And many shops don't. The fact is the OP does not want to lose his NCD and it would seem is seeking ways of passing this cost on to others. It is unfortunate that victims of crime often suffer loss but it is a fact of life. The OP just needs to accept it. At least there is insurance to recompense him so might as well get some benefit from the premiums paid.

DirectDebacle

fred-1234 wrote: »

claim it back from where?

i wont be claiming on the insurance as the excess is more than the vehicle is worth lol

I agree with Conor. You need to calculate whether the recovery, storage and disposal costs of the vehicle plus the loss of NCD will be more than if you settle personally with the recovery firm. It may be you can negotiate a better price for this than your insurers.

Without the arrest and conviction of the thief then the costs have to be borne by you or your insurers.

DCFC79

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.

also how about have them clean up the roads or manual work whilst chained to each other like they do in america, might make them think twice about re-offending but then would it work,