Can I get a rebate on a car being impounded?

sarahg1969

Try here for some advice, OP:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=5

This is not the right place to come for advice on such matters.

sarahg1969

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Bearing in mind that the amount of alchol in your system is reducing all the time, it is highly likley you gave a positive indication at the roadside and were under the limit by the time you got to the police station.

It goes up before it comes down. None of us knows what the first and second readings were, how long after the drink the OP was initially breathalysed, and ultimately, if he was just lucky or if there was a fault with the first test.

pendulum

I'd be pushing for the costs back as well. You were proven to be under the limit when subjected to a reliable breath test. Having a pint with dinner is not a crime and you shouldn't be penalised for it. You were released without charge and so should your car be. If your evidential breath test reading was only marginally under the limit it might reduce your arguing power though.

Lum

Thing is, this doesn't just happen for drink driving. We had this after a local gang of criminals smashed up my GFs car* after she arrived home late and interrupted them attempting to steal my car.

Both cars got impounded, insurance paid the impound fees for mine, but the other car was just a cheap banger insured 3rd party TPFT, cost us £175 to get the thing out and assess if it was worth repairing.

I'm convinced it's just another scam to get money out of you. The impound fees were the largest single financial expense of that whole nasty incident. The impound companies also love to use every trick in the book to refuse you access to your car and thus get another days storage fees out of you.

* Actually my spare car as hers was in for some work

RichGold

vax2002 wrote: »

What offence ?

Drink driving. He failed at the roadside, its just pure luck he was sober by the time they got him to the station.

Come on Vax, you must know they didn't take him there for a laugh.

fivetide

sarahg1969 wrote: »

It goes up before it comes down. None of us knows what the first and second readings were, how long after the drink the OP was initially breathalysed, and ultimately, if he was just lucky or if there was a fault with the first test.

Tell us, random spot check on the motorway? Really?

You are right we don't know the readings but given the danger of pulling up on the hard shoulder the Police do not do random stop checks on the motorway. Therefore something about the OP's car or driving made plod want a word with them.

I still say there is more to it than the OP is letting on.


5t.

Trebor16

pendulum wrote: »

I'd be pushing for the costs back as well. You were proven to be under the limit when subjected to a reliable breath test. Having a pint with dinner is not a crime and you shouldn't be penalised for it. You were released without charge and so should your car be. If your evidential breath test reading was only marginally under the limit it might reduce your arguing power though.

The legal limit for alcohol in the breath is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath but some forces won't charge unless the lower reading given is 40 or above. It might be that the OP was in between 35 and 39 and the force policy is not to charge if under 40.

The fact is the roadside breathalyser showed he was over the limit. This then allows the test on the evidential machine back at the station which is what is relied on in court.

There may have been a delay in between the roadside test and the test at the station which could account for the OP blowing under on the evidential machine.

By the way, having a pint with dinner is a crime if it puts a person over the drink drive limit and they then go and drive. What it demonstrates is that all the talk about being able to drink so many units of alcohol before being over the limit is subject to so many variables that the only 100% sure fire way of knowing you are under the limits is not to have an alcoholic drink.

pendulum

Trebor, if you read the OP he says it was proven he was under the legal limit. That rules out being over the limit but under the prosecution threshold. Failing the roadside breath test means nothing as it is a device to give a rough indication - they can be unreliable. There is no evidence he committed an offence thus he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

Trebor16

pendulum wrote: »

Trebor, if you read the OP he says it was proven he was under the legal limit. That rules out being over the limit but under the prosecution threshold. Failing the roadside breath test means nothing as it is a device to give a rough indication - they can be unreliable. There is no evidence he committed an offence thus he is innocent in the eyes of the law.

The OP said it was proven he was "under the limit" but he isn't anymore specific than that. Until he comes back and tells us the readings and how long between the roadside breath test and the breath test at the station then all we can do is speculate.

The fact remains he failed a roadside breath test which gave the officer the evidence he needed at the roadside to arrest the OP and take him to the station for the test on the evidential machine.

duchy

Wow tough crowd !

I don't drink so it's not something I'd need to worry about but
bearing in mind in the UK legal system (if not this thread) we work under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty I'd expect there to be some recourse.
Interesting question.