Can I get a rebate on a car being impounded?

Chorlie

Again, I've never heard of a random spot check for drink driving on a Motorway; but he doesn't say what time of day he was stopped or how far he had driven since having his lunch time pint.

It could of been after 30mins and a mile down the road or it could of been 6hrs and 150miles later, if he was reading over the limit on the roadside, I just hope it was the former and not the latter.

slyracoon

You have to pay it. It dosen't matter that you weren't charged, you were supected of commiting a crime that needed investigation. Allowing you to make your own arrangements for recovery of the vechile would have delayed the investigation, leaving the vehicle there would have been a danger to other road users.

Your vechile will have been seized using powers granted by the Removal & Disposal of Vehicles regulations 1986, Road Traffic Act 1988 (S165), Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984, Criminal Proceedings and Investigations Act 1996 and Police Reform Act 2002 (S59), vechiles seized using these powers are subject to the payment of Statutory fees to the Chief Constable. Although collected by contractors on his/her behalf, all such fees must be accounted for to the Police Authority. Once such payment, or a genuine offer to pay, is made, the vehicle will be returned to the owner; or retention under these legislative provision will cease.

Lum

And this is what bothers me, it basically amounts to a fine purely for being suspected of something. It's wide open to abuse. Maybe not so much in this case but there have been plenty of other examples, mostly regarding the MIB database which is unfit for the purpose that the police use it for.

Trebor16

Lum wrote: »

And this is what bothers me, it basically amounts to a fine purely for being suspected of something. It's wide open to abuse. Maybe not so much in this case but there have been plenty of other examples, mostly regarding the MIB database which is unfit for the purpose that the police use it for.

It's not a fine though. It wouldn't be possible to leave the car on the hard shoulder so it has to be removed and of course there is a cost for this. To describe that as a fine is not accurate.

RichGold

Lum wrote: »

And this is what bothers me, it basically amounts to a fine purely for being suspected of something. It's wide open to abuse. Maybe not so much in this case but there have been plenty of other examples, mostly regarding the MIB database which is unfit for the purpose that the police use it for.

Wide open to abuse? Are you for real?

He failed a roadside breath test. The only person abusing anything here is the op abusing his right to drive.

Lum

RichGold wrote: »

Wide open to abuse? Are you for real?

He failed a roadside breath test. The only person abusing anything here is the op abusing his right to drive.

Did you actually read my post in it's entirety or stop at the quoted bit?

Immediately after the part you quoted I wrote "Maybe not so much in this case but there have been plenty of other examples...".

The reason I state that it's wide open to abuse is it provides a legal mechanism by which an unscrupulous police officer could cause an innocent person to suffer a financial penalty without any judicial process being involved.

Trebor16 wrote:

It's not a fine though. It wouldn't be possible to leave the car on the hard shoulder so it has to be removed and of course there is a cost for this. To describe that as a fine is not accurate.

Not technically a fine no, but it's a fee that you have to pay despite having committed no offence, just because the police screwed up. It's not your fault that the police chose to remove you from your car and thus needed to have it moved. If they're going to charge you for what is basically an operational cost they may as well charge you petrol money for the cost of taking you back to the station, or charge you board and lodging if you end up locked up for the night before the mistake is discovered.

maninthestreet

The alcohol in a pint of beer would take between 2 and 2.5 hours to be metabolised by the body. As the OP claimed they had drunk this pint of beer with their lunch, the food would have slowed down the absorption of alcohol, so it's difficult to see how they would have been over the drink-limit, assuming the breathalyser used was not faulty.

slyracoon

maninthestreet wrote: »

The alcohol in a pint of beer would take between 2 and 2.5 hours to be metabolised by the body. As the OP claimed they had drunk this pint of beer with their lunch, the food would have slowed down the absorption of alcohol, so it's difficult to see how they would have been over the drink-limit, assuming the breathalyser used was not faulty.

I reckon the OP had more than 1 pint. 1 pint with a meal is not enough to set off a road side meter.

I think the OP should take it on the chin and think himself lucky that his alcohol level subsided before he gave an evidential sample on the station machine.

mikey72

I think reading this you need decent advice, not a hanging by a kangeroo court.
Good job all the others on here trust the police, the justice system, and a small amount of electronics at the side of the road.

slyracoon

Lum wrote: »

And this is what bothers me, it basically amounts to a fine purely for being suspected of something. It's wide open to abuse. Maybe not so much in this case but there have been plenty of other examples, mostly regarding the MIB database which is unfit for the purpose that the police use it for.

Are you for real?

If anybody thinks they were wrongly arrested just because an officer wanted to seize their vechile and impose this financial penalty on them then I suggest they contact the Independent police complaints commission.