questions about my stolen vehicle

Weird_Nev

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Police And Criminal Evidence act

Yeah, thanks for that.
It hasn't governed every day of my working life for the last decade in both Uniform and CID or anything

(see my post a couple above yours on page 2)

Jamie_Carter

I should think that this is a possible scenario that the police suspect:

• The OP wants to make a fraudulent claim
• The OP arranges for a friend to take the car while the OP is on holiday.
• The 'friend' takes the car as requested.
• In the meantime the OP reports the car stolen.
• The 'friend' decides to make a few extra quid by selling the car.
• The 'friend' gets caught by the police.
• The OP realises that the 'friend' didn't dispose of the car, and was trying to make a few extra quid. So to get themselves out of trouble for insurance fraud, they claim that the 'friend' has stolen the car.
• The OP then realises that his insurance had expired.

Now I hope that none of the above is true, but the police have suspicious minds, which is probably why they want to interview the OP again.

Weird_Nev

In which case one assumes they would have bothered to insure the car in the first place - and would know that being stolen with a key invalidates most insurance policies for theft.

Not sure about the value in a claim against a car worth very little when the excess would normally wipe that out any way. (speculation owing to being left in a field with a broken rear door)

You could speculate about a million scenarios. Only the OP knows the truth, as their eyes see it.

Jamie_Carter

Weird_Nev wrote: »

In which case one assumes they would have bothered to insure the car in the first place....

Some fraudsters are very intelligent.....but some aren't.

Weird_Nev wrote: »

You could speculate about a million scenarios. Only the OP knows the truth, as their eyes see it.

And to the police something probably doesn't ring true, which will be why they are still investigating.

smashingyour...

Weird_Nev wrote: »

And yet.... Any police officer can use PACE powers.
The big clue is in the first word: POLICE and Criminal Evidence Act.

CID being involved has no bearing on the powers under which the car will have been seized. If it is a stolen vehicle, taken into police possession as evidence then it is of no moment whether CID are involved or not. All officers are the same under PACE.

So you're saying cid recover vehicles under 99 and 165 are you?

Tilt

smashingyour... wrote: »

So you're saying cid recover vehicles under 99 and 165 are you?

How do you know the car wasn't originally stopped by a traffic car because it triggered the ANPR due to the lack of insurance?

After which, they would of seized it under sec 165 and during their enquiries they would of discovered that CID may be interested.

Weird_Nev

smashingyour... wrote: »

So you're saying cid recover vehicles under 99 and 165 are you?

I'm saying I think you need to check your FACTS before you come off spouting them on the internet.

Yes, CID often use those powers:
Sec 99 RTA gives the power to move a stolen vehicle to a place of safety.
Sec 165 RTA gives the power to seize uninsured vehicles

I've used both in my time as CID. PACE makes no distinction between CID and Any other Constable. It only makes distinction in powers between constables in uniform or not, none of which are relevant to this thread.

CID being involved has no effect on the powers under which the car will have been seized and retained by Police. None of which have any bearing on this thread anyway.

smashingyour...

Tilt wrote: »

How do you know the car wasn't originally stopped by a traffic car because it triggered the ANPR due to the lack of insurance?

After which, they would of seized it under sec 165 and during their enquiries they would of discovered that CID may be interested.

I don't.

But 165 doesn't give them the power to retain the vehicle. So they must be either using another power or unlawfully holding the vehicle. Either way the owner should not be liable for storage costs.

Rover_Driver

smashingyour... wrote: »

I don't.

But 165 doesn't give them the power to retain the vehicle. So they must be either using another power or unlawfully holding the vehicle. Either way the owner should not be liable for storage costs.

If it has been seized for no insurance or licence, they may be keeping it if there is a dispute about ownership.

S.165B, Road Traffic Act 1988 and The Police (Retention and Disposal of Motor Vehicles) Regulations 2002.

Tilt

smashingyour... wrote: »

I don't.

But 165 doesn't give them the power to retain the vehicle. So they must be either using another power or unlawfully holding the vehicle. Either way the owner should not be liable for storage costs.

Jesus! Is it just me or are you not gasping the possible scenario I am presenting?

Let's see if I can simplify it for you;
"Friend" takes car which is uninsured without consent.
"Friend" attempts to sell the car on but get stopped by traffic police who seize car under 165 for no insurance and is subsequently impounded.
During their enquiries, traffic police discover (or suspect) that "friend" is up to no good so refer the 'case' to CID who then decide that the car has possibly been involved in a crime so 'commandeer' it as evidence. So car is currently "helping police with their enquiries" and as such, cannot be released back to the 'owner'.

Now do you get it?