questions about my stolen vehicle

Oli.s

Sounds like there is an ownership dispute. Your mate says he had your permission to sell it they don't believe you fully that he didnt. The buyer is laying claim to it as a legitimate purchaser.

There is no way on earth the police only still have it because it was stolen, cars are rarely kept as exhibits, save the most serious cases.

Imagine the number of cars stolen recovered every day? Multiply that by the number of days, month, years it can take for cases to get to court, the police would need storage space the size if London to keep them all.

They would have done the forensics, done the photos and given in back within weeks.

Everything is pointing to an ownership dispute. They won't risk giving it back to you before they have sought advice from their legal dept, who will likely wait to see how the investigation pans out.

Also, the police don't routinely pay for the recovery and storage of stolen vehicles, well not in my area anyway, the owner should be told at the time of reporting that they will be liable for the recovery and storage of the vehicle at the time of reporting it stolen. A record of them being advised of this is kept. If you weren't told this and their is no record of them telling you on the crime report or incident log you'll likely be able to get them to pay.

They insurance co then usually pick up the bill. Other forces may be different, I only know this is the West Yorkshire policy. Stolen vehicles aren't regarded as being used in crime, they are the property stolen as a result of a crime. Unless of course they are then subsequently used in a crime!

smashingyour...

Tilt wrote: »

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?

I feel you're to one not getting it. By commandeer I take it you mean held under PACE and not the steak and kidney pie act?

smashingyour...

Oli.s wrote: »

Sounds like there is an ownership dispute. Your mate says he had your permission to sell it they don't believe you fully that he didnt. The buyer is laying claim to it as a legitimate purchaser.

There is no way on earth the police only still have it because it was stolen, cars are rarely kept as exhibits, save the most serious cases.

Imagine the number of cars stolen recovered every day? Multiply that by the number of days, month, years it can take for cases to get to court, the police would need storage space the size if London to keep them all.

They would have done the forensics, done the photos and given in back within weeks.

Everything is pointing to an ownership dispute. They won't risk giving it back to you before they have sought advice from their legal dept, who will likely wait to see how the investigation pans out.

Also, the police don't routinely pay for the recovery and storage of stolen vehicles, well not in my area anyway, the owner should be told at the time of reporting that they will be liable for the recovery and storage of the vehicle at the time of reporting it stolen. A record of them being advised of this is kept. If you weren't told this and their is no record of them telling you on the crime report or incident log you'll likely be able to get them to pay.

They insurance co then usually pick up the bill. Other forces may be different, I only know this is the West Yorkshire policy. Stolen vehicles aren't regarded as being used in crime, they are the property stolen as a result of a crime. Unless of course they are then subsequently used in a crime!

I think you'll find the police do pay, even if you are asked to pay, just pay the recovery on day one and that is the end of your costs until it's released.

Oli.s

smashingyour... wrote: »

I think you'll find the police do pay, even if you are asked to pay, just pay the recovery on day one and that is the end of your costs until it's released.

The police will pay up until the point it is released is authorised by them.

Oli.s

Chapter 4 Vehicle crime
All reported stolen vehicles if found, apparently abandoned, will be recovered by West Yorkshire Police to a place of safety and the cost will be borne by the owner or their insurers. Owners reporting their vehicle stolen must not be offered the option of recovering the vehicle themselves if it is found abandoned.
This is to prevent the found vehicle being further:  used in crime;
 re-stolen;
 subject to vandalism; or
 becoming a danger to the public.
The recovery also provides an opportunity for us to forensically
examine the recovered vehicles and increase detection rates. Officers must be aware that this Policy Guidance relates only to the
recovery of vehicles which have been stolen AND then abandoned.
Note: If an owner locates their own vehicle, or is present at the time of recovery, we may ask their consent to recover it for examination and, unless this can take place on their own premises, there will still be a recovery/storage charge to pay by the owner or their insurer.

Stolen vehicle
Introduction
When a stolen vehicle is found, the police may remove the vehicle at the owner’s expense for the following reasons:
 to safeguard public safety;
 to safeguard the vehicle; or
 for examination or identification purposes.
When a vehicle is retained in these circumstances, the owner or their
insurer is responsible for the recovery charge.
Note: West Yorkshire Police will pay the storage charges incurred up to completion of the examination by a vehicle examiner when vehicles have been recovered for this purpose.

Taken from http://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/files/policies/vehicle_recovery_scheme.pdf

Lagoon

ian_cromwell wrote: »

i love the way people on forums try to be find flaws and buts in everybody's posts

for the record i lost my job not being able to travel up and down the country and the car was not insured as it expired 3 days before my holiday therefore no insurance on it whilst on holiday and car was stolen

anything else detective?

Just a few: Why wasn't your insurance renewing automatically? Why not renew it when it needed it? Was it declared off road with SORN?

I agree - I think I'd be questioning an unlocked car with the key inside, taken whilst on a holiday. All sounds very convenient.

colino

Insurance companies wont be auto renewing this year. Changes in the law in April means they have to specifically ask, or draw customers attention to questions and get their confirmation they have noted them, to issues they will in the future deem to be material. No more turning down claims because of assumed knowledge.

smashingyour...

Weird_Nev wrote: »

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.

I'd suggest you speak to your vehicle recovery manager re who pays.

JimmyTheWig

Lagoon wrote: »

Just a few: Why wasn't your insurance renewing automatically? Why not renew it when it needed it?

Why (without the benefit of hindsight) insure it for, say, two weeks when it isn't needed?
Maybe the OP, or other named driver, turned a milestone age (e.g. 25) while on holiday in which case it would be cheaper to insure when they got back?

Was it declared off road with SORN?

Good question.

I agree - I think I'd be questioning an unlocked car with the key inside, taken whilst on a holiday. All sounds very convenient.

I also agree. Plus the fact the story emerged on here in dribs and drabs - makes you wonder what they are trying to hide.

Weird_Nev

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Why (without the benefit of hindsight) insure it for, say, two weeks when it isn't needed?

Because it's a legal requirement unless the vehicle is SORN?