Police screw up. legal help please?

derrick

ringers wrote: »

Derrick, I think you need to get over this consent issue. The police don't need consent, they will be protected by legislation,it might be the Hackney carriage act of 1765 or some other long forgotten act, but they will still be covered by it. If they weren't they would be breaking the law and some bright spark human rights lawyer would have already sued.

Are you implying the police never break the law? if you are, then you need to wake up and smell the roses, they are the biggest lawbreakers in the country, with no one to prosecute them, just try accusing them of an offence, they close ranks like nobodies business and try to make you feel like the criminal.

rosysparkle

The people that took the car without consent were the thieves that stole it in the first place. The police are obliged to remove and store an abandoned car (and a stolen car is by definition abandoned by the thieves, cf the court case above).

The OP can claim on his insurance or not, if he does he'll pay higher premiums, if he doesn't he'll have to pay himself. If the thieves are caught and convicted he can pursue them for his losses.

derrick

rosysparkle wrote: »

The people that took the car without consent were the thieves that stole it in the first place. The police are obliged to remove and store an abandoned car (and a stolen car is by definition abandoned by the thieves, cf the court case above).

Open to interpretation, another judge might have said differently:-

13. and while I, for my part, would not necessarily endorse the judge's
conclusion that in every case where there has been a theft it would be right to say that it will have appeared reasonable to a police constable that the vehicle has been abandoned,

I have cherry picked that quote, but it does disprove what you imply.


As far as I can gather it was not parked illegally and was not causing an obstruction, the police moved it for their own ends and as such should pay the recovery fee.

ringers

derrick wrote: »

they are the biggest lawbreakers in the country,

Sweeping statement and i'm sure you will be able to provide evidence to back it up.

derrick

ringers wrote: »

Sweeping statement and i'm sure you will be able to provide evidence to back it up.

Just personal experience

rosysparkle

derrick wrote: »

The post you elude to (#44), is not the same, the claimant was not the owner of the car and that was the main reason the claim failed,(that post should not have been on this thread for that reason, it is not relevant). Plus a different judge in a different court with a different mind and the same set of circumstances, could easily come to a different conclusion.

Not quite. The post to which I alluded made it clear that the first reason for dismissing the appeal was that the police had acted lawfully.

The recorder gave two reasons for dismissing Mr. Clarke's application. First of all, he said that the car had been abandoned by the thieves of the car, and thus the police had acted within section 99 and regulation 4 of the 1986 regulations.

ringers

Derrick, I think any police officer will tell you the days of closing ranks has long gone. If you step over the line the professional standards dept will hang you out to dry!!

mjr600

I'm guessing Derrick has been locked up at some time and he's bitter and twisted with 'the man'

derrick

rosysparkle wrote: »

Not quite. The post to which I alluded made it clear that the first reason for dismissing the appeal was that the police had acted lawfully.

And disproved by ringers post #106

4.1. of the Gwent policy states
" Recovery of vehicles using statutory powers will not become a financial liability for Gwent police. Vehicles recovered for evidential purposes will create a liability"

So if they recover a vehicle for fingerprinting etc they pay!! If it's for an obstruction etc you pay!!

derrick

ringers wrote: »

Derrick, I think any police officer will tell you the days of closing ranks has long gone. If you step over the line the professional standards dept will hang you out to dry!!

Yes of course they will


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: