Police screw up. legal help please?

littlepockets

CopperPlate wrote: »

Why write to the CC? Just to make a complaint and make some poor cops life a misery? Cause unnecessary investigation into something which, clearly, was authorised by law and within the appropriate guidelines set down as far as recovery of a vehicle for forensic examination was concerned, in order to attempt to formally identify the 'thief' by fingerprint, obtain enough evidence to charge and report them. And what's with the writing to the MP?! What a waste of time, and what an arrogant and pompous gesture. 'I'm not happy with the Police finding my car before I noticed it had gone, I'm not happy with the fact they apprehended someone and now have taken my car into safe storage, and I'm not happy with them looking to now fingerprint it because I'm told I have to pay for the storage of the damned thing!'

The Police usually have a contract with local vehicle recovery firm who acts on their behalf in taking possession of vehicles in circumstances like this. They are the ones who bill the individual and the matter is between them and the car owner. It's not a case of the Police shopping around for the best offer each time they need a car recovered - they don't benefit financially from the service.

Good grief, the lengths some people will go to when they sense 'injustice', it makes you sick. And it makes you wonder why you bother. It really does.

Please read the artices below to understand the wider issues

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6315917.stm

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED10%20May%202007%2008%3A09%3A49%3A133

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=420126&in_page_id=35

Nobody is criticising the Police for their work in recovering a vehicle. What is being criticised is the procedures and costs once it is recovered

The letter to the CC is not to criticise the Police Officers involved but the procedure once a car is recovered

Its not just me that feels its an injustice Victim Support who deal with victims of crime day in day out feel it is unjust and the Home Office are reviewing the charges

A letter to the MP helps by highlighting the level of charges are excessive - if it costs £25 a day to park your car in a secure NCP car park - why does it cost £105 just because its been recovered

This is an extra tax not levied by the Police but by the Home Office hence writing to the CC and the MP highlights this and makes sure that the Police Authority and the Home Office appreciate the concerns

If you read the last article you will see that

1. Their is a proposal to increase this charge to £150 storage. A motorist who returns from a two-week holiday to discover his car was stolen on the first day will be hit with a bill for up to £430 - £150 for recovery, and as much as £280 for storage.

2. The typical insurance bill has rocketed to £550, in part due to these costs - so we all pay

3. "Kevin Delaney, a retired traffic officer and spokesman for the IAM Motoring Trust, an independent road safety organisation, said: 'It seems like profiteering unless there is a very good excuse for a £45 increase. 'Three people benefit from a car being towed away to safety - its owner, the police and the insurer. The problem is that only one person pays - the owner whose vehicle has been stolen. That cannot be right.'"

ringers

littlepockets wrote: »

A letter to the MP helps by highlighting the level of charges are excessive - if it costs £25 a day to park your car in a secure NCP car park - why does it cost £105 just because its been recovered

Littlepockets,

The recovery of the vehicle costs £105.
Storage cost's £12 a day, in a secured compound. Which when compared to the cost of a NCP is very good value.
You seem to have ruined your own argument!!

littlepockets

Yes point taken on quoting NCP

But you really need to read the last 3 points to understand what I'm saying

If you read the last article, in particular, you will understand the comments.

To give you another quote from the article - Paul Smith, of the Safe Speed motoring group, said: 'As victims of crime we expect support rather than a bill for our trouble. This is a stealth tax and is unnecessary

We all suffer as our insurance premiums increase

CopperPlate_2

littlepockets wrote: »

Please read the artices below to understand the wider issues

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6315917.stm

http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED10%20May%202007%2008%3A09%3A49%3A133

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/insurance/car-insurance/article.html?in_article_id=420126&in_page_id=35

Nobody is criticising the Police for their work in recovering a vehicle. What is being criticised is the procedures and costs once it is recovered

The letter to the CC is not to criticise the Police Officers involved but the procedure once a car is recovered

Its not just me that feels its an injustice Victim Support who deal with victims of crime day in day out feel it is unjust and the Home Office are reviewing the charges

A letter to the MP helps by highlighting the level of charges are excessive - if it costs £25 a day to park your car in a secure NCP car park - why does it cost £105 just because its been recovered

This is an extra tax not levied by the Police but by the Home Office hence writing to the CC and the MP highlights this and makes sure that the Police Authority and the Home Office appreciate the concerns

If you read the last article you will see that

1. Their is a proposal to increase this charge to £150 storage. A motorist who returns from a two-week holiday to discover his car was stolen on the first day will be hit with a bill for up to £430 - £150 for recovery, and as much as £280 for storage.

2. The typical insurance bill has rocketed to £550, in part due to these costs - so we all pay

3. "Kevin Delaney, a retired traffic officer and spokesman for the IAM Motoring Trust, an independent road safety organisation, said: 'It seems like profiteering unless there is a very good excuse for a £45 increase. 'Three people benefit from a car being towed away to safety - its owner, the police and the insurer. The problem is that only one person pays - the owner whose vehicle has been stolen. That cannot be right.'"

Forgive me if I don't trawl through the above links - I can see that one of them is from that bastion of balanced reporting, the Daily Mail, and anything that is printed on their site or in their paper is to be taken with a large pinch of salt. Likewise that other non-partisan public broadcaster which, recently sullied its copy books as far as HM went, the BBC. Sorry, but it's just another cause that makes headlines for the 'poor unjust' - or the poor unjust as far as the media goes. Yes, there is unjustness in that a victim has to foot the bill for the offences committed by the accused. That needs to be addressed, but the bottom line is the Police can't foot the bill - there is no easy, immediate way of getting round the problem that Forces don't have the capacity to store vehicles, the money to pay people to look after them in storage, and the private operators need to be paid sooner rather than later and not wait for insurance companies to wriggle out of it on some T&C point in the contract.

Writing to a CC will make little difference if the whole system of charging is government imposed - and frankly CC's have enough to be concerning themselves with without additional distractions of this type. Focus the attentions on MP's and local councillors who make up the Police Authorities/Boards and leave the cops to get on with an already difficult enough job.

ringers

Point 1. The increase of £45 for recovery. You will note in the articles that the original fees were set in 1993. There has not been a rise since. The costs of the recovery companies that the police use have been increasing all the time and have been eating into the profit. I would imagine that their percent profit has shrunk considerably. They are not charities and deserve to make some profit.

Point 2. Insurance always goes up, if it's not one thing it's another. Do you not think that insurance companies release news like this to justify their rate increases. The truth is less cars are being stolen due to better security, Less people are dying/being injured due to better safety measures. We should be paying less. Could this be propaganda?

Point 3. Mr Delaney, The good excuse might well be inflation!!!!

littlepockets

The Police Authority holds the CC to account so either way the CC has to deal with these issues which affect victims of crime.

You should read and understand the views of the various motoring organisations/ Victim Support who have much more first hand experience of this

I suppose the Poll Tax would still be with us if everyone just laid down into submission

littlepockets

ringers wrote: »

Point 1. The increase of £45 for recovery. You will note in the articles that the original fees were set in 1993. There has not been a rise since. The costs of the recovery companies that the police use have been increasing all the time and have been eating into the profit. I would imagine that their percent profit has shrunk considerably. They are not charities and deserve to make some profit.

Point 2. Insurance always goes up, if it's not one thing it's another. Do you not think that insurance companies release news like this to justify their rate increases. The truth is less cars are being stolen due to better security, Less people are dying/being injured due to better safety measures. We should be paying less. Could this be propaganda?

Point 3. Mr Delaney, The good excuse might well be inflation!!!!

The point is that these costs previously did not get charged to the victim who had his car/bike recovered.

So you still pay the same taxes through Income Tax & Council Tax to fund the Police
+ you pay a charge to recover your vehicle
+ you pay through higher insurance premiums

mjr600

Littlepockets I can't think of a nicer way to put it but I think you're a bit of a twit.

littlepockets

mjr600 wrote: »

Littlepockets I can't think of a nicer way to put it but I think you're a bit of a twit.

Apologies for holding a different opinion on these issues to yourself

CopperPlate_2

Everyone is entitled to their opinion - I think that everyone should perhaps stop and take a deep breath before it gets back to what it was like earlier in the thread. I think that there is more than one issue being merged together here. No-one is disputing that it is incredibly unfair for the victim to be a victim yet again and have to pay the fees demanded for release of their vehicle, etc. But carping to the Police isn't going to change that. The Police are not in a position to go and 'complain' to anyone, be that a Minister, Secretary, government or Scottish Executive/Welsh Assembly. The law is there and the various 'guidance' that emanates from Whitehall/Cardiff/Edinburgh ensures that the Police cannot just complain, change their minds and apply pressure. Remember the miners' strikes? How many cops didn't agree with what went on there - and how many of them were given a stark choice - do as you're told or you're out on your ear. In much the same way as this is unpalatable, the Police have no choice but to get on with it. I can't see any way that a CC will apply pressure to have this changed. It will probably not even register on the radar - given that, as has been pointed out, we have people in our midst that appear intent on blowing various parts of our country and its' inhabitants into the next world.