Police screw up. legal help please?

Iwantahouse_2

Have you visited the police station to request forms?

littlepockets

ben500 wrote: »

Ok now read my post again

Originally Posted by ben500
That's the second time I've seen the term "stealth tax" referred to, how on earth can this be considered a stealth tax? the money does not go to the public coffers, the government nor police gain any financial reward, it's an inconsequential loss that someone must bear, who should provide such a service free? The government (ie you in the form of taxes) the Police (ie you in the form of taxes) the criminal (most likely you in the form of benefit - deduction) or you as the individual who owns the vehicle, just remember if the burdon falls on the tax purse this would mean you as an individual paying MORE as you would have to bear the burdon incurred by all on a daily basis in the form of increased tax.

I can't explain it any simplier
- Previously nobody paid to have their vehicle recovered beacuse it was covered within the tax you paid under income tax/Council tax
- Now you have to pay the recovery company and through higher insurance
- You still pay the same if not more contribution through Income Tax/Council Tax
- check your council tax bill and tell me if the Police element has gone down ?

Also here a report from the Metropolitan Police
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/vres_monitoring_report.pdf
Note how vehicles recovered has risen by 1.3% but the income generated has increased 232%

Heres one that states its policy to generate income
http://www.met.police.uk/foi/pdfs/policies/vres_policy.pdf

DaveTurney go get your money back !!!

ben500

I'm clearly banging my head against a wall here as you refuse to or are incapable of understanding the basic principles of taxation.

filram

Getting back to the original question. the advice would have to be write a letter of complaint to the Chief Constable asking for a refund of the storage charges due to the fact that the vehicle was found before being reported stolen.

In many forces, when a vehicle is reported stolen the owner is advised at the time of reporting that the vehicle, when found, will be recovered to a Rota garage for preservation and examination. The owner is advised that this will be at their expense but that the amount should be recoverable under their own insurance. The owner has no choice in this.

Different forces have different recovery schemes. Some forces pay a nominal charge to their garages for recovery and others pay nothing.

littlepockets

ben500 wrote: »

I'm clearly banging my head against a wall here as you refuse to or are incapable of understanding the basic principles of taxation.

Read the article here on stealth tax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_tax

Example given
sale of licences for the use of blocks of transmission frequencies which were previously used for public services, such as April 2004 UK 3G auction,[10] which costs 3, Vodafone, BT, One2One and Orange a total of £22,447,400,000 which they recover (by stealth) from the consumer over the 20 year contract period

Ok so
the cost of recovering a stolen vehicle which was previously done as a public service and paid by taxation by a taxpayer
Now.....the cost of recovering now suffered by the victim
So where does the money the govt saves in getting the victim to pay go ?
It stays in the public coffer so you the taxpayer pays more

Still not clear how about this debate in Parliament
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmstand/a/st040127/pm/40127s12.htm

Probably explains why the Shadow Home Secretary / AA and the RAC refer to it as a stealth tax .....??

ben500

In Tony Blair's back pocket is it? Where do you think it is? It's still there in the public coffer being spent on something more worthwhile perhaps.

ringers

Little pockets, When was vehicle recovery done as a public service!!
You keep going on about it as though it has just become something the vehicle owner has to pay for. One of the documents you reference states that the current tariff was set in 1993!!! I don't know what the situation was before then, but I'm concerned that this has been a big issue with you since then!! That would explain your illogical ramblings.

Also In relation to the MET's increase in turnover .Neither of the documents make any comment on profit for the MET and the newer figures would have taken into account all the vehicles they seized under sect 165(i.e no insurance etc) that they couldn't legally have recovered before. Surely you agree that people with no insurance and disqual drivers etc pay for the recovery and storage of their vehicles.

littlepockets

ringers wrote: »

Little pockets, When was vehicle recovery done as a public service!!
You keep going on about it as though it has just become something the vehicle owner has to pay for. One of the documents you reference states that the current tariff was set in 1993!!! I don't know what the situation was before then, but I'm concerned that this has been a big issue with you since then!! That would explain your illogical ramblings.

Also In relation to the MET's increase in turnover .Neither of the documents make any comment on profit for the MET and the newer figures would have taken into account all the vehicles they seized under sect 165(i.e no insurance etc) that they couldn't legally have recovered before. Surely you agree that people with no insurance and disqual drivers etc pay for the recovery and storage of their vehicles.

Ringers
Prior to June 2000 - a person who had his vehicle stolen and returned did not have to pay £105. It was covered by the budget the Police received. So our taxes paid for it.

A bit like paying your Council Tax and having your bin collected.

After 2000, it was decided that if your car was stolen you paid £105
A bit like the Council saying if you want your bin collected you now pay £x

So you say hold on....but I pay my taxes why do I now have to pay separately to have my bin collected.

The Met wording is very clever - they don't say we make a profit what they say is the new scheme has "allowed us to stay in budget whilst meeting new demands"

ringers

June 2000 is still 7 years ago! Give it up, you are living in the past! surely the withdrawal of window tax has offset the loss in car recovery.

littlepockets

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

Well......its being discussed by the RAC/AA/IAM and the Shadow Home Secretary as far back as May 2007