Police screw up. legal help please?

starlight_xx

Sounds like each Force has its own rules. The force I work for has clear guidelines. If a car is found and confirmed as stolen then officers will standby it until we contact the owner. If its been reported stolen, we'll have contact numbers from the crime report. if we cant reach them, then the vehicle is removed to a local garage for security, as we cant find it, leave it and risk it being stolen again. When the owner is contacted they get the option of going to collect the car, arranging their own removal or us doing it for them. If its just a basic SOC and the owner is coming to get their car, the SOC is done there and then.

The garages we use will often release the car to the owner and settle the bill later - normally via the Insurance. Has it been confirmed that the OPs insurance WONT foot this bill??

If the OPs car was reported stolen at the time it was found Id certainly be asking WHY they didnt contact him prior to the removal. Im assuming it was a basic SOC not a major one that they were doing on it?

As I said tho, sounds like it varies from Force to Force.

derrick

Assuming the OP is in England,the last 2 posts are from Scotland, that will have different rules

Using insurance will surely cost the excess, so a cost to the victim regardless.

hollie.weimeraner

derrick wrote: »

Assuming the OP is in England,the last 2 posts are from Scotland, that will have different rules

Using insurance will surely cost the excess, so a cost to the victim regardless.

All UK Police have a duty to protect life and property. It is one of the main parts of the attestation when we join. Based on this fact a number of forces now operate differing systems. Some will try and contact the owners to come and collect (bearing in mind with this option they will lose any forensic evidence that may be available) or as already discussed they appoint an approved garage to collect the vehicle and recover it for forensic examination. Unfortunately this cost is then passed on to the victim, assuming they have insurance. The part where this falls down is those that do not have insurance or are not covered for theft or where the cost of recovery exceeds the value of the vehicle. Unfortunateey no system is perfect and I for one have stood by stolen vehicles in excess of 2 hours waiting for owners to turn out to make recovery in order to ensure the car is not stolen again.

So all in all the main crux of the matter is that phrase "protection of life and property"

daveturney

woah...so i left this post for a cpl of days, and i cme back to this.
so ill add a few points
1) to all the negative comments. Thanks for being so supportive, as i shall repeat myself, we are all on a site that encourages us to take the banks to court for £???'s a day. with no leglal precedent...
2) more info...i had a steering lock, but the thieves buckled the steering wheel to release the lock.
3) the car is registerd to the house we live in, and we were at home at all time they could of contacted me.

In all replys to my post, answer me this....i am a victim, i pay my taxes, work 2 jobs, pay my bills, have no criminal record, an dam the victim of crime.
i) as a victim, should i have to pay?
ii) is this fair ( please, no "lifes not fair" replys)
iii) (if not fair ), there is something seriouslly wrong with our way of life/government?
iv) why the hell should i not be trying to seek help with not paying this £105.
v) say for example, next election The lib dems come to power, and abolish this £105 ruling that the VICTIM has to pay. this ruling regarding the recovery of the car and subsequent cost, is only that , a ruling, nothing states its right or wrong, rules are sometimes wrong, rules need changing/updating......may the insurance companies are wrong to up my premium.

I am the victim, regardless of what any negative person on this forum has to say, you cannot change the fact the the victim, should NOT have to pay for being the victim of crime ( should have to pay intaxes ).

so now i am lost at who i should blame ( apart fromt he victim )
a) the police
b) the law
c) the govermnet
d) insurance company

just to add....why doesnt the police have their own lockup to store vehicles. Surely this would save the police time/money in travel expences.

i could ramble all day, so thank you to the positive replys and advice.

i expect where i come back to this thread i will have 3 more pages of "opinions" to read.
thankyou

Andy_L

daveturney wrote: »

just to add....why doesnt the police have their own lockup to store vehicles. Surely this would save the police time/money in travel expences.

They've been sold off & the service contracted out because, as everyone knows, the private sector can provide a cheaper/better/faster service than the public sector.:rolleyes:

dunstonh

i) as a victim, should i have to pay?

As a taxpayer, should I pay for you?

ii) is this fair ( please, no "lifes not fair" replys)

Yes. It is one of the consequences of owning a car and it is why we have car insurance.

iii) (if not fair ), there is something seriouslly wrong with our way of life/government?

Yes there is. The Govt spends too much time on things which are not it's business and ignores things which it should be involved with.

iv) why the hell should i not be trying to seek help with not paying this £105.

why the hell should anyone else pay your bill? Personally I would like to see the criminals pay more for their crimes as it would act as a deterrent and allow the victim to recover their costs.

v) say for example, next election The lib dems come to power

No point turning it into a fairytale.

I am partly playing devils advocate here but one way or another you end up paying for it. If the police pay it, then taxes go up. If insurance pay it, insurance goes up. If someone does something, then it has to be paid for somewhere. If you cannot afford the consequences of actions which you take or a third party takes against you, then you have insurance available for it. If you cannot afford it, then buy a cheaper car.

just to add....why doesnt the police have their own lockup to store vehicles. Surely this would save the police time/money in travel expences.

And who would pay for the staffing of that lockup? who would buy the land and pay for the buildings?

mjr600

"so now i am lost at who i should blame"

well since the act which caused the theft could be considered evil you could start with El Diablo.

Rather than apportion blame and since you clearly feel so strongly about the incident do something positive.

Say thank you to the officers for finding the car, be thankful that when things like this happen there are good people about who try and prevent bad things happening. Accept that the world is not perfect and that sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, do your bit locally by becoming a Police Volunteer, a Special Constable or set up a neighbourhood watch.

As I have previously indicated it is with regret that your posts mirror a greater swing in British society at failing to take responsibility and seeking to apportion blame.

Break that chain and move on.

Jennifer_Jane

daveturney wrote: »

In all replys to my post, answer me this....i am a victim, i pay my taxes, work 2 jobs, pay my bills, have no criminal record, an dam the victim of crime.
i) as a victim, should i have to pay?
ii) is this fair ( please, no "lifes not fair" replys)

I am the victim, regardless of what any negative person on this forum has to say, you cannot change the fact the the victim, should NOT have to pay for being the victim of crime ( should have to pay intaxes ).

so now i am lost at who i should blame ( apart fromt he victim )
a) the police
b) the law
c) the govermnet
d) insurance company

---

Hi - I actually totally agree with the above. But you haven't given as an option the real people responsible for this charge - the thieves. You say Police have fingerprinted the car. Have they found those responsible?

Unfortunately I think this is highly unlikely - and getting anything out of the thieves even more difficult, but they are the culprits and are therefore responsible for this cost.

If you had not got your car back you would still have had to claim on your insurance losing your excess and no claims to get a replacement. So unfortunately, it's the bad luck you have had, which is what insurance is for. Presumably you also need to pay for repairs to the car, so if you are claiming for that then your no claims is gone - UNLESS, of course, you have a no-claims protection on your motor insurance (I don't, so not being 'holier than thou').

I do feel for you - I wouldn't want to be paying £105 for someone else's wrongdoing.

Regards
Jen x

ben500

"Hello South Wales police"

"Hello help me please I'm upstairs in my bedroom and there are burglars downstairs ransacking my house they say if I come out of the room they'll stab me"

"Ok don't panic we will send an officer around as soon as one is available"

"As soon as one is available? WHAT DO YOU MEAN?"

"I MEAN MADAM THAT ALL OUR AVAILABLE OFFICERS ARE CAR SITTING IT IS SATURDAY NIGHT YOU KNOW!! PERHAPS YOU COULD GET SOMEONE TO STEAL A CAR AND PARK IT ON YOUR DRIVEWAY, IN WHICH CASE WE'LL BE AROUND IN FIVE MINUTES WITH SOME SANDWICHES A PACK OF CARDS AND A FLASK"


Me, I'd cough up and move on, maybe look around the house for some junk to sell on ebay to recoup the costs, a good place to start would be the crooklock!!

digp

RFLOL - so true, ben500.