charged for recovery on stolen vehicle

[ste.s]

well the latest update the police sargent tried saying im having to pay so i said ok im instructing my solicitor to fill paper work in court,she then said that she needs to check with her boss regarding the law as she said it was a section 19 pace,i said it was 20 she had no clue the recovery company has lowered ther fee to £230 still ill keep up the fight.

i spoke to my solicitor regarding filling for a judical reveiw he said yes no problem and asked me were i found out about this so i told him the guys at the consumer action group helped me as i needed advise quickly.

update u all soon keep up the good work

[cactuskid]

you are lucky that you have a solicitor to do all the paper work for this and push a judicial review through. Most people in your situation are left to deal with the slow civil courts. The police are very clever in that the charges start at £150 where as the initial solicitor costs to contest the seizure are normally £200. Psychologically it makes people pay up!

 

Judicial Review is the first place to go if you have any quarms with any public authority. You may also be able to raise the point about your initial arrest and the circumstances surrounding that too!

 

My prediction is that as soon as the police get the JR summons, you will have your van hand delivered to you with a letter of apology. They really hate judicial reviews that much, it exposes their corrupt ways in a very humiliating and efficient manner

 

Chris

[ste.s]

well im having to go down the lines of the solicitors for the jr sommons,well i gave greater manchester police the chance but the say it is there policy to charge the owner

[cactuskid]

Their policy is not law

[cactuskid]

I have just discovered that the police are required to make you aware of your right to make representation (and adjudication) regarding recovery fees. I assume that they did not do this in your case?

Part 4 (11/2)

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007

 

Chris

[Notmo]

I'm another person who is being charged for recovery of a stolen bike less than 1/4 mile from my house.

 

I really don't know what to do, the charges are currently £270, and my insurance excess is £250.

 

I have absolutely no idea what to do.

 

I have no money and the bike is not worth that much money.

 

Please help?

 

Robin

[cactuskid]

What you can do now is very limited but to cover your ass you should make them an 'offer to pay' which according to a supreme court ruling is enough for them to release the vehicle (but they never do). Your offer should be in writing somehow by email or letter to both the police and recovery yard manager stating that you agree the fee and will pay them within 1 month of todays date. Even if they dont give the bike back at that time it technically stops the charges recurring and places all liability on them for degradation of the vehicle from that time.

 

What are the details surrounding the seizure itself i.e. where was it found etc

 

Chris

[Notmo]

OK, I'll send them an email stating what you put above, although I can't afford to pay that much money, even in a month.

 

Which police email do I send it to though?

 

I rang the police within ten minutes of it being stolen.

 

Whilst I was reporting it, the woman on the phone said that they had possibly found the vehicle and police officers would be round soon.

 

They came round a took a statement etc. then said they would take it for forensics.

 

They said they could not just give it back to me as they could not prove it wa smine, despite me having all of the VIN numbers, alot of identifying features (i.e. damage already occuring, parts missing etc)

 

I got a letter the week after from the recovery firm. It gives the location that the bike was found (literally at the end of my road).

 

Robin

[cactuskid]

If you can afford it or not it does not really matter because the likelyhood of them actually obeying the law and returning your bike is very slim. The reason for making the offer is because at this moment in time they have no liability for the well being of your property. It could be stolen from their pound, set on fire, turn rusty etc and not be their fault because it is your responsibility to collect the bike (or make an offer to pay). But if you make an offer to pay and they keep the bike illegally then they are responsible for its well being which you can sue them for later if there are any issues.

 

But generally the offer is so you can have a standing in law later on when things get heavy rather than your bike getting scrapped and you not having a leg to stand on. Law is like a game of chess so this is your move.

 

Be brave and write in your offer that you would like them to release the bike immediately according to the supreme court ruling

SERVICE MOTOR POLICIES AT LLOYDS v. CITY RECOVERY LIMITED [1997] EWCA Civ 2073 (9th July, 1997)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1997/2073.html

 

Chris

[Notmo]

Chirs,

 

Many thanks,

 

I just wrote the letter and will post it to them first thing.

 

Do you think I have a case? What are my next steps?

 

Robin

[cactuskid]

what is the value of the bike?

 

Chris

[Notmo]

Not much at all.

 

I was going to scrap it, as it is not going to pass an MOT without a lot of work.

 

Maybe £200 in parts?

[cactuskid]

Definately not worth paying for to get it back but you can claim for its value after they scrap it because they did not accept your offer to pay. Then treat yourself to a new bike

 

Chris

[cactuskid]

Last week I had a very interesting day in court regarding this matter and have some good news for people that have had their vehicles impounded by the police. Is anyone still watching this thread or is this issue not a concern anymore

 

Chris

[mightymouse_69]

I would be interested to hear this good news.

[letshelp]

Still watching.

regards

[cactuskid]

well basically it seems that something has been overlooked in the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 that is very important and could land all police in the UK in deep doo doo. Our claims against the police had nothing to do with this point which I will mention in a moment. It was pointed out by the judge when he wished to clearly identify the defendant (recovery company) because they had given us a fake trading name that was a non entity. He asked if the recovery company had acted within the law by keeping the vehicle, of which they replied 'yes'.

 

The judge then asked the recovery company if they were a local authority? Hmm...

 

Totally ignoring our set claims the judge told them that section 100 requires that if a constable acts upon section 99 then the vehicle must be handed over to the local authority, not a private contractor tied to the police themselves. I really dont know how I missed section 100 when studying this act, here is the section....

 

100(3) Any vehicle removed by a constable in pursuance of any such regulations and appearing

to him to have been abandoned may be delivered by the chief officer of the police force

to which the constable belongs to a local authority, with the consent of that authority.

 

It then continues in the next subsection that traffic officers must deliver to the secretary of state.

 

So how on earth has everyone missed this part of section 100 (including myself)? It seems that the police do not want to share their loot with the local council so have unlawfully set up their own little recovery shops!

 

1. The police can arrange for a contractor to recover the vehicle

2. The police can arrange for the destruction of the vehicle

But the police cannot give a 3rd party contractor power over the holding of the vehicle, that must be done by the councils department. 'The damages could be considerable' as a judge recently said

 

This then brings into question again the definition of 'stolen' vs 'abandoned' because the police can only hold stolen vehicles in their compounds, not abandoned vehicles. Abandoned vehicles are dealt with by the council as suggested in section 100.

 

superb result but not counting chickens yet

 

Chris

[mightymouse_69]

From my reading, Section 100(3) seems to suggest that the police may deliver the vehicle to a local authority if they wish to do so.

 

There is nothing in Section 100 which says they must do so - I cannot find the subsection which states that, as you put, "traffic officers must deliver to the secretary of state."

 

The fact that s100(3) goes on to say "with the consent of that authority" seems to suggest that the section does not forbid the arrangements between the police and private contractors since the police may only deliver with the consent of the LA.

 

It would be surprising if s100(3) is interpreted as forcing the police to take cars to the council. I know of at least one case where the Court of Appeal has enforced the arrangement that the police have with private contractors.

[cactuskid]

You are loking at the old legislation, here is the latest with all amendments http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/contents

 

I know what you are saying and agree that paragraph does seem to be giving police an option but we have been tilted in that direction. It now feels like the court is sending us into trap where the judge may give this ruling but then later it will be taken to appeals where we get bummed for every penny. Allow me to describe the existing claims that were originally presented so you can pre-judge .... (in a nutshell...)

 

The judge in the case of SERVICE MOTOR POLICIES AT LLOYDS v. CITY RECOVERY LIMITED [1997] ruled that section 101(4) was not subject to section 102 as previously ruled and that there is no protection for the innocent owner under section 101 because section 101 deals with 'sums' to be paid under its own section away from section 102. In the judges words, "The provision exempting innocent vehicle owners from charges is confined to section 102 itself. No similar saving provision appears or is applied to section 101 and if it had been intended that the exemption in section 102 should extend to the circumstances covered by section 101 the section would have been drafted accordingly."

 

Well, section 101(4) has sinced been repealed by the Traffic Managment Act 2004 (2008). That means there is no 'sums' to be paid in section 101 which in turn means that section 101 is subject to section 102 again (as was the initial ruling that was appealed). So the ruling of SERVICE MOTOR POLICIES AT LLOYDS v. CITY RECOVERY LIMITED [1997] can now not be relied upon and the innocent owner of the vehicle is now exempt from charges under section 102 because it is the only section that deals with charges now.

 

Here is the OLD section 101(4) that was repealed after that ruling...

 

(4) If, before a vehicle [F2 found outside Greater London] is disposed of by an authority in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the authority that he is its owner and pays such sums in respect of its removal and storage as may be prescribed to the authority entitled to those sums, the authority shall permit him to remove the vehicle from their custody within such period as may be prescribed.

 

[ F3 (4A) If, before a vehicle found in Greater London is disposed of by an authority in pursuance of subsections (1) to (3) above, the vehicle is claimed by a person who satisfies the authority that he is its owner and pays—

(a)

any penalty charge payable in respect of the parking of the vehicle in the place from which it was removed; and

 

(b)

such sums in respect of the removal and storage of the vehicle—

(i) as the authority may require; or

(ii) in the case of sums payable to a competent authority which is not a local authority, as may be prescribed,

 

the authority shall permit him to remove the vehicle from their custody within such period as they may specify or, where paragraph (b)(ii) applies, as may be prescribed.]

So the judge was correct when he made that ruling, there is provision within section 101 dealing with the return of the vehicle and the sums payable (and no saving provision for the innocent owner within it). But since this section has now disapeared, the only section that deals with charges is section 102 which exempts the innocent owner.

Call a spade a spade here, it was just badly written legislation and could have been translated either way by any judge. Section 101(4) was the confusion but it has not gone! The innocent owner of the vehicle is now not liable to pay charges under section 101 or 102, whichever way you want to look at it.

So that is the jist of my original claims. Do you think I am being taken down a dark alley for a shafting or do you think the original claim has merit?

Chris

[mightymouse_69]

So that is the jist of my original claims. Do you think I am being taken down a dark alley for a shafting or do you think the original claim has merit?

Chris

 

I have not had a proper read.

 

I am off to Manchester for a conference tomorrow so will probably have a proper look at this on Friday.

 

At present, I will answer your question.... Both! I think there are a few arguments that have merit. I also think that there is a high chance that you could be torn a new one on appeal.

[caleb786]

So whats happened with this case???? i had my car stolen and removed by 3rd party, on behalf of manchester police, and they charged me £250. SOCO attended day after collection and asked me to open the car with spare keys. i dont know why they couldnt have asked me first if i wanted to recover the vehicle; i didnt want them particularly to investigate because i didnt think ( correctly) it woudl get anywhere. i paid the £250 for it to be released.

 

Do people think i can get my money back?

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Thank you to those who have contirbuted to this thread as I feel 'better' after reading it. We are just embarking on our own battle after my 16 year old son's 50 cc was stolen and recovered from someone's garage a few months later; the police removed it as evidence in their criminal investigations. Initially he was thrilled when he got the call from the Police to say they had found the bike. It has subsequently turned into a nightmare as the people who now hold the bike are saying he has to pay them £980 with the usual threat of court action. He can't. I can't. They've told him to 'borrow' the money. This is shocking. What is a shame is it has turned what should have been a positive experience with the Police into a nightmare and any respect he had for them and the justice system is shot to bits. The Police have advised that the people in whose property they found the bike have admited they knew it was stolen. He was insured 3rd party only so no insurance claim to be made. It is a lot of stress at a difficult time for us. I know we'll get through it with the help of people on this forum however.

[brokebutnotbeatn]

Just an update on my posting of 3rd March. We wrote first to the Breakers yard with the Chief as cc. Then wrote a separate letter to the Police enclosing the letter to the breakers yard. After some time I wrote to my local MP with copies of both letters. A few days later we get a letter from the Chief advising whom our letter had been passed onto handle. At end April we received a 2-page 'justificaiton' letter from the police but giving us less than one working day to remove the vehicle from the breakers yard and agreeing as a 'gesture of good will' to pick up the charges. Fortunately we have a good friend who was able to help out at short notice. All the while receiving help and support frrom a forum member very experienced in these matters. Unfortunately the bike has been trashed and we may be lucky to get £100 for spares; but that is not the point. After several stressful months the 'case' is now 'closed'. Good luck CAGGERS for whom the battle is still underway. x