Recovery Fee Following Theft of Vehicle

[orge]

Hi,

 

A recovery agent is attempting to charge me £150 for recovering my vehicle after it was stolen last week.

 

I've sent them the following letter, but I've been told I should pay the charges and complain to SYP, as they are acting as their agents.

 

I'll forgo further details here to keep this short, but here is what I have sent them so far (statutes and info were gleaned from the related thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?208038-charged-for-recovery-on-stolen-vehicle

 

Dear ...,

I am contacting you regarding the following vehicle which has been recovered to your warehouse; ... with registration ....

It is my understanding that your company was instructed to collect this vehicle by the police, in order that they might conduct forensic testing at your premises. Although I provided up to date contact details at the time of the initial theft, I was not contacted prior to its recovery (either by yourselves or the police). Indeed, I have not had any direct contact from the ... at all. Consequently, I never entered into a contract with yourselves and was deprived the opportunity to recover the vehicle myself; thereby avoiding the costs which you are now trying to pass on to me (at present, £150 recovery fee).

I appreciate that, in certain situations, the police may affect the removal of vehicles under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation act 1984. However, from my enquiries with police, I do not believe that this particular case satisfies the necessary criteria:

· The vehicle was reported stolen

· The vehicle was parked by the side of the road and was not causing an obstruction/danger to the public

· The vehicle was not in contravention of any traffic regulations

· The vehicle was not “scrap” that needed to be destroyed (this would require a formal notice)

Consequently, in all likelihood, the removal of the vehicle from this location was unlawful and I am within my rights to pursue the police for any costs I may have incurred.

Additionally, given the above circumstances, I believe that your retention of the vehicle under section 101 of the Road Traffic Regulations act (1984) is also unlawful. I hereby instruct you to release it immediately and agree to pay any fees following adjudication. On receipt of this notice, I also expect you to cease to accumulate further fees. I will also take this opportunity to remind you that failure to release my vehicle would leave you liable for its full value of ...

In addition to the legal situation I have outlined above, I believe it is amoral to try and impose such a charge on the victims of crime. It is obvious to me that the vehicle was recovered to ensure minimal contamination. However, whilst I support the police in their efforts to find these criminals, I find it distasteful to suggest myself, as a victim, should bear the cost of their investigations.

I hope that you receive this letter with the seriousness it deserves and release my vehicle immediately.

 

[silverfox1961]

Sorry, can't help you with this. Just giving you a gentle bump onto the newest posts where someone will hopefully see it

[orge]

Bumping, as I could really do with some help on this one.

I'm doing my best to follow the bits of advice given in this thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?208038-charged-for-recovery-on-stolen-vehicle

 

However, the recovery centre doesn't appear to want do budge. Advice from police is pay fees and then claim it back via a formal complaint - others may have taken this approach, although I have no information regarding success etc.

 

Thanks in advance for any assistance you may be able to provide.

 

Thanks,

 

James

[buzby]

These fees are routinely paid by Insurers as part of the claim by the insured driver. As the police (who used to provide this service FOC) have outsourced, the motorist (or insurer) is expected to pay for all recovery fees incurred by the police on behalf of the motorist.

[sailor sam]

Agree with Buzby and i'm sure we have had this issue before. The police are responsible for the fees as they engaged the recovery co for what it appears to be in the couse of their enquiries. I think you will need to make a formal written complaint to the police asking them to arrange the return/release of your car. if my memory serves me correctly, this is what happened on the previous case which was some months ago.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[orge]

The manager responsible has been away for the last few days, so it has held things up a bit. However, she seems to be taking the line that the police are entitled to recover stolen vehicles under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act. From my understanding of the act, this would only be in particular circumstances, which I do not believe fit this instance.

 

I haven't managed to speak to the officer who inspected my vehicle prior to recovery, but all the information I have had so far indicates it was "parked" at the side of the road. It was pretty much in the state that I found it, except it was unlocked - i.e. could not be construed as a danger to the public. The vehicle had also been reported stolen a couple of days previous, so I don't believe they can argue it was with my consent.

 

From my current understanding of the RTRA, this means that the police did not have the right to recover the vehicle, but they have done so in order to pursue forensic tests.

 

My next move will be to pay the fees and get my car back. However, I intend to pursue the police through a moneyclaim for these costs.

 

Even with these extortionate fees, it's not worth me claiming on the insurance - it will cost me far more in terms of loss of NCD, excess and higher premiums.

 

Thanks for your help though,

 

James

[sailor sam]

The manager responsible has been away for the last few days, so it has held things up a bit. However, she seems to be taking the line that the police are entitled to recover stolen vehicles under section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act. From my understanding of the act, this would only be in particular circumstances, which I do not believe fit this instance.

 

I haven't managed to speak to the officer who inspected my vehicle prior to recovery, but all the information I have had so far indicates it was "parked" at the side of the road. It was pretty much in the state that I found it, except it was unlocked - i.e. could not be construed as a danger to the public. The vehicle had also been reported stolen a couple of days previous, so I don't believe they can argue it was with my consent.

 

From my current understanding of the RTRA, this means that the police did not have the right to recover the vehicle, but they have done so in order to pursue forensic tests.

 

My next move will be to pay the fees and get my car back. However, I intend to pursue the police through a moneyclaim for these costs.

 

Even with these extortionate fees, it's not worth me claiming on the insurance - it will cost me far more in terms of loss of NCD, excess and higher premiums.

 

Thanks for your help though,

 

James

 

You would have to give them the opportunity to say whether thay will arrange the car's release or not in writing first.

 

According to your post, the police did not give you the opportunity to recover the car yourself and they only arranged recovery in the persiut of their enquiries so I would say that they are resonsible for the recovery and storage. However, had they of tried to contact you first or the car was causing an obstruction then yes, they would be within their rights to have the car recovered in which your insurers would foot the bill. I am of course assuming that you have reported the car stolen to your insurers. In any event, a copy of your well writtern letter should be forwarded to the police with the crime reference on it before taking any futher action.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[buzby]

I doubt you'll find a court sympathetic to your issue, as even without the 'forensic' element, it the car was stolen, it had probably already been hot-wired, and as such remained at risk from being stolen again.

 

They are in a no-win situation. Previously they might have contacted the RK and advised the locatioin, and asking for the vehicle to be reclaimed and/or recovered. Since they cannot lock it, they are not going to leave staff awaiting your arrival. If they did, you got to the locus and the car was gone (stolen again). I'm sure you;d be the first to complain that they should have prevented the follow-upo theft?

 

Too right! They did this by arranging for a contractor to ensure the vehicles was protected, and I cannot see how you feel that the burden of cost for this eventuality should fall on the public purse. An unlocked car on a public street is an ongoing invidation, so with this in mind, I'd see the police fully defending any action, and on being exonerated, seek to recover the maximum costs to defend the action (around £100).

 

It might be better simply to take the hit, as I doubt the police action will be seen to have done anything other than protect your interests.

[orge]

Sailor Sam, I've emailed the people concerned repeatedly and they have been totally consistent that they will NOT release the vehicle without payment. Further delay potentially increases my costs, so I need to be sure that I can win them back in court.

 

This leads me to Buzby's argument. You are obviously an experienced member on this board, so I do value your comment. However, it does appear to be at odds with the "strict" interpretation of section 99 - i.e. the limted situations that a police authority may recover a vehicle. In regard to your other points:

 

The car was not hot wired, the keys were taken with it and it was left unlocked (but without the keys).

I am confident that there was NO attempt to contact either myself or the registered keeper. Indeed, I believe this is actually the blanket policy of my local constabulary.

 

I totally appreciate your comment that I have benefitted from their interevention and, if it was reasonable, i would happily pay some sum for the cars recovery and safe keeping. However, being slapped with a bill for £150 for moving a vehicle

 

TBH, I don't really know where I stand... The police seem confident in their position and may be prepared to take it to a court - although we've all seen banks spout the same rubbish and fold at the last. Section 99 is pretty clear about the limited circumstances a vehicle may be recovered by the police and I can't see how they can defend their actions if that is not satisifed - and nothing that they have used to defend themselves with so far seems to make any difference.

 

Thanks for your help,

 

James

[buzby]

I don't take issue with your argument, it is reasonable and logical - however, some external things come into play. The fact the police called the garage for recovery 'on your behalf/in your interests' is hard to refute. The fact that if YOU called the same firm, for the same service, the costs would be considerably less that what is being charged to you, would seem to rule in your favour - but I found out several years ago business gets in the way, and is sanctioned by the courts.

 

I was stranded on a strange motorway, and phoned the local police station to arrange service (I wasn't a member of the AA/RAC, and the police hold the numbers of all the nearby garages able to provide such services. I was surprised by their alacrity in doing everything possible to arrange the nearest garage to attend, and within an hour a mechanic and toold were beside me. It took 20 minutes to get me going, the bill however was a different matter. It was £180. The reasaon? £100 was changed for a 'Police Callout', the remainder was time/distnce and tool to get me on the road. I explained it was ME that called the police, but the firm was unmoved, there is a quid-pro-quo between these firms and the police, and because the police called them they make the increased charge.

 

Challenging the overpayment in court, I maintained the hike was unreasonable, but the judge disagreed, stating that had I arranged my own repair, or ASKED the police for the number of the breakdown firm (rather than let them arrange it) I could have rejected it. If truth be told I was never given the chance as 'we'd take care of it'. I had to pay any 'reasonable; expoense. As the firm is required to operate 24x7 service in order to be on the 'books' of the police station, this charge is used to offset their additional expense in maintaining the ability to repair/recover vehicles from the motorway.

 

I lost, amd not helped by the judge saying I should join a motoring organisation for these services. Perhaps, but this may not have helped you, as one or other state they do not recover vehicles immobilised after theft. An on this topic, the police would no doubt state that not arranging recovery (whilst leaving it unattended and unlocked) would be negligent on their part, and irrelevant to s99's provisions.

 

By all means pursue them, but I believe you'll find that anything done in your interests - irrespective of the price charged - will be viewed favourably, and success in court not guaranteed.

[sailor sam]

Not sure that you were aiming your last post to me because I feel you are totally correct. In any event what you should do right away is forward a copy of the letter to the police. If you decide to take any action at a later stage you will need to show that you gave them the opportunity to sort it out before hand. Personally I would not pay because the way I read this, the police removed the car without giving you the opprtunity to do so first thus exposing you to these charges through no fault of your own. Perhaps you should take advice from a solicitor as well.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[buzby]

Sailor Sam - what 'opportunity' did the police overlook? Leaving the car unlocked and unmonitored, and probably ripe for a fresh crime to be committed? There were extant circumstances that required a response, and as you are only blaming them for the cost, that's a seperate issue. By not paying, the vehicle stays in the compound, and the costs increase. Anyone would need to mitigate their losses, not fiddle whist Rome burns (or the prices go rolling up).

[sailor sam]

Sailor Sam - what 'opportunity' did the police overlook? Leaving the car unlocked and unmonitored, and probably ripe for a fresh crime to be committed? There were extant circumstances that required a response, and as you are only blaming them for the cost, that's a seperate issue. By not paying, the vehicle stays in the compound, and the costs increase. Anyone would need to mitigate their losses, not fiddle whist Rome burns (or the prices go rolling up).

 

According to the OP, the police recovered the car so that they could carry out forensic tests. Therefore the argument of 'leaving the car unlocked and unmonitored' surely dosn't apply. The police didn't notify the OP that the car had been found or give him the opportunity to recover the car himself (again, according to the OP) thus diss-advantaging him from avoiding these charges. In my view therefore, the OP should not be expected to pay to get his car back as it was the police who arranged it's removal to persue their enquiries. Surley they can simply arrange for the car's release without cost to the OP especially as he is the victim and did not have the opportunity to avoid these costs?

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[buzby]

The 'forensic tests' would be carried out at the same compund the vehicle was stored at. SOCO would (probably) visit said compund to take prints, safe in the knowledge that it would not be tampered with in the meantime. Whilst this might aid the investigation, I don't see how the car owner could justify claiming he should have to pay the fees whilst the car was unavailable to him. The alternative, the recovery firm taking the car to a police station for specialist motor investigation unit, then a second move to the storage facility would also have to be paid for, but thay might involve TWO transportations and double the bill.

 

I'm not saying it is fair, but trying to get a court to agree that no charges need be paid would not (to my mind) take them long to consider and reject.

[sailor sam]

If the car was driveable, why engage a recovery firm? When I ran a car hire firm about 12 years ago, I had a car which was involved in an incident involving an assult on a police officer. The car was taken to the local police station to be finger printed ect and when they had finished with it I simply went to pick it up from there (ok, so it was covered in finger print dust ect!) without any problem. In this case my question to the police would be; 'Why was it necessary to have it recovered by a recovery firm?' In any event, I cannot see why the OP has to pay for something which he had no control or involvement in. Had he had engaged or consented for the recovery firm to recover the car then fair enough but he didn't so I repeat my advice in post #11.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[heliosuk]

This has been dealt with in depth not so long ago so the challenge will be to find it after the recent changes. As I remember, it was actually quite definitive.

 

Just as a matter of interest, is there any evidence on the car that there has been a forensic investigation??

 

Frankly I'd pay and then look at ways of recovering the money.

[green_and_mean]

Personally if I had the misfortune of having my car stolen I would gladly pay £150 to get it back safe and sound. Even if you consider section 99 doesn't cover stolen vehicles than could still seize it because the person driving it had no insurance. Assuming the thief still had the keys they could have returned and removed the car again at anytime, do you really think the Police have nothing better to do than babysit your car until you get around to collecting it.

[sailor sam]

Personally if I had the misfortune of having my car stolen I would gladly pay £150 to get it back safe and sound. Even if you consider section 99 doesn't cover stolen vehicles than could still seize it because the person driving it had no insurance. Assuming the thief still had the keys they could have returned and removed the car again at anytime, do you really think the Police have nothing better to do than babysit your car until you get around to collecting it.

 

Typical abrasive post by you and you clearly havn't read the thread correctly. If you had, you would of seen that in fact the police recoverd the car without contacting the OP first so they could carry out forensic tests. It was only followwing that when the OP was told that the car had been found and recovered.

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful

[k13 wjd]

"Even with these extortionate fees, it's not worth me claiming on the insurance - it will cost me far more in terms of loss of NCD, excess and higher premiums"

 

with all due respect OP, the fees are hardly extortionate. £150 is the base price set by the police for a basic recovery under the VRS scheme. this DOES NOT include a second man, or use of a winch. My guess would be that the VRS company used a winch, but didnt charge you.

 

how far do you think £150 goes ??? firstly, if your in scotland £25 goes straight to a company called GRG,. this is the company who select the agents for recovery, and deal with the locus being passed through the police HQ. pay the driver a typical 2 hrs wages, at 1.5x ( for overtime) typical £15p/h = £30. running total is now £55.

 

so thats £95 your left with - you have to pay for : a £30k odd truck. insure it, fuel it, tyres+upkeep. yearly VRS inspections, consumables.....

 

a VRS company makes nearly NO money from a £150 job. job i do involve £400-500 bills, for recovery of serious accidents.....

 

 

The police were quite right to have it recovered if it was insecure - and if it was for the soco guys to come take a look, phone your insurance company, as they will deal with the issue. thats what they are there for !

[crem]

everyone seems to be overlooking the point that the OP had already provided his contaact details to the police in teh first place.

 

It would have made no difference to the police contacting the OP instead of contacting the recovery company. Presumably the police awaited the arrival of the towtruck, and could have spent the same time waiting for the OP to arrive.

 

Clearly the police preferred to use a recovery firm, the reason for this being somewhat unclear at the moment. If it was for forensic tests, then that cost should not fall on the OP. If there were "other" reasons that the police involved a recovery firm then that would be even more dubious.

[orge]

Quite a lot of activity since I was last on here, but I'll try to address most of the new points.

 

Forensic testing was definitely carried out on the vehicle. This was occuring when I visited the vehicle for the first time on Monday morning (it was recovered on Friday around 11pm). This was also clearly indicated on the form that was filled in by the policeman who attended my verhicle prior to recovery, He had ticked "stolen" and "for forensic testing (not PACE)".

 

My reference to £150 as extortionate, was more to do with my own appraisal of such a sum (and potentially other motorists). For me, it is a significant amount to find "out of the blue" - epecially when I have also had to find a sbstantial amount to repair damage which was done to my house in the course of the initial burgalry. I appreciate that many people would have no problem rustling that sort of cash up on the spur of the moment but, particularly in the current climate, there are probably plenty who my find it difficult.

 

In terms of the worth, if given the option, I could have taken a 15 min taxi ride and driven the car back home with my spare keys. I find it prejudicial that the police have a blanket policy which presmes the interests/intentions of the owner (for me, there is no doubt in my mind that the reason for this is to satisfy their own aims). As for the margins on the recovery company, my gut feeling is that they probably don't do too badly out of this arrangement - conceivably, the scheme could be generating 5-10k a week. Even if they only receive a percentage of that revenue, that's quite a lot of fuel, wages, vehicle overheads etc... Particlarly when much of this is an expense they can offset against other business. I would be very surprised if the police force don't take a cut for their involvement - this is even more questionable because that should surely be derived from other sources? I would very much welcome transparency in these fees - I did, slightly jokingly, enquire with Adrian about how the wealth is distributed, but he declined to comment. The lack of transparency combined with eagerness of the police to process vehicles in this way makes me suspect that somebody is doing quite well out of all this though...

 

Thanks,

 

J

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

In terms of the "extortionate" charge, this is set by law in The Removal, Storage and Disposal of Vehicles (Prescribed Sums and Charges) Regulations 2008:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2095/contents/made

 

In terms of whether it was the correct decision for the police to make you would have to show that it was a decision that no reasonable police constable could have come to to show it was Wednesbury unreasonable (the legal test you will have to pass). IMHO you haven't a snowball in hells chance of doing that. Sorry!

[orge]

There has been a lot posted on this thread regarding whether the police were in the right for seizing my vehicle without seeking my permission first. However, so far, their argument (and my own) rest firmly on section 99 of RTRA. My contention is that is pretty clear about the cases in which the police can rightfully seize a vehicle:

a) Contravening traffic regulations

b) Blocking a road or danger to the public

c) Abandoned

 

Given the circumstances detailed by the recovering officer's report, neither a or b are applicable to my case. C is the only instance they may be able to use to defend their action. However, they did not follow the proscribed notice period and the vehicle was abandoned without my permit.

 

For me, the fact that they did not contact me, to seek my permission, is only relevant in the sense that a contract was not created outside of section 99.

 

It seems like the arguments above could justify any action the police might wish to take that they deemed to be "best for us". Do we allow other individuals and organisations this freedom? I accept that it does happen, but should it go unchallenged?

 

I'm not a lawyer and my experience with the legal process if purely as a "interested" layman. Please don't take any of my comments as argumentative (and I would very much appreciate non-argumentative replies). For now, I'm purely interested in exploring this point of law and welcome any insight into this case.

 

Thanks again for your time.

 

James

[sailor sam]

everyone seems to be overlooking the point that the OP had already provided his contaact details to the police in teh first place.

 

It would have made no difference to the police contacting the OP instead of contacting the recovery company. Presumably the police awaited the arrival of the towtruck, and could have spent the same time waiting for the OP to arrive.

 

Clearly the police preferred to use a recovery firm, the reason for this being somewhat unclear at the moment. If it was for forensic tests, then that cost should not fall on the OP. If there were "other" reasons that the police involved a recovery firm then that would be even more dubious.

 

Exactly!

 

Please Note

 

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[k13 wjd]

OP - i can assure you that, in scotland anyway, the police DO NOT take a cut of any moneys.

 

the £150, or whatever the fee is for a recovery, is paid directly to the recovery ( VRS ) company, who then pay the company who organise the scheme ( GRG)

 

the only positive the police get from the scheme, is free recovery and transfer of police vehilces. this is done for free by the VRS company, and forms part of the contract.

 

 

I do feel for you though - as these things are never clear cut. You could write a letter of complaint to the cheif constable, i know that there have been refunds under the scheme in the past from such letters ;-)

 

Just think yourself lucky it wasnt a lorry.....bills of £4000 are the normal for lorry recoverys under the scheme.