council stole vehicle

[Jamberson]

He 'broke down' and instead of paying to get the car recovered by a garage he purchased a car cover to try and conceal the vehicles identity, yeah that's really going to win an appeal!

 

Where did he break down?

When did he break down?

Why was the car in the bay?

When did he cover up the vehicle?

How do you know he hasn't made arrangements to have the car recovered?

 

There's no point in having a forum just to dismiss people when they come along for advice.

[green_and_mean]

Where did he break down? When did he break down? Why was the car in the bay? When did he cover up the vehicle? How do you know he hasn't made arrangements to have the car recovered?

 

There's no point in having a forum just to dismiss people when they come along for advice.

 

 

The vehicle was SORN so should not have been on the road anyway, it doesn't take a genius to work out what has happened here.

[citizenkain]

It was certainly a great idea of his,

 

 

just cover the vehicle up with a cover,

that be ok,

no worries,lol,

 

 

be great if we could all get away with that, be like a cartoon!

 

 

I always remember someone that used to pull in anywhere and leave his windscreen wipers on fast speed,

he thought he wouldn't get a ticket cos the wipers were on!,lol,

he got a ticket all right!

[green_and_mean]

He should have gone to an army surplus store and got some camouflage netting then they might not have spotted it!

[Jamberson]

It's nothing to do with SORN. He was charged and towed because of the permit issue, which is perfectly clear in the above. In any case, you can drive a SORN car on the road, to get it tested. For all any of you know, that's what he was doing.

[renegadeimp]

He already said he wasn't jamb.

He broke down.

Took it to a residents bay.

Covered it up and then placed a sorn on it.

 

There would be no need for a sorn if it was rated and insured.

Certainly no need for a cover.

He could have arranged to get it towed the same day. Or the next day.

 

If he genuinely was taking it to a mother.

He wouldn't have parked it there,

got a sorn and then covered it up.

If he was on the way to an most then why would he have done all that in the first place.

If by the very slim chance he was, he'd need to show proof.

 

You may be playing devils advocate but the ops info and posting manner show the posters in this thread are right.

[green_and_mean]

It's nothing to do with SORN. He was charged and towed because of the permit issue, which is perfectly clear in the above. In any case, you can drive a SORN car on the road, to get it tested. For all any of you know, that's what he was doing.

 

 

 

Its a bit reckless driving a car with a car cover over it, how could he see where he was going? Quit whilst you can, trying to justify this chancers behaviour is just making you look as daft as he is.

[SabreSheep]

And Whilst initially it would have been a parking issue, the sorn and lack of tax means that if he did kick up a stink he would most definatly be facing those charges as the LA would inform the DVLA

 

Part of being helpfull is avoiding giving info to a member that would for whatever reason land them in bigger trouble.

 

"Sure fight the pcn heres how" which then leads to further prosecutions would not be very helpful now would it

[green_and_mean]

Edited

[green_and_mean]

If its SORN its probably not even insured either way its still going to need a truck to recover it from the pound. I think rather than getting a nice pay day in damages from the Council this is going to end up leaving a big hole in the OPs pocket.

[ericsbrother]

If it was SORN, how did it get on to the public highway and remain there with a cover over it?

 

Where does he stand?

 

 

I cannot see an avenue for appealing as the reason for removal is certainly there, with others as well.

 

What should the OP do?

Determine the value of the vehicle and then pay up or invite council to dispose of it.

There well be more trouble for having an untaxed and uninsured vehicle on a public highway should they want to go further.

 

If the garage put the car there then that is a matter for the OP to take up with them (and probably end up in a civil suit).

Likewise they could find themselves in big trouble for leaving it there

but council has taken path of least resistance and just towed car and invited owner to arrange recovery

without reference to other offences.

 

 

Reiterate, OP can chase garage for costs incurred

[sajeel]

Many Thanks for those who helped and thanks to those who appear to be working agents for the police and dvla, as you do not know circumstances do not assume. I will be taking council court for breach of acts LETS understand ACTS and LAW is very different and i am aware of this. All road traffic matters unless you harm someone are a act. I do understand law, maybe better than some of you on here. This is not to those who have made positive comments.

 

summary;

 

Breach of contract law Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943 section 3

 

Misrepresentation Act 1967 section 2

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 

Human rights Act Article 5,6,7,8,11,12

 

Taking control of goods, national standards 2014 Paragraph 66 (relates to excessive levy)

 

For those screaming out you must remember that for council to enforce any act there bays must be valid in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Schedule 6 1032 or it is free parking.

 

Going to stop there. Give some of you some knowledge and time to go on read as opposed to typing irrelevant info.

[Jamberson]

I don't think you will get anywhere, if the vehicle was in a bay without a permit and it did need one. The only hope is that there was a legitimate reason beyond your control (the breakdown) and that you can convince them on appeal that this was the case. As you say, the whole SORN/DVLA/Police stuff is irrelevant.

[renegadeimp]

If it was broken down it could have been towed. Plain and simple. Not sorned and then covered up for an unspecified amount of time.

[SabreSheep]

Good luck with your court case Please let us know which court and what dates you get, Id love to be a fly on the wall

[Conniff]

Many Thanks for those who helped and thanks to those who appear to be working agents for the police and dvla, as you do not know circumstances do not assume. I will be taking council court for breach of acts LETS understand ACTS and LAW is very different and i am aware of this. All road traffic matters unless you harm someone are a act. I do understand law, maybe better than some of you on here. This is not to those who have made positive comments.

 

summary;

 

Breach of contract law Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act, 1943 section 3

 

Misrepresentation Act 1967 section 2

 

Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

 

Human rights Act Article 5,6,7,8,11,12

 

Taking control of goods, national standards 2014 Paragraph 66 (relates to excessive levy)

 

For those screaming out you must remember that for council to enforce any act there bays must be valid in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Schedule 6 1032 or it is free parking.

 

Going to stop there. Give some of you some knowledge and time to go on read as opposed to typing irrelevant info.

 

 

Ah, now I understand - FOTL, I don't have to pay tax etc. If you do go to court, I challenge you to come back and give us the court name and date of appearance and the case ref number. Somehow I don't think you will.

[SabreSheep]

Exactly what I was thinking. Especially when we were called "Agents for the police and dvla"

[tezza1234]

FOTL lol, ****

[ashmk]

lol

[SabreSheep]

Tezza, whilst I would not call them **** (I saw the uncenrosed word) I would instead replace with Misguided, Gullable and a whole host of other non offensive terms

[green_and_mean]

Just out of interest have you got the car back yet, if so how much did it cost?

[ericsbrother]

he asked for clarification on law,

that does not mean agreement with any action taken by one party or another

 

 

under the circumstances outlined most of the advice was pointing in the direction of damage limitation

rather than suggesting finding flaws in a procedure

 

 

that has not been made clear as to what is possibly being followed.

 

 

we can agrue about the rights or wrongs of the council lifting the cover (they have that right, case law determined that)

and whether it is a procedural error to place ticket on tarp rather than windscreen

(law doesnt say ticket has to be on screen and other determinations allow for service of penalty charge notice

by attachment to other parts of motor vehicle)

 

 

and a myriad of other small points that are unlikely to get anywhere as there is prima facie evidence for cause of action by council.

 

If the OP knows better than some of the posters here then he should have thanked them for their input

and said that it was now done with.

 

 

Exactly what can be gained by not saying the obvious I wonder and how are they not constructive?

 

Go to court, lose and pay a fortune in costs and fees because the judge has decided that a claim against the council

was doomed from the start is not a positive move

 

 

so the advice should be about what is practical.

 

 

that may be to pay up, get the car back and then appeal on the minutiae and hope that PATAS

are not going to consider the overall picture as at least that costs nothing more.

 

The opening statement that the council stole my vehicle isnt actually what happened.

 

 

The law on what is theft is clear enough.

[Jamberson]

In my view there need to be some mitigating circumstances as to why the car was where it was. There could be - I don't know what caused it to be there, and the OP so far hasn't explained. Also he mentioned earlier about what he calls virtual permits - I don't know what that means, but clarification would be good.

[ssparks2003]

Jamberson; have you tried googling "virtual parking permits" ? bit like the congestion charge, dartford crossing etc.

[JoeyJoeC]

I have 6 SORN cars off the road at my parents house. I had no idea I could park these in the residence bays across the street FOR FREE! Never mind about the people that actually pay for the spaces!