|
|
Nov 11, 2008 18:15:27 GMT
|
I live in fear of a tug, because I have a trade policy and drive old cars habitually. Likewise, minor car crime and the "recovery" thugs we have here in Sheffield fill me with fear. The damage the 3rd party firms do to older cars usually exceeds that done by the thieves in the first place.
I've got a Mk2 Golf GTI in at the moment for rectification work after an attempted theft, and the guy who delivered it from the recovery yard issued the pearler "it's a good job you rang to have it brought over today, we were loading it on to the scrap truck when we got the call." Mint.
This is not the way it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
chevazon
Posted a lot
1939 Chevrolet 2 door coupe, `67 `Zon estate, `87 Ragtop Cavalier, 4 x 800 Drifters,(!) 1500 Drifter
Posts: 2,259
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 18:35:11 GMT
|
Just read all of this. Dear Oh dear. Even I cannot make a comment on what has happened but sometimes common sense goes out of the window. (c0mPla1n) I didn`t say that, did I ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 18:36:29 GMT
|
But whats the best way of making a complaint without being fobbed off/ignored?
|
|
1987 Maestro 1.6 HL perkins diesel conversion 1986 Audi 100 Avant 1800cc on LPG 1979 Allegro Series 2 special 4 door 1500cc with vynil roof. IN BITS. HERITAGE ISSUES.
|
|
CIH
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,466
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 18:40:47 GMT
|
I checked the date on my picture-card and it's only "valid" for 8 years 5 months.....
|
|
|
|
chevazon
Posted a lot
1939 Chevrolet 2 door coupe, `67 `Zon estate, `87 Ragtop Cavalier, 4 x 800 Drifters,(!) 1500 Drifter
Posts: 2,259
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 18:54:38 GMT
|
Make an appointment to see your local Neighbourhood Policing Inspector or Contact the Professional Standards department at the force HQ by letter. Oops there go again !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 18:59:30 GMT
|
I've found the police complaints system to be very helpful and thorough, to be honest. There's an established system to go through and they seem to take things seriously, so I wouldn't worry about getting fobbed off at all if it's done in a calm, polite but insistant manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 20:28:35 GMT
|
As said, go through proper channels, and don't accept a bung with a signed agreement not go public with it. You want the plod nailed to a cross publicly. You want the cost of the impound fee re-embursed. You want the cost of a full inspection of the vehicle paid for for an un-noticed damage (like damage caused by the forks in the yard) and that repaired along with what you know about, and you want a publicly published apology.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and theft of a motor vehicle by the police officer, and criminal damage by the yard cannot be condoned.
|
|
|
|
rodit
Posted a lot
Posts: 1,683
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 22:34:36 GMT
|
Have witnessed this with one of my friends recently. Knock on the door, excuse me sir do you own a mini? Yes, curse word where is it? We have found it down the road with the thieves, they could not start it as imobilised fuel pump. Great i will come and get it then. No we will take it to a storage yard and you can pay£120 to get it back tomorrow. Why? We want to dust it for prints and yours would be on there. They are all over it it is his car? So for having his car broken into he gets to be inconvenienced late for work and pay £120, the thieving kid's get told off and taken back to mommy and daddy scum bag.
Also i never carry doc's as if i loose/ have stolen my wallet or car then they ain't a lot of good to me at that point which most coppers have agreed with me is a good point.
|
|
Low and slow
Why can't i tune it?
|
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2008 23:35:20 GMT
|
We want to dust it for prints and yours would be on there. They are all over it it is his car? So for having his car broken into he gets to be inconvenienced late for work and pay £120, the thieving kid's get told off and taken back to mommy and daddy scum bag. I'm only quoting what I read on another RR thread, but I thought that if the car was taken for forensics, the owner isn't liable for any fees?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ditto above. they don't charge (or shouldn't charge) for this. If they have then they should refund it
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2008 22:34:22 GMT
|
ditto above. they don't charge (or shouldn't charge) for this. If they have then they should refund it Not anymore they don't. My sister had exactly the same thing, car stolen by 14 year olds and then recovered by the police even though she said she'd go and collect it from down the road. It was the same line, " we need it for forensics". Anyway, she refused to pay the fee incurred even though her insurance company insisted that this is a normal way for the police to be funded (!). The car was scrapped by the police before she got it back as they (the police) had decided that the costs incurred now out-weighed the value of the vehicle which was an old but solid Kia Pride. She went through the proper complaints pocedure, got nowhere, and so it went to court with the local police authority being charged with theft and withholding property. The judge ruled that, although the withholding of the vehicle 'didn't enter into the spirit of helping police enquiries', they were fully entitled to charge for recovery and the owner of the vehicle should look at it as doing their public duty in aiding the police enquiries. She got nothing and lost her car. The police have lost all respect with our family now and it's not just a case of one bad apple either. Oh, and my licence only got 7 years, 5 months and 4 days??? A bit of a random number! ;D
|
|
Aircooled is cool.......
But V8 is great!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2008 23:18:12 GMT
|
public duty? normal way to fund the police? forensic evidence? wtf x10 and a gross of bloody hells please... Thats awful. And besides the police "service" is funded out of our rather too expensive already council tax. I seriously hope this never happens to me. I'm not the sort to back down, and it could get ugly People with odd dated licences.... have you moved house in the last 10 years? that could explain the "odd" expiry date (a bit, maybe, if the whole system was designed by a chimp....)
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2008 23:43:54 GMT
|
I would have thought a lot of peoples "odd" dates are because the photo itself lasts ten years - Mine lasts about 8 and a bit years because I applied for my provisional aged 16 and a bit, and passed about 18 months later, so the licence is valid from the date I passed, but the photo is about 20 months older.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2008 23:55:33 GMT
|
Lifted from another website but if they get there way it wont be worth contesting it:
Drivers who challenge speeding fines should be made to pay their legal bills even if they win their case, ministers said yesterday.
The proposal would see successful defendants lose their century-old right to claim back their costs.
A change in the law would affect many of the 1.7million drivers a year who take their cases to court.
It costs around £1,500 to fight charges of speeding, illegal parking and other motoring offences.
Motoring groups and lawyers said the proposal was a breach of fundamental legal principles.
Edmund King, president of the AA, said: 'This is against the common law and against the common man. If you prove your innocence you shouldn't have to pay for it.'
Ian Kelcey, head of the Law Society's criminal law committee, called the scheme a disgrace.
He added: 'This means that an awful lot of people will not be able to get a fair trial. They will not be able to get a proper defence.'
The proposal comes in a consultation paper published by Jack Straw's Ministry of Justice. It says those before magistrates on minor charges should defend themselves.
Lord Bach, a junior minister, likened those who use lawyers in lower courts to parents who pay for private education.
He said: 'Just as an individual who chooses to put their child through private education does not reclaim this cost from the education system, nor should public funding recompense those who choose to pay privately for a lawyer when a publicly-funded alternative is available.'
The consultation paper is among a series aimed at cutting court costs and trimming the £2billion-a-year legal aid budget.
Currently a driver who wishes to challenge a minor motoring charge in a magistrates court is denied legal aid unless they are on a very modest income. But they can hire a lawyer and claim back the cost if cleared.
Ministers want to withdraw this right, arguing that defendants do not need lawyers and can turn to court clerks for advice.
Under the proposals, CROWN Court defendants will still be entitled defence lawyers on legal aid. But if they hire their own, more expensive, lawyers ministers say they should not be able to claim the full cost back if they win.
The Government is seeking to shrink the £60million Central Funds budget, which reimburses successful defendants. It is thought that ending costs payments for innocent drivers will save £5million.
The ministry's consultation paper said: 'In these straightforward cases, defence representation is not a requirement for an individual.
'Magistrates courts are traditionally set up to deal with litigants in person and have qualified legal advisers who can and do assist litigants in person.'
Mr King said the changes would not hurt the wealthy but those on middle incomes.
He added: 'You should be innocent until you are proven guilty, and if you prove your innocence you should not have to pay for it.'
Jeanette Miller, of Geoffrey Miller, a leading motoring law firm, said: 'To do away with costs in these cases appears to go against the interests of justice.
'People will not be able to afford lawyers, particularly specialist lawyers who know what they are doing. Are we going to see people denied the right to a lawyer at all in the future?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That, I think is aimed at the "mr loophole" lawyers who get sports personalities off drink drive at 100mph on camden high street or whatever.. besides, its a consultation, not an imminant law, and only applys to costs. don't want to pay £1500 for your solicitor? don't hire one then. I don't see any mention of being forced to bear the CROWN's costs (thankfully) so imo its a pretty sensible suggestion. It is not hard to contest a speeding ticket, I've done it, It comes down to proof. Either that is you and your car on the ticket or it isnt.
and besides, thats court, not complaints. You havn't actually been charged and bailed to attend court, have you? You just had your car confiscated for no good reason, got personally inconvenienced, put out of pocket to the tune of £150 plus expenses and had your car vandalized as a free extra. As I see it, you should be on the phone to The Sun at the moment.
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
|
|
|
The old bill said that i would be reported for driving with an expired license and no insurance but whether the CPS decideds ro charge or not is yet to be seen. My license will be returned within the next 5 days and the DVLA have already confirmed I'm ok to drive. As soon as the new license is in my hands then I'm gonna start making some noise about what happened to me. As you say, i think ill drop a line to some newspapers and see if they are interested in picking it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with magistrates courts is that many of them don't know the law themselves and can be swayed by who is dressed nicely, is polite and well spoken. Mags have to abide by "case law" from CROWN courts. If you could find a case in a crow court where the judge said the police had to pay for recovery/damage you could go to magistrates court and say "Mr blah Vs Police, 2007, CROWN court, case law e.t.c" and the mags would have to make the same deciscion.
Defending speeding in court is already difficult as you have to prove your innocence, not the prosecution to prove your guilt. Plus you don't have the right to remain silent. Rapists have more rights in the British legal system than motorists!
|
|
1987 Maestro 1.6 HL perkins diesel conversion 1986 Audi 100 Avant 1800cc on LPG 1979 Allegro Series 2 special 4 door 1500cc with vynil roof. IN BITS. HERITAGE ISSUES.
|
|
|
|
|
cops on another site said you WOULD be insured so the no insurance is cack
|
|
1941 Wolseley Not Rod - 1956 Humber Hawk - 1957 Daimler Conquest - 1966 Buick LeSabre - 1968 Plymouth Sport Fury - 1968 Ford Galaxie - 1969 Ford Country Squire - 1969 Mercury Marquis - 1970 Morris Minor - 1970 Buick Skylark - 1970 Ford Galaxie - 1971 Ford Galaxie - 1976 Continental Mark IV - 1976 Ford Capri - 1994 Ford Fiesta
|
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2008 10:45:05 GMT
|
cops on another site said you WOULD be insured so the no insurance is cack Insurance companies say this too, In fact, on your certificate of insurance, in the section on persons entitled to drive should be the following phrase Providing that the person holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licencewhich entirely contradicts the police assertion that your expired photo ID invalidated anything at all. Which just leaves "no licence", and in the circumstances I wouldn't be too worried about being prosecuted for that.
|
|
To get a standard A40 this low, you'd have to dig a hole to put it in
|
|
Tim
Posted a lot
Posts: 3,340
|
|
Nov 13, 2008 14:21:28 GMT
|
If you leave it, you will get nothinhg, you need to be hounding them from this second on and doing it constantly - write to them, give them 14 days to reply and phone them every single day to ask whats going on.
keep a log of EVERYTHING, no matter how trivial it seems
|
|
|
|
|