Unfair and probably illegal

[Dicky Ticker]

I am refering to the new practice of some police forces.
My friend has a business doing recovery for the police be it an accident or an impounded vehicle
Example quoted to me by him
Vehicle was stopped in a check and found to have a chip and crack in the windscreen above the line of the interior mirror out of the line of vision you would be using while under normal driving.The crack was not rubber to rubber and all documentation was in order.The MOT was 11 days old from issue
This was deemed hazardous by the police and the vehicle impounded,meaning it is taken away by recovery on a full lift[Not driven or towed]
Here is the interesting bit--------
In order to recover the vehicle from the pound the driver has to produce his license,mot and insurance but can only remove it by a licensed recovery firm to a place of repair.Unfortunately the driver in this instance had recently split up from his wife and was having difficulty obtaining the documents and had a court order banning him from the house[Former family home] so after various visits by his representative he finally gets his original paperwork 18 days later
My friend has to go to the police station and produce paperwork showing he is authorised to do the recovery,which as it is costing him time he charges £50 for even although he is on their list of authorised recovery firms, He has asked about this but each case is individual and the release must be stamped for the offending vehicle and his recovery documents produced for each case.
The little bit above is separate from his recovery charge from the pound to the repair facility.
When the vehicle is released to him the owner is informed that the current MOT[11 days old at the time of being stopped] is now null and void and the vehicle has to have a new MOT before it can be driven plus the repair.
The pound charges by this time has shot up and the chap did not have enough money with him on the day and didn't get paid for another week so he had to leave the vehicle till he could borrow the money from another source.He has to pay my friend for the £50 incurred producing the authorisation even although the vehicle was not released.
By the time the vehicle owner has got the money together to pay for the vehicle release,repair and new MOT this has become a substantial amount of money and it is now the 21st day since it was impounded.
Back with my friend and his recovery truck for a second time only to find that since 21 days had lapsed the vehicle was for the crusher.The vehicle was a three and a half year old van.

The driver was never prosecuted for the offence of the cracked windscreen,cost him £100 and he lost his vehicle due to the circumstance in finding the money for recovery and repair charges.

Moral being keep your vehicle in tip-top condition or be prepared for a hefty outlay or even forfeiture of your vehicle even if it is newish.Something simple which in itself would not be a MOT failure can cost you your vehicle

P.S.I believe the authoritise concerned did everything "By the book" but it is still unjust in my eyes that you should loose a vehicle for no reason.

[Owenski]

You know when bad stuff happens to someone and they say "it could be worse" I feel 1000000fold for your mate. How can things get any worse! Someone needs to buy that bloke a pint or 50.

[Messie]

"Moral being keep your vehicle in tip top condition"

You said it yourself

[yorkie_chris]

Impound yards and their ilk are biggest scum in the world, worse than traffic wardens.

Friend of mine had a car towed, someone had broken the window and rooted through the (empty of anything valuable) glovebox. £150+ to get his car back after the police had it towed to "make sure it didn't get vandalised" despite his mobile number being WRITTEN ON THE F*CKING DOOR!!

The slag on the phone "oh just claim it back on the insurance". Hmmm yeah young lad, £1000 TPFT policy... Even if he could claim it would cost him £2000 next year.

Whole situation with this lot does boil my p*ss to a serious degree!


Of course, that uninsured smackhead in the piece of sh*t he bought for £50 doesn't care about getting his car back after he knocks you off your bike eh.

[collis]

Of course, that uninsured smackhead in the piece of sh*t he bought for £50 doesn't care about getting his car back after he knocks you off your bike eh.
when that heppens, the police should cuff the driver, hand you a baseball bat, sit in their car, turn all cameras off and close eyes. leaving you with the driver and a baseball bat... :smt075

[yorkie_chris]

It would be nice.

But fact is if prosecuted the little c*** will end up paying less of a fine than you will to get your bike back when they nicely "recover" it for you!

[husky03]

never have i heard of a vehicle being uplifted for a crack in the windscreen, what recovery company does your friend run?

[andrewsmith]

I think the last lot in charge but legislation in place to allow the police to charge you offensive amounts for towing and storage. A slightly defective windscreen would normally get a repairs notice issued (unless the vehicle is not roadworthy)

and they will also charge you for towing and recovery if your vehicle is tea leafed by a ****!!!

But it depends upon the police force

[Owenski]

was this blokes ex-misses a copper by anychance?

called in a favour from some colleages to ruin the bloke.

[Dicky Ticker]

Husky,I would prefer not to name names,perhaps the drivers had been stroppy with the police,who knows, but my friend quoted another instance when somebody had a small nick in the side of a tyre and they would not allow the driver to change to the spare This still cost the driver all the recovery charges and a new mot.
Perhaps its me but I find it a bit underhanded for them to make the MOT void when all the person had to do in this case was change the wheel.
I did find what he was saying extraordinary but he categorically assured me it was common practice for the police concerned and I have no reason to disbelieve him as I know he makes a lucrative living from it. Even he can't believe some of the instances and he owns the recovery firm and a garage,MOT Centre.
He did say that several of the instances he has been involved with would not have been MOT Failures and he is an examiner.
I am aware that a vehicle can be unsafe for other things apart from MOT Items but letting somebody change a wheel or having a windscreen fitted at the roadside seems logical to me where as the recovery and ensuing problems for the drivers seem EXTREMELY harsh for such trivial faults especially as both instances mentioned could happen to us at any time we are driving and rectified as a matter of course

[yorkie_chris]

Get onto that watchdog program about it... then again, doubt your friend will if he is making a killing out of it

[Dicky Ticker]

Would you kill the goose that is laying the golden egg? To bring it into context,he has not increased his charges we were just discussing the changes in business practice due to the recession when he revealed this to me saying he is busier than ever

[yorkie_chris]

You might as well be a loan shark or one of these dodgy wheel clampers who puts the "no parking" sign up after they've put the clamp on.
The phrase "wouldn't p*ss on them if they were on fire" comes to mind.

It stinks of extortion and corruption, there is no justice in that system.

[keith_d]

The guys on the ground are only doing what they've been told to do. So the first job is to find the person who issued the guidelines to the force. Personally, I suspect it's a health and safety numpty who's been promoted beyond their level of competence.

Once you have this person's details raise the whole issue with the local paper, and suggest that they contact the person responsible for the policy directly. Don't forget to include a direct line number if at all possible.

Getting the local reporters calling them directly does make an impression. :shock:

[Owenski]

I suspect it's a health and safety numpty who's been promoted beyond their level of competence.:shock:

the bane of every industry.

[bris]

I find it very difficult to believe that they would not allow the wheel to be changed at the side of the road, or the windscreen one for that matter. Sorry but for me this would set a presidence for having every car to be towed that has a puncture. I would really have to know this guy really well to believe this.

[maviczap]

Impound yards and their ilk are biggest scum in the world, worse than traffic wardens.

Friend of mine had a car towed, someone had broken the window and rooted through the (empty of anything valuable) glovebox. £150+ to get his car back after the police had it towed to "make sure it didn't get vandalised" despite his mobile number being WRITTEN ON THE F*CKING DOOR!!

The slag on the phone "oh just claim it back on the insurance". Hmmm yeah young lad, £1000 TPFT policy... Even if he could claim it would cost him £2000 next year.

Whole situation with this lot does boil my p*ss to a serious degree!


Of course, that uninsured smackhead in the piece of sh*t he bought for £50 doesn't care about getting his car back after he knocks you off your bike eh.

I remember seeing something similar on the news about a chap who's bike had been stolen recovered, who was then expected to fork out for the storage.

he told the old bill where to stick his bike I think

[Wideboy]

i got this bullsh*t when i had my first accident, i know i was in no fit state to say so but i could have got my dad or anyone else there in my van to pic up my bike but instead then had it recovered where it was dragged (ok it was fecked in the first place but still, its my fecking bike) onto the back of a low loader and taken to alton about 40 miles from home, my dad went to recover it with his van 2 days later to find my bike chucked under an artic trailer and i got billed 470 quid for the privilege! i was fecking livid

second time i made it perfectly clear to the police bloke that no one was touch the bike as i'd arranged recovery personally

[Specialone]

I cannot see how the police can deem the vehicle windscreen unsafe when, im assuming, the MOT was in place.
Would they not let autowindscreens or whoever do the repair on site like they do at your place of work etc.

Can they make the MOT void for something so easily fixed, wouldnt it need inspecting by an MOT technician rather than a wooden top who probably knows nothing about the condition of cars?

[Milky Bar Kid]

The making the MOT void sounds like it was issued with a PG9 Prohibition notice. In our force, only authorised Traffic officers are able to issue them and I have NEVER heard of one being issued to a vehicle unless it was deemed to be dangerous.

With regards to recovery, for the case of accidents, vehicles causing obstructions, vehicles with prohibitions issued, no insurance etc, the owner is liable for costs and its nothing to do with the Police how much the recovery agent charges.

[Milky Bar Kid]

I cannot see how the police can deem the vehicle windscreen unsafe when, im assuming, the MOT was in place.
Would they not let autowindscreens or whoever do the repair on site like they do at your place of work etc.

Can they make the MOT void for something so easily fixed, wouldnt it need inspecting by an MOT technician rather than a wooden top who probably knows nothing about the condition of cars?

Not every cop is able to issue PG9 notices.

[embee]

I thought PG9's were issued by VOSA not the Police, similarly I don't quite understand what the Police have got to do with MOT's, that's VOSA aswell as far as I undertand it. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I wasn't aware that MOT's could be made void, it was issued on a certain day as a cert that the vehicle complied with the MOT requirements ON THAT DAY, that's all. It doesn't guarantee that the vehicle is roadworthy or complies at any other time, so why does it need to be made void? The vehicle must be roadworthy to be on the road, but that's another issue entirely.

All sounds a bit fishy to me, more to it than meets the eye I suspect.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Nope, Police can issue PG9's aswell. A PG9 can be issued and can have conditions prohibiting the vehicle from being on the road until it has gone through an MOT, even if it has an MOT. It's not that the Police make the current MOT void as such.

[yorkie_chris]

With regards to recovery, for the case of accidents, vehicles causing obstructions, vehicles with prohibitions issued, no insurance etc, the owner is liable for costs and its nothing to do with the Police how much the recovery agent charges.

So what's the deal with the recovery agents... why can they be such a set of robbing c**ts? If I tried extorting money like that, you'd arrest me.

More to the point, what function does the "recovery agent" serve, could you arrange your own recovery? What laws actually apply to this lot

[Milky Bar Kid]

Well for no insurance it is S165 of the RTA. For vehicles causing an danger or obstruction it is section 99 Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984.

[Milky Bar Kid]

BTW, at an accident, I wouldn't recover the vehicle using Police powers unless it was causing an obstruction or danger, but 9 times out of ten, it is at owners request.

[embee]

Nope, Police can issue PG9's aswell. A PG9 can be issued and can have conditions prohibiting the vehicle from being on the road until it has gone through an MOT, even if it has an MOT. It's not that the Police make the current MOT void as such.

Ah, right, thought it was only VOSA.

Your explanation of the MOT retest makes sense. Didn't think it "voided" the existing one in the strictest sense, though in practice it's off road until a new test is done and PG10 issued so the same effect. :thumright:

[-Ralph-]

"Moral being keep your vehicle in tip top condition"

Very easy to be righteous about these things, but what if it only got cracked earlier the same day, or on a bank holiday weekend?

my friend quoted another instance when somebody had a small nick in the side of a tyre and they would not allow the driver to change to the spare

If this happened to me I'd sue the police for all the charges - and I'd win. It's just not what a court would deem as being reasonable.

EDIT: Assuming of course the spare was legal - are you sure you're getting the whole story?

The guys on the ground are only doing what they've been told to do

Nonsense, the guys on the ground have the ability to use discretion if they wish. A rectifier notice then let the guy on his way would have been sufficient in both cases.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Nonsense, the guys on the ground have the ability to use discretion if they wish. A rectifier notice then let the guy on his way would have been sufficient in both cases.

:rolleyes:

If this is the whole story.....

[Stonesie]

My only experience with a police approved recovery agent was when my car got nicked a few years ago (Mk 1 micra 1.0) the youths who took it went steeling diesel fuel from local farms in it, got chased by a police Volvo which had video footage of the whole thing and they were both arrested fleeing the abandoned car (abandoned outside the gates of a local scrap yard).
When the Police rang me to tell me all about it I wanted to pop down there and push the car into the scrap yard, but NO!, Forensics wanted a look at it so they it had already been recovered. They found their fingerprints all over it and the tool they used to pop the locks out, had video evidence of them driving it and they admitted it...

They were charged for stealing the DIESEL!!! but not the car so muggins here was forced to pay the recovery charges, fair play to the recovery company, they let me drain the petrol and waived the daily fees but it was still a £125 kick in the nut's for having my car stolen.