Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Vehicle Recovered
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
markadams
Just wondering my grounds regards this?

My vehicle was parked at the side of the road in my street, i am a motor trader. The vehicle was taxed and mot`d, i had updated my insurers for them to update the MID on my behalf.

Today i look and it has been recovered by a local firm on behalf of the police.

They say i was removed under Sec 99 of the RTA, and was suspect abandonded after a complaint from a neighbour.

I dont understand why it was removed? Can a vehicle be removed because a nieghbour complains?

It was not obstructiong anyone or anything.

Any help out there please?
jobo
its usually the council that moves abandoned vehicles

tell us what you actually know and how you know this
markadams
I have contacted the police and they read out the report to me.

I also know the local recovery firm and they told me what they were told which was that the vehicle was to be removed under sec 99 of the RTA.

In this area vehicles are recovered by a local recovery firm and this vehicle was definately requested to be removed by the police for the reasons above.
jobo
QUOTE (markadams @ Wed, 13 Jul 2011 - 15:34) *
I have contacted the police and they read out the report to me.

I also know the local recovery firm and they told me what they were told which was that the vehicle was to be removed under sec 99 of the RTA.

In this area vehicles are recovered by a local recovery firm and this vehicle was definately requested to be removed by the police for the reasons above.


OK then s 99 requires a notice to be fixed to the car adsvising it will be romove and when for a time period of, i believe 7 days

the local authority requirements are a lot less stringent,,,

this might belong in parking to be honest, but a mod will decided
markadams
I have no idea at all where it belongs but im happy for it to be in the best place to be answered.

what does local authority mean?

This was 100% definately the police who requested its removal
jobo
the council

was there a FO big notice stuck on the car for a few days beforeo removal and was the car in poor condition ?
markadams
jobo, i appreciate your help but i can assure you it was not the council 100% definate it was the police
jobo
edit the clean neighbourhood act removes the requirement to stick a notice on it, but only as i read it, if its the LA who are removing it
oldstoat
QUOTE (jobo @ Wed, 13 Jul 2011 - 15:50) *
edit the clean neighbourhood act removes the requirement to stick a notice on it, but only as i read it, if its the LA who are removing it



my god so someone can complain about a vehicle and the owner has no idea till they turn up and find the vehicle gone. that is barmy
jobo
im bouncing about with this, im sure there are more knowledgeable people, but my reading is the police can on move dangerously parked cars under 99 and abandoned is the responsibility of the LA ?

did they tell you under which section of 99 it was taken
markadams
Strangely enough the pcso who has been liasing with neighbours where it was parked would not return my calls today, i am awaiting a call from the recovery scheme manager tomorrow, the guys who towed it away tell me the officer who ordered it said it belonged to a car trader round the corner, funny how they didnt contact me in any shape or form seeing as some of the £150 release fee goes to them isnt it?
I shall get all the info i can tomorrow.

So what are they going to do when they release it tomorrow and i put it right back where it was before?
jobo
QUOTE (markadams @ Wed, 13 Jul 2011 - 23:26) *
Strangely enough the pcso who has been liasing with neighbours where it was parked would not return my calls today, i am awaiting a call from the recovery scheme manager tomorrow, the guys who towed it away tell me the officer who ordered it said it belonged to a car trader round the corner, funny how they didnt contact me in any shape or form seeing as some of the £150 release fee goes to them isnt it?
I shall get all the info i can tomorrow.

So what are they going to do when they release it tomorrow and i put it right back where it was before?

there is quite a good case for making an official complaint and hopefully getting your money back

its a bit complicated in the middle / s99 states it can be done by anyone who is authorise by the SS, which may well include the police, but i dont know how to find out for def, how ever the removal of the requirement to put a notice on it was done under the CNA and this seems ONLY allows the LA to act, and there is DEFRA guidance on what is and isnt abandoned and what measures they must take to find the owner, contrary to pop opinion they cant just do nothing unless there are no reg plates on it and there is an appeals procedure

however even allowing that the police can do it, which im not convinced they can, there is delegated power under the PRA for it to be done by PSO, but the clean neighbourhood act came later so the investigation requirements of the CNa and the defra guidance would apply

See what they say tomorrow and report back
markadams
http://www.suffolk.police.uk/Useful+Inform...en+Vehicles.htm

I did spot this which briefly mentions the act, thing is this vehicle will have had an in trade marker on it but they did not pursue this and try and trace the keeper, also (albeit word of mouth) the recovery drivers tell me they knew it belonged to a motor trader round the corner but again nobody called nor left a note. I firmly believe they did not take enough steps to find the keeper although im really not sure how i prove that.
markadams
Ok, just spoken to the Vehicle recovery scheme manager of warwickshire police a mr mario buckta.

He states the vehicle was pnc`d on 12/7 and there was no v.e.l. and no insurance showing, it also had 2 flat tyres and was considered abandoned and recovered.

My problems are thus....i informed my broker to update the MID which i do by emailing them and they email the insurers who email/fill in the MID form and put the vehicle on, the vehicle was not and is still is not showing on that database.

The police tell me that there was no VEL on the vehicle but the database shows it was indeed taxed and i have the tax disc.

The police say they CANNOT check who the vehicle belongs to if there is an in-trade marker on it so could not attempt to contact me.

Seems i am totally stuffed here and through no fault of my own. Is there anywhere i can get any help from? The police refuse to release the vehicle unless i pay £150
jobo
QUOTE (markadams @ Thu, 14 Jul 2011 - 08:29) *
Ok, just spoken to the Vehicle recovery scheme manager of warwickshire police a mr mario buckta.

He states the vehicle was pnc`d on 12/7 and there was no v.e.l. and no insurance showing, it also had 2 flat tyres and was considered abandoned and recovered.

My problems are thus....i informed my broker to update the MID which i do by emailing them and they email the insurers who email/fill in the MID form and put the vehicle on, the vehicle was not and is still is not showing on that database.

The police tell me that there was no VEL on the vehicle but the database shows it was indeed taxed and i have the tax disc.

The police say they CANNOT check who the vehicle belongs to if there is an in-trade marker on it so could not attempt to contact me.

Seems i am totally stuffed here and through no fault of my own. Is there anywhere i can get any help from? The police refuse to release the vehicle unless i pay £150


to be honest, i think your struggling, there is a long list of things they should take into consideration when decided if its been abandoned and you have quite a few off them, but the fact it was shown as insured/ showing a tax disc on their own arnt enough to come to the conclusion it was, were the tyres flat, get pictures when you recovery it of the tyres in particular and the condition in general

your going to have to pay to get it back and then write a complaint, making your grounds for a refund

how long has it been there ? if you have had it under insurance for a while and its stoll not on the base, you could make a claim against the insurance for there failure leading to the expense, though its a bit tenuous as it wasnt taken for no insurance
markadams
Ok, right i agree with there being a few on the list, however, the tyres were not flat only low, secondly i had contacted my brokers and they contacted my insurers who filled in the MID databas BUT only on a Tuesday and a Friday thereby leaving a vehicle without cover for a few days which is nobodys fault, thirdly they say it had no vel but it did, forthly they say it had been there for a long time. First report 8/7 towed away 12/7. Hardly a long time.

So although they THINK they had alot of reasons they were beyond my control and in 1 case simply not true. Problem is you cant meet someone face to face, the bloke i spoke to who said i must pay is the bloke who decides if i get my money back BUT i did speak to a PC and he said well we only have PNC to go on and if it says no insurance then thats all we have but i said if when checking PNC it has an in-trade marker on it surely you would have the brains to realise it is in trade and the MID may not haved been updated yet so to use your brains and realise it must belong to a car trader.

The police really do cause all their own bother dont they but that does not help me get my £150 back...but what does?

Oh and it doesnt prevent it happening in the future either.
markadams
Also we have another potential problem here.

I emailed my brokers on the 13th, now unless im mad we have passed a Friday and a Tuesday in that time, but the info i gave still does not appear on the MID thereby leaving me wide open to have further vehicles recovered or me get stopped and have to try and worm my way out of it when i have done nothing wrong.

I admit with the Lexus that was recovered it had slipped the net but i informed them on Wednesday and it STILL is not on the MID.

Here is a copy of the email from my brokers.

""Further to our conversation today, I confirm I have spoken with **** in the underwriting department at Royal Sun Alliance to clarify the position with the update of the MID.

Your insurers have advised that under a Motor Trade policy, they should be immediately advised of any vehicles which come into your possession. This will then be noted on their records and the MID is updated every Tuesday and Friday. Should the police need to make any enquiries as to whether a vehicle is insured in the mean time, they should call the insurers for clarification - the Certificate of Insurance in your possession is proof of valid cover on a vehicle in your custody or control; or any vehicle which is your property.

A further Certificate of Insurance is attached for your reference.

Kind Regards""


Where to go from here?

There is nobody to talk to about it is there?
jobo
your allowing your conversations with the police to drift off topic, the police have no right to lift an uninsured car that isnt being driven under s 165a of the rta, the insurance is only composite of the criteria for deciding its been abandoned, so if they are telling you it is the main or only criteria, they are misrepresenting it

you have a course of action to take

get your car back before they crush it

speak harshly to the insurance company, saying you hold them responsible for recovery costs

write letter of complain to police, to a level well above the guy your been speaking to, pointing out they have ignore the guidance criteria and been haste and greatly inconvenienced you by taking what is clearly NOT an end of life car
bean0
QUOTE (markadams @ Sat, 16 Jul 2011 - 09:07) *
First report 8/7 towed away 12/7. Hardly a long time.
That's over the weekend too... ( Friday to Tuesday ) Is it really right that now people can lose their car if they go away for a long weekend and the tyres aren't fully inflated?
markadams
Did somebody say a vehicle cannot be recovered if it has no driver with it for no insurance alone ?

Whilst there were 4 criteria for removal, 3 deflated tyres, no insurance, no tax, previous keeper only, my argument is that i have a motor trade policy which i now have proof from my insurers their legal obligation is to update the MID every 14 days, mine is to tell them promptly of any vehicles that need putting on cover. The no tax argument is ridiculous as it is taxed and i have the disc, previous keeper only was in fact an "in-trade" marker which shows the vehicle is in the motor trade (i would expect the police to know better if they come across a vehicle in trade that the insurance may not yet be up to date).

Here are 2 emails from my brokers

QUOTE
Hi
Thank you for your e-mail. Please note that legally you have 14 days to update the MID. We are looking at alternative quotes with MMA.
Regards, Helen


QUOTE
Further to our conversation today, I confirm I have spoken with **** in the underwriting department at Royal Sun Alliance to clarify the position with the update of the MID.

Your insurers have advised that under a Motor Trade policy, they should be immediately advised of any vehicles which come into your possession. This will then be noted on their records and the MID is updated every Tuesday and Friday. Should the police need to make any enquiries as to whether a vehicle is insured in the mean time, they should call the insurers for clarification - the Certificate of Insurance in your possession is proof of valid cover on a vehicle in your custody or control; or any vehicle which is your property.

A further Certificate of Insurance is attached for your reference.

Kind Regards


So whom should i be writing to? I got the vehicle out of the pound the same day and paid £150 and the car is back where it was the previous days and MID still shows no insurance held so it could be taken away again at any time.

So the police say they only have PNC to go on and if it says no insurance they will remove but the MID takes up to 14 days to update at which time i am at risk and i would not have a claim against either the police nor the insurers which is bang out of order if you ask me.

So where is my first port of call ? The vehicle recovery manager or the officer who authorised removal, i have spoken to the police but they wont let me speak to an officer about it !!

Oh and buy the way this was a £3000 lexus gs300 not some old banger.
localdriver
For the removal of the vehicle without insurance:

Road Traffic Act 1988 s.165A (3) - Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(a) A constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) The person fails to produce such evidence, and
© The constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

If the vehicle is parked and unattended, (a) & (b) are not satisfied, © could be, as there is no record of insurance.
If all three sections are not satisfied, there are no powers to seize the vehicle for no insurance.

Powers to remove vehicles under s.99 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are different:

(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the removal of vehicles which have been permitted to remain at rest—(a)on a road in contravention of any statutory prohibition or restriction, or

(b)on a road in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to cause obstruction to other persons using the road or as to be likely to cause danger to such persons, or

©on a road, or on any land in the open air, in such a position or in such condition or in such circumstances as to appear, to an authority empowered by the regulations to remove such vehicles, to have been abandoned without lawful authority,

or which have broken down on a road.

markadams
Here is my letter i shall be sending. Comments please?

I write with reference to incident number 381 of 12/7.
My vehicle ******* was removed on 12/7 and the reasons listed below.
1. Removed under Sec 99 RTA (Abandoned Vehicles) for having 3 flat tyres
2. Removed for having no insurance
3. Removed for out of date VEL
4. Removed as previous keeper only with an in-trade marker.
I have since recovered my vehicle from *** Recovery Services and paid the sum of £150 which I am requesting is to be recovered from yourselves and the reasons will be explained below.
The recovery company tell me that the tyres were in fact low on pressure and not punctured or deflated or split or damaged and they kindly pumped them back up for me.
I am a motor trader and my legal obligation is to contact my insurers as soon as possible to any additions or removal of vehicles, then they have up to 14 days to update the MID. I have this is writing and will provide you with copies. This therefore leaves a “grey area” in which a vehicle may appear on PNC as not insured but the legal obligation of the Insurer and the client have both been satisfied.
It is at this point that the police officer normally uses his discretion and other powers to find out if the vehicle is TRULY insured, this can involve a phone call to the previous keeper, knocking of doors, and a phone call to the insurers. On PNC the officers found the vehicle to have an “in-trade” marker which is when the vehicle is sold by the previous keeper and is held “in-trade” to the motor trader until sold to the next owner and the V5 is then filled in and sent to DVLA.
I find that the officer did not use ANY of his powers or discretion available to him as he checked the vehicle at 22.30 at night at a time when he could not make the phone call to confirm insurance, nor did he use his own common sense and seeing as the vehicle had an in trade marker there was every possibility in the world that it belonged to a motor trader and the MID can take up to 14 days to update !!
My final point is that you, and the officer say the VEL was expired, and I also provide you with evidence that the vehicle was, and still is, taxed.
Also the first call came in on 8/7 and the vehicle was removed on 12/7 thereby only giving 4 days, over a weekend before removal. I would say a lot of people may not use their car for 4 days, hardly enough time to be certain it is abandoned
In my conclusion I find there has been a catalogue of errors by the police and furthermore a total lack of attempts to actually ascertain the ownership and true insurance status of the vehicle. A lot more could have been done rather than take the heavy handed step of removal to a compound.
I therefore ask that my £150 fee be returned to me.
localdriver
I would counter their insurance reason as there are no powers to remove abandoned vehicles for no insurance under s.165A Road Traffic Act 1988.

If they are relying on s.99 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, emphasise that the car was insured and not abandoned and should not have been removed as there was ample time for enquiries to be made between the time that the police were made aware of it and the time it was removed which would have revealed that the vehicle was not abandoned and was insured (and licensed?).
nimh999
You might be lucky and get your money back but your problem seems to be that you weren't displaying the VEL. Having it is not the same as displaying it in the vehicle.

As far as I am aware the only exemption's are VEL's bought online before the old one expires and then you have 5 days grace into the new month or possibly trade plates as well.

QUOTE (markadams @ Thu, 14 Jul 2011 - 09:29) *
i have the tax disc.



QUOTE (markadams @ Sat, 16 Jul 2011 - 09:07) *
they say it had no vel but it did



QUOTE (markadams @ Wed, 20 Jul 2011 - 10:37) *
3. Removed for out of date VEL

localdriver
The offence of not displaying a licence, (s.33 Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994) is different to that of not having a licence (s.29(1) of the same act).
There are no powers to remove a vehicle just for not displaying a licence.
There are powers to clamp and then remove vehicles where a vehicle is unlicensed, Schedule 2A Vehicles Excise & Registration Act 1994.

Although the vehicle was not displaying a current licence, enquiries during the time that the police were aware of it would also have revealed that it was in fact licensed, so the only offence was failure to display the a licence.

Displaying an out of date licence could be one of the indications that the car had been abandoned, but it is listed as one of the reasons that the car was removed.
markadams
QUOTE
You might be lucky and get your money back but your problem seems to be that you weren't displaying the VEL. Having it is not the same as displaying it in the vehicle.

As far as I am aware the only exemption's are VEL's bought online before the old one expires and then you have 5 days grace into the new month or possibly trade plates as well.


Believe it or not VEl was displayed !!
markadams
Letter sent.

Fingers crossed.

If the manager of the police vehicle recovery scheme does not cough up what is my next stage as i feel i have ample grounds given what my letter above contains.
hcandersen
There is no evidence in this thread regarding the grounds on which the police removed the vehicle. I can see endless reports of discussions/tel calls etc. Evidence is in writing.

So, what paperwork were you given when you recovered your vehicle?

You've written a long letter to the police based on what you were told/presume. The only way to go is to ask in writing (but if you've sent the letter this should be in their reply). In these cases I wish there weren't telephones, they're a b****y nuisance. You write saying "why did you remove my vehicle/what legal authority etc. etc." You get their reply, you consider, you then look at the relevant law, and then you decide whether to take further.

IME so far it's HCA 1, Chief Constable, Sussex Police 0.

Let's look at this from a common-sense perspective. As you say (but sorry to say it took you long enough to get round to mentioning it) the car in question is a Lexus valued at £3000. These do not get abandoned (NB. abandoned its legal context which is by the owner, a thief cannot abandon something that doesn't belong to him). So if, and I say if, it appeared to be abandoned, what steps did the police take to verify this? Where are your details on an official register that the police could access? And let's not forget your neighbour, it strikes me that there's more to this than meets the eye - a bit of "previous" is what I think is the term. Why would they complain? Do you use the road as a showroom? In any event, if they know you then they probably know where you reside. Was the car very near to any retail premises that you own/ are there any on site clues as to the possible ownership of a vehicle left there? These are all relevant because the police's first recourse would normally be to verify the report and investigate. If it was purely abandoned then they would pass to the LA in normal circumstances and not get involved - this is one of the police's "core" activities that they passed to LAs years ago, along with stray dogs!

HCA
picko
QUOTE (markadams @ Wed, 20 Jul 2011 - 10:37) *
Here is my letter i shall be sending. Comments please?......

....A lot more could have been done ......


I believe the word is should not could
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.