The police deal with this extremely well. Despite the comments I don't think many of us would really like Gene Hunt and co on our streeets.

However, the part where the police read out the car seizure and storage fee seems, to me, as rediculous as Dave and his fees. I don't think the police should deal with charging money like this. I know the individual police don't set the fees. This isn't criticism of the police officers themselves. But the system forces people into a state agreed monopoly with the recovery firm the police area contract with. I would much rather vehicles are taken and stored at very nominal charge. Then for the courts to levy higher fines than they do currently with a portion going to provide financial support to the vehicle recovery element.

I think the sense of unfairness created by the on the spot fines imposed by councils and police, along with procedures that punish without the use of courts drive some of these people in their freedom of the land nonsense.

Not a monopoly when a force uses several contractors and they can and do lose contracts. Anyway, a range is needed to cover the geography and availability required.

The monopoly aspect was not my main point. However there is no choice to the consumer/payee. Which is monopolistic in nature. My main point was that I don't think the police should levy financial penalty. The court should. Then perhaps fines for lack of insurance would appear stiff enough to deter?

I love how he puts the "Officer has been served legal documents" like he is getting one over on the police by handing them that toilet paper

He was charged with:

[stuff]

Arrested at about 4pm. Fingerprints etc taken by force. Charged. Kept in a cell overnight. Put before the court in the afternoon. NG pleas entered and case adjourned to a date in April. Released on bail. Can't get the car back without proof of insurance, MOT, tax.

Dear Elaine: of the Henderson family,

Thank you for your letter dated 6th April, I write to you as a courtesy since I already have a default judgment and irrevocable estoppel by your tacit acquiescence.

Once again, you refer to my previous notices as letters thereby not acknowledging their legal standing despite the clear headings containing the word ‘Notice’ in bold type; however, I note that at the same time you required me to recognise the status of your alleged “Demand Notice” and act upon it accordingly.
A notice is “the legal concept describing a requirement that a party be aware of legal process affecting their rights, obligations or duties”. For my part I noticed your notice and responded in a timely manner by conditionally accepting it upon proofs of claim and by seeking clarification of its content. You on the other hand, have dishonoured my notices and this has resulted in a default judgment against you.

Although you may believe that you have answered my questions sufficiently, for reasons detailed in my NOTICE OF NON ACCEPTANCE DUE TO LACK OF SUBSTANCE AND CLARIFICATION you failed in your legal and moral duty to answer in full all questions and points raised.

Furthermore, you have dishonoured my NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE by communicating with me without my consent. Therefore I must advise you that my fee schedule, as detailed in the aforementioned notice, is now active and I have enclosed an invoice for £1000.00 (ONE THOUSAND AND ZERO PENCE GREAT BRITISH POUNDS STERLING) payable on receipt.

It appears that THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES, a private, for-profit corporation intends to continue in its attempt at Fraud, Extortion and Obtaining Property by Deception. As such, I feel I have no choice but to begin proceedings to serve a Commercial Lien upon THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES for commercial damages incurred in this regard to the value of £5608.92 (the principal sum plus three times (3x) the principal sum in damages)
I have enclosed a NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST in order to begin this process. I advise you to consult with your legal department before continuing.

Sincerely without malice, ill will, vexation or frivolity