Vehicle stolen, then crushed by council/NSL...!
Discussion
Today I was informed that one of my 65 plate Ford Fiestas has been crushed, back in March.
It was on a long term lease to a fleet supplier, who then sub-hired it to a corporate user who insured it themselves.
It transpires it was stolen from the corporate user around November 2017, and reported to Hertfordshire police (where the corproare user was based)
The vehicle was then uplifted by NSL on behalf of Haringey council around Christmas 2017 after a some residents complained it was abandoned in the street, windows smashed, every panel battered.
It sat in a compound for 90 days before it was scrapped. The first we knew about this was when the tax refund arrived from the DVLA.
Haringey have no record of correspondence with the registered keeper, nor the police - even though it was marked on the PNC and HPI as stolen, but still it has been crushed.
To further complicate matters, the hirer it was stolen from has gone into liquidation (not related to this incident, but their insurance is not paying out)
I understand it was picked up under Section 99 of the RTA, but what I can't find are any regulations or guidelines to te'l the authority what to do when they pick a vehicle up, and ask them to cover the losses due to their non-compliance.
Any idea where I should start on this?!
I'd prefer to work with my customer on this one as I know it is not their fault, but our supply contract does allow us to pursue them for all losses as a last option.
( A bit of googling suggests this is not the first time Haringey have done this - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-demands... )
It was on a long term lease to a fleet supplier, who then sub-hired it to a corporate user who insured it themselves.
It transpires it was stolen from the corporate user around November 2017, and reported to Hertfordshire police (where the corproare user was based)
The vehicle was then uplifted by NSL on behalf of Haringey council around Christmas 2017 after a some residents complained it was abandoned in the street, windows smashed, every panel battered.
It sat in a compound for 90 days before it was scrapped. The first we knew about this was when the tax refund arrived from the DVLA.
Haringey have no record of correspondence with the registered keeper, nor the police - even though it was marked on the PNC and HPI as stolen, but still it has been crushed.
To further complicate matters, the hirer it was stolen from has gone into liquidation (not related to this incident, but their insurance is not paying out)
I understand it was picked up under Section 99 of the RTA, but what I can't find are any regulations or guidelines to te'l the authority what to do when they pick a vehicle up, and ask them to cover the losses due to their non-compliance.
Any idea where I should start on this?!
I'd prefer to work with my customer on this one as I know it is not their fault, but our supply contract does allow us to pursue them for all losses as a last option.
( A bit of googling suggests this is not the first time Haringey have done this - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-demands... )
Edited by S11Steve on Friday 15th June 16:57
S11Steve said:
Haringey have no record of correspondence with the registered keeper, nor the police - even though it was marked on the PNC and HPI as stolen, but still it has been crushed.
To further complicate matters, the hirer it was stolen from has gone into liquidation (not related to this incident, but their insurance is not paying out)
I understand it was picked up under Section 99 of the RTA, but what I can't find are any regulations or guidelines to te'l the authority what to do when they pick a vehicle up, and ask them to cover the losses due to their non-compliance.
It cannot possibly be under RTA Section 99. That relates to D/Ls - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/secti...To further complicate matters, the hirer it was stolen from has gone into liquidation (not related to this incident, but their insurance is not paying out)
I understand it was picked up under Section 99 of the RTA, but what I can't find are any regulations or guidelines to te'l the authority what to do when they pick a vehicle up, and ask them to cover the losses due to their non-compliance.
S11Steve said:
Any idea where I should start on this?!
I'd prefer to work with my customer on this one as I know it is not their fault, but our supply contract does allow us to pursue them for all losses as a last option.
You may find this helpful - http://www.britishparking.co.uk/write/Documents/Li...I'd prefer to work with my customer on this one as I know it is not their fault, but our supply contract does allow us to pursue them for all losses as a last option.
It would appear that Haringey may have signally failed in their responsibilities by their lack of communicate with both the RK and the police.
S11Steve said:
( A bit of googling suggests this is not the first time Haringey have done this - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/man-demands... )
This LA is known for being a virulently anti-car. They are not alone in shooting from the hip.Longer term PHers will remember this - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crushed-by-the-cou...
I suspect Haringey will try to frustrate you at every turn and that you will end up having to seek recourse in the courts.
And/or complain to the Local Government Ombusdsman - https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/what-we-ca...
Jesus wept, that is seriously screwed up!!!! I hate to be the finger pointer here but at the end of the day surely whoever you leased/hired the car to is responsible for it? If you continue to sort it out for them then they'll just sit back and let you, you leased the vehicle to them, it then became their responsibility for it's whereabouts, security ETC.
Bobberoo99 said:
Jesus wept, that is seriously screwed up!!!! I hate to be the finger pointer here but at the end of the day surely whoever you leased/hired the car to is responsible for it? If you continue to sort it out for them then they'll just sit back and let you, you leased the vehicle to them, it then became their responsibility for it's whereabouts, security ETC.
As above surely it is their (the leasee) responsibility and not yours - you apply pressure to them and let them have the headache dealing with the LA, why should you?S11Steve said:
To further complicate matters, the hirer it was stolen from has gone into liquidation (not related to this incident, but their insurance is not paying out)
If cover was in place when it was stolen then surely they'd still be liable? Although now the story has come out I guess they won't pay.I'd have thought you'd have to follow the chain - so you have to go after the people you leased to. Although it's complicated by your company being the owner (did you won it outright?) and the RK
Sheepshanks said:
S11Steve said:
To further complicate matters, the hirer it was stolen from has gone into liquidation (not related to this incident, but their insurance is not paying out)
If cover was in place when it was stolen then surely they'd still be liable? Although now the story has come out I guess they won't pay.But I suspect "insurance is not paying out" is the key to all of this... With the hirer having gone into liquidation, Steve's just another unsecured creditor.
TooMany2cvs said:
... With the hirer having gone into liquidation, Steve's just another unsecured creditor.
He's not - the fleet supplier is. They take the end customer risk as they decided to deal with them. He doesn't seem to have any contract relationship with the end customer. How much this all is complicated by him owning the vehicle and not getting notifications etc, I have no idea.
I'm thinking about this from a common sense POV - commercial law may be very different.
Sheepshanks said:
He's not - the fleet supplier is. They take the end customer risk as they decided to deal with them.
Ah, sorry. That doesn't explain the insurance problem, though, but it does mean the same thing - the only people Steve can shout at have gone tits, and he's an unsecured creditor of theirs.TooMany2cvs said:
But I suspect "insurance is not paying out" is the key to all of this... With the hirer having gone into liquidation, Steve's just another unsecured creditor.
Not necessarily. The fleet company, which is 'pig-in-the-middle,' will be a creditor of the failed business.Steve is one step removed so it depends on the terms of the lease agreement with the fleet company.
It could end up as a pragmatic commercial decision not to pursue the latter.
Maintaining good business relations can sometimes be worth more than ££ on a balance sheet.
Red Devil said:
TooMany2cvs said:
But I suspect "insurance is not paying out" is the key to all of this... With the hirer having gone into liquidation, Steve's just another unsecured creditor.
Not necessarily. The fleet company, which is 'pig-in-the-middle,' will be a creditor of the failed business.Steve is one step removed so it depends on the terms of the lease agreement with the fleet company.
It could end up as a pragmatic commercial decision not to pursue the latter.
Maintaining good business relations can sometimes be worth more than ££ on a balance sheet.
The insurance is an issue, it looks like it was covered for the first month, but the policy was cancelled. I'm still trying to get to the bottom of that though.
I had only assumed it was a section 99 seizure, but either way, I could do with learning what the prices should have been to approach the council with.
S11Steve said:
I had only assumed it was a section 99 seizure, but either way, I could do with learning what the prices should have been to approach the council with.
I'm a bit slow this week. 
The Section 99 you refer to is RTRA 1984, rather than RTA 1988.
https://sites.google.com/site/ronbarkercrimlaw/pol...
f the LA acted on the residents' complaint then it wiil have done so by virtue of:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/3/section...
and/or Section 5 of:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/183/pdfs/...
Prices? Did you mean to say process? (I guess you know what the vehicle was worth).
The1986 Regs above and the the flowchart I linked to earlier detail the steps the LA should have taken.
From what you said earlier, it doesn't look like it.
If you have supporting evidence of these failures then challenge the LA to prove otherwise.
Steve, what are you trying to claim and off who?
The Fiesta was stolen, smashed-up and dumped, even if the council had contacted you as 'owner' you would only be better off by being in possession of a worthless smashed-up stolen-recovered Fiesta. The value of that Fiesta disappearing due to the theft and the lack of insurance, not the actions (or lack of) by the Council or those who crushed it.
The Fiesta was stolen, smashed-up and dumped, even if the council had contacted you as 'owner' you would only be better off by being in possession of a worthless smashed-up stolen-recovered Fiesta. The value of that Fiesta disappearing due to the theft and the lack of insurance, not the actions (or lack of) by the Council or those who crushed it.
The Surveyor said:
Steve, what are you trying to claim and off who?
The Fiesta was stolen, smashed-up and dumped, even if the council had contacted you as 'owner' you would only be better off by being in possession of a worthless smashed-up stolen-recovered Fiesta. The value of that Fiesta disappearing due to the theft and the lack of insurance, not the actions (or lack of) by the Council or those who crushed it.
We do get a few vehicles smashed up like this, usually we dispose of them as unrecorded losses at a salvage auction, then bill our customer for the shortfall against CAP Clean. The Fiesta was stolen, smashed-up and dumped, even if the council had contacted you as 'owner' you would only be better off by being in possession of a worthless smashed-up stolen-recovered Fiesta. The value of that Fiesta disappearing due to the theft and the lack of insurance, not the actions (or lack of) by the Council or those who crushed it.
There are loads of reasons why insurance wont pay out, or why fleet users wont claim on insurance - if a fleet policy excess is £5k,or more, and the shortfall on a smashed up vehicle is £4k, they'll always take the cheaper option. The end users insurance failing to cover is a common reason though - we bill our customer, they will then bill their customer, if they can, or if the end user is still trading,
Body shops love these type of vehicles though - they are not registered as Cat C/D (or whatever it is now), and it gives them something to fix up during quiet periods to sell on a profit. Nearly new, low mileage, and none of the restrictions on OEM panels etc imposed by insurance companies when rebuilding them.
Ideally we, as owner/RK want to claim for the losses against the council - if they had informed us, we would have collected it from the pound and sent to CoPart or CD Salvage. But we have nothing at all to mitigate the losses. We could claim back against our customer, but that is a last resort - they've been with us for 15+ years, so I'd much rather work with them than get legal on them.
The council however appear to have failed the result of which has cost us about £9k
I'll go through the links posted tomorrow though - thank you!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff