Who foots the bill for damaged police cars?

[wjwren]

Just watching an episode of Police Interceptors, newish 330d was pushed off the road by a stolen car and totalled. Who foots the bill for this? Are police vehicles insured for total loss or does the tax payer foot the £35k odd bill?

[threespires]

Police vehicles are not insured in the conventional way, [unless things have changed recently].
They are covered by some sort of Government bond.

[jonwm]

wjwren said:

Just watching an episode of Police Interceptors, newish 330d was pushed off the road by a stolen car and totalled. Who foots the bill for this? Are police vehicles insured for total loss or does the tax payer foot the £35k odd bill?

They pay about £20k for a 330d but costs are not recovered from the people they chase.

Really bugs me with all the constraints on officers pay and the cuts that the fleets get rammed on a daily basis and they have to accept repair or replacement costs.

I wish it could be recovered in some way to leave money for more officers etc.

[JulianHJ]

It’s not a government bond AFAIK. My local force self-insures up to a fixed level. Beyond that there is an insurance policy.

[aka_kerrly]

I was thinking about this the other day after watching a programme on TV showing the fleet management behind a local force and came to the conclusion that the police must have a mega fleet insurance policy.

There were plenty of examples of cars receiving for example full new bumpers when a smart repair would have been sufficient, not transferring parts from old/retired cars onto new ones and repairing cosmetic damage that doesn't effect how the vehicle performs.

It seems bonkers to me to have traffic police cars that have a high chance of being involved in "tactical" crashes being repaired to "as new" standard with brand new genuine wings/bumpers/bonnets for potentially only a few days before they are involved in another incident.

I suppose the logic is that police cars are likely leased an need to be returned in a semi usable state.

[jonwm]

I've also wandered why they don't have a bit more protection like the US police cars for tpac etc i read somewhere its because it some law on safety yet police have traffic law exemption for other things. (Travelling at 150mph to get to an incident etc)

Seems strange and would prove a deterrent to reverse ramming which seems quite popular worth the criminals

[Cold]

Insurance policy? That would be the taxpayer.

[aka_kerrly]

jonwm said:

I've also wandered why they don't have a bit more protection like the US police cars for tpac etc i read somewhere its because it some law on safety yet police have traffic law exemption for other things. (Travelling at 150mph to get to an incident etc)

Seems strange and would prove a deterrent to reverse ramming which seems quite popular worth the criminals

It does sound like a good idea but I'm fairly certain that even in America there are less vehicles fitted with bull bars now compared to say 10-15 years ago due to health an safety concerns after a number of deaths resulting from police cars hitting pedestrians.

I suppose the problem the police face is how can they justify spending thousands on all cars fitting protection when only a relatively small number of them will be involved in incidents where the car is repeatedly rammed by a criminal. I guess in the grand scheme of things if an average car is in service for 3-5 years a thousand pounds of repairs is only a minor cost as would claims on a small number getting written off in year 1 when they are at the highest value.

[Glasgowrob]

Seems it's the usual other people's money syndrome.

See it in all manner of public services and in large corporations. Where policy and procedure overule common sense.

When you see the police using main stream body shops for repairs that any mechanic could put into place you know there's an issue.

That said there was a huge outcry up here and won't someone think if the children when police Scotland where found to be using second hand parts for cosmetic repairs and running vehicles for their full useable life rather than replacing every 3 years

Damned if you do damned if you dont

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyrecord.co.uk...

Apologies for the piss poor journalism but you get the point.

Interestingly though police Scotland operate a fleet of vehicles from 26 different manufacturers. Seems crazy not to pare that down envoke larger discounts for bigger orders and maintain a certain amount of commonality of fleet meaning an easier time for the in house workshops.

Why have 10 different brands of traffic cars when you really could get away with everything from one or for a bit of variety 2 manufacturers.

[aka_kerrly]

Glasgowrob said:

Seems it's the usual other people's money syndrome.

That is a good point!

The Scottish situation of using 3+ year old cars and second hand panels sounds very sensible to me especially for vehicles not used on a 24/7 basis, hell they can use 5-7+ year old cars if they are still cost effective to maintain, I'm not one to judge a copper doing a good job in an old car!!

Your point about not negotiating discounts on volume purchases and standardising the fleet is also a very good & would appear logical, however you can't but feel that a centralised purchasing system would just add another layer of costs which brings us back to your original point - other people's money syndrome - where is the incentive to save costs when you get allocated X amount to spend you may as well spend it all , see also local councils!!

[Cat]

jonwm said:

They pay about £20k for a 330d but costs are not recovered from the people they chase.

Really bugs me with all the constraints on officers pay and the cuts that the fleets get rammed on a daily basis and they have to accept repair or replacement costs.

I wish it could be recovered in some way to leave money for more officers etc.

Costs are recovered - see the comments from Staffs Police in this article

Cat

[JulianHJ]

aka_kerrly said:

That is a good point!

The Scottish situation of using 3+ year old cars and second hand panels sounds very sensible to me especially for vehicles not used on a 24/7 basis, hell they can use 5-7+ year old cars if they are still cost effective to maintain, I'm not one to judge a copper doing a good job in an old car!!

Your point about not negotiating discounts on volume purchases and standardising the fleet is also a very good & would appear logical, however you can't but feel that a centralised purchasing system would just add another layer of costs which brings us back to your original point - other people's money syndrome - where is the incentive to save costs when you get allocated X amount to spend you may as well spend it all , see also local councils!!

A lot of thought goes in to maximising value for money where fleet is concerned. There are regular outbursts on PH and elsewhere about the purchase of BMWs and Audis for use by traffic and firearms units, amongst others, but the reality is those cars are bought because they are fit for purpose and offer the lowest costs over their lifetime. My local force have been buying Astras for their response officers and Hyundais for unmarked uses, such as CID. A lot of the unmarked fleet is 5-10 years old, though they have just bought a number of BMW i3s - again the theory being that they'll be cheaper to run in the long term.

[Earthdweller]

There’s a national purchasing framework for the forces in England and Wales

The cars are bought outright at massive discounts, and in bulk. Think around 50% of the list price and you won’t be far off

One of the contracts involves 28 forces using BMW for high performance vehicles, Peugeot for general patrol and Ford Transit cell vans

There are also bespoke warranties put in place on very favourable terms

Servicing is done in house in most cases with the full manufacturers diagnostics, with vehicles only going outside for warranty work

Equipping for service and de fleeting likewise is pooled and all vehicles are in a national livery to cut costs

Written off vehicles are cannibalised
Minor bodywork is done in house with normally just insurance stuff getting sent out

Most forces self insure and where a third party is at fault then claims are made

The police will not use second hand or pattern parts

Purchase outside the framework is allowed for low volume or special stuff however

I can’t comment on Scotland as I don’t know how they work

[vonhosen]

Maintenance/fleet management used to be in house, but is increasingly managed by the likes of Babcock, who also do Fire service, military etc.
They are now also starting to take over training too.

[randlemarcus]

Earthdweller said:

There’s a national purchasing framework for the forces in England and Wales

The cars are bought outright at massive discounts, and in bulk. Think around 50% of the list price and you won’t be far off

One of the contracts involves 28 forces using BMW for high performance vehicles, Peugeot for general patrol and Ford Transit cell vans

There are also bespoke warranties put in place on very favourable terms

Servicing is done in house in most cases with the full manufacturers diagnostics, with vehicles only going outside for warranty work

Equipping for service and de fleeting likewise is pooled and all vehicles are in a national livery to cut costs

Written off vehicles are cannibalised
Minor bodywork is done in house with normally just insurance stuff getting sent out

Most forces self insure and where a third party is at fault then claims are made

The police will not use second hand or pattern parts

Purchase outside the framework is allowed for low volume or special stuff however

I can’t comment on Scotland as I don’t know how they work

Begone with your facts, and first hand knowledge of how it all works quite efficiently together

[jonwm]

Cat said:

jonwm said:

They pay about £20k for a 330d but costs are not recovered from the people they chase.

Really bugs me with all the constraints on officers pay and the cuts that the fleets get rammed on a daily basis and they have to accept repair or replacement costs.

I wish it could be recovered in some way to leave money for more officers etc.

Costs are recovered - see the comments from Staffs Police in this article

Cat

Thanks for the link. Have realised this was such common practice. Happy days

[imagineifyeswill]

Many years ago, around 35, I was involved in an accident with an unmarked police car doing driver training. This accident took place on a single track road in the north of Scotland in slippery conditions, had we hit head on it would have been 50/50 but I was dring a 4x4 Subaru and managed to drive completely of the road onto the verge before the other car hit me. The police sergeant travelling in a following marked car took control and tried everything he could to find some reason to book me for something but at the end of the day the police took the blame and the garage I worked for were told to send the repair bill to Royal Insurance.

[mac96]

jonwm said:

Cat said:

jonwm said:

They pay about £20k for a 330d but costs are not recovered from the people they chase.

Really bugs me with all the constraints on officers pay and the cuts that the fleets get rammed on a daily basis and they have to accept repair or replacement costs.

I wish it could be recovered in some way to leave money for more officers etc.

Costs are recovered - see the comments from Staffs Police in this article

Cat

Thanks for the link. Have realised this was such common practice. Happy days

That's interesting, but also seems a bit odd to me. The insurance company pays losses for which their insured would be legally liable- and it is hard to see how the victim can be liable for damage done to a police car by the thief, even if he did leave the keys in. I wonder what would have happened if the police driver had been injured and had a claim for that?
Still, if the insurers of stolen cars always pay for damage done by the thieves to other people's property that is good news and not just for the police. I suspect not everyone would think of claiming from them though.

[Cat]

mac96 said:

That's interesting, but also seems a bit odd to me. The insurance company pays losses for which their insured would be legally liable- and it is hard to see how the victim can be liable for damage done to a police car by the thief, even if he did leave the keys in. I wonder what would have happened if the police driver had been injured and had a claim for that?

The insured party isn't liable, the insurance company is - section 151 of the RTA is the relevant legislation.

If there was a personal injury claim the ins co would be liable for that also.

Cat

[mac96]

Thank you. Every day a a school day!