Service centre got my car impounded
Discussion
My Landcruiser has been shipped back from a trip to Asia during which time the MOT and tax expired. I booked it in for an MOT and service and drove it there. I understand this is perfectly legal. After they had done the MOT the service centre parked the car on the road despite having a large forecourt. It was lifted and impounded by the council. The service centre refused to acknowledge any responsibility and left me to go and get it from the pound (and pay for it).
I did not point out to them that the tax was expired (but a check of the tax disc would have alerted them). I did not ask them not to drive the car on the public road, but I did give them permission to do so.
Any idea where I stand legally?
Trip
I did not point out to them that the tax was expired (but a check of the tax disc would have alerted them). I did not ask them not to drive the car on the public road, but I did give them permission to do so.
Any idea where I stand legally?
Trip
IANAL, but common sense would seem to dictate that it was in their safekeeping from the moment you dropped it off to the moment you should have collected the keys. Ask them if they have their standard couretesy car form knocking around, and I bet it says that you are responsible for any fines etc while you have the car. These things work both ways.
Try a polite letter, then get yourself across to the online courts thingy. You'll be better off going to get the car etc and making sure you get a receipt first. You could always try arguing with the council that as it was en-route to a pre-booked MOT and thence Tax, it was an illegal seizure, but I doubt you'll get anywhere.
Try a polite letter, then get yourself across to the online courts thingy. You'll be better off going to get the car etc and making sure you get a receipt first. You could always try arguing with the council that as it was en-route to a pre-booked MOT and thence Tax, it was an illegal seizure, but I doubt you'll get anywhere.
Interesting! Legally that is, not so much if you have just forked out a load of money.
This all comes down to the contract with the service centre. They have a duty of care to look after your vehicle, and act reasonably.
I have had a think about this and I think the crux comes down to whether the MOT can be carried out on an untaxed vehicle - I believe it must be able to. Also, I believe that some of the MOT is a 'road test'?
If this is the case then it could be reasonably assumed by you that they would take it on the road, legally. Also, it would be reasonably expected by them to keep the car in their posession, on the large forecourt whilst the car was in their care. What would have happened if the car was driven into whilst it was on the road?
I believe a court would find that ths action was irresponsible and might make them liable for the costs.
My way forward would be this. Find out the answers to my questions above. If they are correct then write to the service centre explaining that you reasonably assumed that the car would be kept on their property. You do not have to give specific instructions to the engineer not to contravene parking regulations just to make them liable.
Ask them to pay the money within 7 days or you will take further action including taking the story to the local paper.
They know full well your local paper would lap it up, get a nice photo of you outside the centre and they would get a lot of bad publicity for the fact that customers cars are parked on the road.
If you don't get the money back then you can then take legal action through the court which is pretty simple too.
This all comes down to the contract with the service centre. They have a duty of care to look after your vehicle, and act reasonably.
I have had a think about this and I think the crux comes down to whether the MOT can be carried out on an untaxed vehicle - I believe it must be able to. Also, I believe that some of the MOT is a 'road test'?
If this is the case then it could be reasonably assumed by you that they would take it on the road, legally. Also, it would be reasonably expected by them to keep the car in their posession, on the large forecourt whilst the car was in their care. What would have happened if the car was driven into whilst it was on the road?
I believe a court would find that ths action was irresponsible and might make them liable for the costs.
My way forward would be this. Find out the answers to my questions above. If they are correct then write to the service centre explaining that you reasonably assumed that the car would be kept on their property. You do not have to give specific instructions to the engineer not to contravene parking regulations just to make them liable.
Ask them to pay the money within 7 days or you will take further action including taking the story to the local paper.
They know full well your local paper would lap it up, get a nice photo of you outside the centre and they would get a lot of bad publicity for the fact that customers cars are parked on the road.
If you don't get the money back then you can then take legal action through the court which is pretty simple too.
randlemarcus said:
You could always try arguing with the council that as it was en-route to a pre-booked MOT and thence Tax, it was an illegal seizure, but I doubt you'll get anywhere.
I think this is an important point, and good legal argument. Although, the council may say that the service centre shouldnt have parked your car on the road. At least it will add ammon to the case against the service centre if nothing else.JustinP1 said:
randlemarcus said:
You could always try arguing with the council that as it was en-route to a pre-booked MOT and thence Tax, it was an illegal seizure, but I doubt you'll get anywhere.
I think this is an important point, and good legal argument. Although, the council may say that the service centre shouldnt have parked your car on the road. At least it will add ammon to the case against the service centre if nothing else.however id expect a garage to keep my car on their property while it is in their care. try CAB for advice, but id say the garage left it there they are liable. Im sue the OP parked it on their property when he handed it to them considering the legal state of the car.
I think duty of care by the service centre should apply here.
Therefore if they brake the law whilst the car is under their care they should be liable.
It would be the same if your car were to be stopped/photo'd for speeding the driver would be liable.
It's been 18 months since I had an MOT (sold the car before anyone asks) but it wasn't a requirement of the MOT for the car to be driven.
Therefore if they brake the law whilst the car is under their care they should be liable.
It would be the same if your car were to be stopped/photo'd for speeding the driver would be liable.
It's been 18 months since I had an MOT (sold the car before anyone asks) but it wasn't a requirement of the MOT for the car to be driven.
A couple of things spring to mind..
Firstly, wouldn't the MOT tester's Trade Licence temporarily 'cover' any unlicensed vehicles in their possession ?
That said, and secondly, isn't it the case that an authorised person simply requires a reason to believe that an offence has been committed before removal / immoblisation of the vehicle can be carried out ? ie proof of an excise licence offence is not required.
There is a disputes procedure - see Section 17 of The Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997
Firstly, wouldn't the MOT tester's Trade Licence temporarily 'cover' any unlicensed vehicles in their possession ?
That said, and secondly, isn't it the case that an authorised person simply requires a reason to believe that an offence has been committed before removal / immoblisation of the vehicle can be carried out ? ie proof of an excise licence offence is not required.
There is a disputes procedure - see Section 17 of The Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997
hemibum said:
It's still not a requirement to drive the car on the road for any part of an MOT.
MOT Test Manual said:
Certain vehicles should not be tested on a roller brake tester, eg vehicles with
More than one driving axle permanently engaged
Limited-slip differential
Belt-driven transmission
Brakes for which the servo operates only when the vehicle is moving
These vehicles should be tested using a properly calibrated and maintained decelerometer or a plate brake tester designated as acceptable.
An MOT testing station may not have enough room to use a decelerometer on site.More than one driving axle permanently engaged
Limited-slip differential
Belt-driven transmission
Brakes for which the servo operates only when the vehicle is moving
These vehicles should be tested using a properly calibrated and maintained decelerometer or a plate brake tester designated as acceptable.
plasticpig said:
hemibum said:
It's still not a requirement to drive the car on the road for any part of an MOT.
MOT Test Manual said:
Certain vehicles should not be tested on a roller brake tester, eg vehicles with
More than one driving axle permanently engaged
Limited-slip differential
Belt-driven transmission
Brakes for which the servo operates only when the vehicle is moving
These vehicles should be tested using a properly calibrated and maintained decelerometer or a plate brake tester designated as acceptable.
An MOT testing station may not have enough room to use a decelerometer on site.More than one driving axle permanently engaged
Limited-slip differential
Belt-driven transmission
Brakes for which the servo operates only when the vehicle is moving
These vehicles should be tested using a properly calibrated and maintained decelerometer or a plate brake tester designated as acceptable.
Ideally you shouldve told them about the tax but they should have checked the car was legal before parking it on the road. I would hold them responsible for the fine
The "direct to" and from MOT has been subject to court interpretation. It is not as "direct" as you seem to say. First avnue to explore is whether there is a valid case to seize the vehicle in this instance.
Second point - your case against the garage would be based either on breach of contract or negligence. Unless the contract says "stored on the premises" for your return the contract point is not a good bet. The negligence angle could be a possibility IF you told the garage that this was a car without MOT & Tax and that you needed to the MOT to get the tax. In that case it is reasonable to assume that a motor business thus informed would know not to park this vehicle on the street.
Could also have been interesting if you had returned to collect the car, been told that it had been seized, then instead of getting the car yourself you had simply said "I will return the car tomorrow, please have it for me then or I will sue you for the return of the vehicle". Don't know where this would have led but I would be fascinated to find out (at your, or the garage, expense)
Second point - your case against the garage would be based either on breach of contract or negligence. Unless the contract says "stored on the premises" for your return the contract point is not a good bet. The negligence angle could be a possibility IF you told the garage that this was a car without MOT & Tax and that you needed to the MOT to get the tax. In that case it is reasonable to assume that a motor business thus informed would know not to park this vehicle on the street.
Could also have been interesting if you had returned to collect the car, been told that it had been seized, then instead of getting the car yourself you had simply said "I will return the car tomorrow, please have it for me then or I will sue you for the return of the vehicle". Don't know where this would have led but I would be fascinated to find out (at your, or the garage, expense)
Eliminator said:
The "direct to" and from MOT has been subject to court interpretation. It is not as "direct" as you seem to say. First avnue to explore is whether there is a valid case to seize the vehicle in this instance.
Second point - your case against the garage would be based either on breach of contract or negligence. Unless the contract says "stored on the premises" for your return the contract point is not a good bet. The negligence angle could be a possibility IF you told the garage that this was a car without MOT & Tax and that you needed to the MOT to get the tax. In that case it is reasonable to assume that a motor business thus informed would know not to park this vehicle on the street.
Could also have been interesting if you had returned to collect the car, been told that it had been seized, then instead of getting the car yourself you had simply said "I will return the car tomorrow, please have it for me then or I will sue you for the return of the vehicle". Don't know where this would have led but I would be fascinated to find out (at your, or the garage, expense)
Agreed.Second point - your case against the garage would be based either on breach of contract or negligence. Unless the contract says "stored on the premises" for your return the contract point is not a good bet. The negligence angle could be a possibility IF you told the garage that this was a car without MOT & Tax and that you needed to the MOT to get the tax. In that case it is reasonable to assume that a motor business thus informed would know not to park this vehicle on the street.
Could also have been interesting if you had returned to collect the car, been told that it had been seized, then instead of getting the car yourself you had simply said "I will return the car tomorrow, please have it for me then or I will sue you for the return of the vehicle". Don't know where this would have led but I would be fascinated to find out (at your, or the garage, expense)
i think this is a useful angle. The 'common law' understanding of the transaction would be that the OP has given the car to the service centre, who have a duty of care to perform the MOT and keep the car for a reasonable amount of time in their care until it is collected and paid for.
Whilst it was in their care they decided to park it out of their premises and it was impounded. Would the situation been different if the car was stolen, damaged, or been driven into by a 'hit and run'?
I think not, legally anyway.
In any case, and in the practical scenario there is enough of a legal argument to start building up the pressure with the threat of legal action, talking to the press and issuing a summons. It is highly, highly, unlikely that the service centre would stand up through all that and defend the claim in court.
I'm not convinced that the authorities have lawful right to 'impound' the vehicle anyway. After a flick through the relevant legislation (link above), it appears that 24 hours require to have elapsed after immobilisation of the vehicle before it can be impounded at a location away from a public highway..
Removal of vehicles said:
9. — (1) This regulation applies where an authorised person has reason to believe that an offence under section 29(1) of the 1994 Act—
(a) is being committed as regards a vehicle which is stationary on a public road in England or in Wales; or
(b) was being committed as regards a vehicle at a time when an immobilisation device which is fixed to the vehicle was fixed to it in accordance with these Regulations and the conditions prescribed in paragraph (2) are fulfilled.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) 24 hours have elapsed since the device was fixed to the vehicle, and
(b) the vehicle has not been released in accordance with these Regulations.
(3) In a case where this regulation applies, the authorised person or a
person acting under his direction, may remove the vehicle and deliver it to a person authorised by the Secretary of State to keep vehicles so removed in his custody - in these Regulations called a custodian.
(a) is being committed as regards a vehicle which is stationary on a public road in England or in Wales; or
(b) was being committed as regards a vehicle at a time when an immobilisation device which is fixed to the vehicle was fixed to it in accordance with these Regulations and the conditions prescribed in paragraph (2) are fulfilled.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) 24 hours have elapsed since the device was fixed to the vehicle, and
(b) the vehicle has not been released in accordance with these Regulations.
(3) In a case where this regulation applies, the authorised person or a
person acting under his direction, may remove the vehicle and deliver it to a person authorised by the Secretary of State to keep vehicles so removed in his custody - in these Regulations called a custodian.
Here's an example of how the DVLA clamping system is supposed to work..
Munter said:
trip01 said:
Hmm. Isn't it the responsibility of the driver to make sure the car is legal?
Indeed. But no-one was driving it when it was parked. Therefore it's the registered keepers problem I think.
That makes it the person who parked it there's responsibility to ensure it complies with all relevant legislation. Garage employee over to you!Sue them for all losses,seizure,expenses etc.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff