RE: ACPO Hails Stolen Vehicle Recovery Success
Wednesday 7th November 2007
ACPO and the case of the stolen log booksThe Association of Chief Police Officers has revealed that, as a result of an operation coordinated by its Vehicles Crime Intelligence Service, it has recovered over £1million worth of stolen vehicles which were sold using stolen V5 documents.
ACPO Hails Stolen Vehicle Recovery Success
But stolen log books still continue to cause grief
ACPO and the case of the stolen log books
Last February, the DVLA announced that a large number of V5Cs had been stolen, and there are hundreds of these documents still in circulation.
However over 250 of these stolen log books have now been recovered, with 110 being used so far to sell vehicles.
When the new owner goes to register their new purchase using what they believe is a genuine V5, the vehicle will be flagged up as stolen and the police will seize it, leaving the unsuspecting buyer to foot the bill.
According to the ACPO, the most popular vehicles to be involved in the scam are Ford Transits, Nissan Navaras, BMWs, Mercedes and Audis; all often sold for cash at or just under bottom book prices to secure the sale.
The ACPO recommends that if you are looking at making a car purchase, that you check the V5 prefix doesn’t begin BG (or look as though it’s been altered to BC or BE).
The DVLA has a list of the stolen V5s which can be checked by calling their hotline on 0870 241 1878.
Discussion
PetrolTed said:
A staggering total of about 30 cars?
also seems to be little mention of apprehending those selling cars? Are we to assume they consider it acceptable that innocent people have been left to foot the bill?Oh silly me, they are motorists, therefore are Satan's workers anyway.
mark69sheer said:
Surely the DVLA is financially responsible for any unsuspecting purchaser . . they let the documents get stolen.
I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
How do you "let documents get stolen"? And how does that make DVLA responsible?I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
mark69sheer said:
Surely the DVLA is financially responsible for any unsuspecting purchaser . . they let the documents get stolen.
I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
So you buy a dodgy car with a dodgy V5 and dodgy vin plates,stamped vin numbers etc and its the dvla's fault.I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
If you can not spot a ringer get someone who can to check the car first.The V5 is only a small part of it.
Quote
The ACPO recommends that if you are looking at making a car purchase, that you check the V5 prefix doesn’t begin BG (or look as though it’s been altered to BC or BE).
More Dicks!
1. V5 no longer exists - right, after me, in comedian Brian Conley style:
'it's A V5C'
2. Check the prefix doesn't begin BG or look like it's been altered...
Oh bl..dy great, as if your av punter would notice those two little black letters!
DVLA and ACPO - together we're fighting a losing battle on your behalf.
The ACPO recommends that if you are looking at making a car purchase, that you check the V5 prefix doesn’t begin BG (or look as though it’s been altered to BC or BE).
More Dicks!
1. V5 no longer exists - right, after me, in comedian Brian Conley style:
'it's A V5C'
2. Check the prefix doesn't begin BG or look like it's been altered...
Oh bl..dy great, as if your av punter would notice those two little black letters!
DVLA and ACPO - together we're fighting a losing battle on your behalf.
TPS said:
mark69sheer said:
Surely the DVLA is financially responsible for any unsuspecting purchaser . . they let the documents get stolen.
I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
So you buy a dodgy car with a dodgy V5 and dodgy vin plates,stamped vin numbers etc and its the dvla's fault.I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
If you can not spot a ringer get someone who can to check the car first.The V5 is only a small part of it.
The cars in question don't have 'dodgy' easy-to-spot Vin plates and I bet you'd soon spot the dodgy V5C with those couple 10 point Helvetica letters BG wouldn't you? 'Ooh, now shouldn't they be BC?'
They can be other combinations too, and most punters even knowledgeable ones wouldn't even look in that 1 inch circle - they'd look to see if the cars details were correct etc. Face it, the document is correct, they're just 'stolen' ones!
Course it's DVLA's fault, the moment they were nicked they should have has a nationwide alert, then punters might have known what to look out for.
dandarez said:
TPS said:
mark69sheer said:
Surely the DVLA is financially responsible for any unsuspecting purchaser . . they let the documents get stolen.
I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
So you buy a dodgy car with a dodgy V5 and dodgy vin plates,stamped vin numbers etc and its the dvla's fault.I would sue if I ended up out of pocket due to the DVLA's suspect procedures or staff.
If you can not spot a ringer get someone who can to check the car first.The V5 is only a small part of it.
The cars in question don't have 'dodgy' easy-to-spot Vin plates and I bet you'd soon spot the dodgy V5C with those couple 10 point Helvetica letters BG wouldn't you? 'Ooh, now shouldn't they be BC?'
They can be other combinations too, and most punters even knowledgeable ones wouldn't even look in that 1 inch circle - they'd look to see if the cars details were correct etc. Face it, the document is correct, they're just 'stolen' ones!
Course it's DVLA's fault, the moment they were nicked they should have has a nationwide alert, then punters might have known what to look out for.
Sorry but my view is that its easy to see dodgy vin plates or fake stamped vin numbers etc.Then you also have the engine number to check.So as i said if you are not that good at checking cars get someone who is,rac,aa mate etc.Or do not bother and possibly pay the price.
R_U_LOCAL said:
How do you "let documents get stolen"? And how does that make DVLA responsible?
That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
When my car was stolen, the thief ran into a Police car that was persuing him. I was subsequently billed for the damage to the police car.... luckily my insurance took care of it, but according to the police I was responsible...That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
R32 said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How do you "let documents get stolen"? And how does that make DVLA responsible?
That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
When my car was stolen, the thief ran into a Police car that was persuing him. I was subsequently billed for the damage to the police car.... luckily my insurance took care of it, but according to the police I was responsible...That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
Mind you I had to pay about £200 when my car was recovered by the police for forensics (which proved worthless). That's a little more understandable, but I fail to see how you could be liable when someone who's not insured to drive your car crashes into someone.
PetrolTed said:
R32 said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How do you "let documents get stolen"? And how does that make DVLA responsible?
That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
When my car was stolen, the thief ran into a Police car that was persuing him. I was subsequently billed for the damage to the police car.... luckily my insurance took care of it, but according to the police I was responsible...That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
Mind you I had to pay about £200 when my car was recovered by the police for forensics (which proved worthless). That's a little more understandable, but I fail to see how you could be liable when someone who's not insured to drive your car crashes into someone.
This article is soo annoying, they are blowing their own trumpets for something they haven't done. Wheres their detective work? Its the new owner thats done the work for them and they take the glory AND the car leaving the poor owner well out of pocket AND the crook still on the loose to do it all over again! Nice
R32 said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How do you "let documents get stolen"? And how does that make DVLA responsible?
That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
When my car was stolen, the thief ran into a Police car that was persuing him. I was subsequently billed for the damage to the police car.... luckily my insurance took care of it, but according to the police I was responsible...That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
esselte said:
R32 said:
R_U_LOCAL said:
How do you "let documents get stolen"? And how does that make DVLA responsible?
That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
When my car was stolen, the thief ran into a Police car that was persuing him. I was subsequently billed for the damage to the police car.... luckily my insurance took care of it, but according to the police I was responsible...That's like saying I'm responsible if my car is stolen and the thief subsequently runs someone over.
If the car has been stolen, then it is the theft part of the policy which covers this.
If it is being driven by someone not named on the policy, who has no other cover, and they are driving with your permission, then the insurance company will still pay for third party damage, then pursue you or the driver to recover their losses.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff