GMP seize and crush legit car
Discussion
This is Lancashire
I open the floor to Wildcat
This is Lancashire said:
Police crushed my car, even though it was insured - dad
A FATHER of four's car was crushed after police wrongly accused him of driving without insurance.
Officers stopped Steven Booth's Peugeot while he was driving to work in Blackburn Road, Bolton.
They told him that according to their database he had no insurance and made him get out and walk, leaving his car parked at the side of the road. Police then arranged for the car to be towed away.
advertisement
Because Mr Booth and his family could not raise the £105 fee for it to be released from the compound within the specified 14-day period, it was crushed.
Yet the car was fully insured by the AA. Now Mr Booth and his family do not have any transport.
He said: "I did nothing wrong - but they crushed my car."
Mr Booth, aged 36, of Trafford Street, Farnworth, was stopped at 2am on January 8 as he was driving to work in the car, for a night shift delivering fruit and vegetables.
His wife, Rachel, took the AA insurance certificate to Farnworth Police Station at 12.30pm the same day.
Mrs Booth was given a form to claim back the car from HM Recovery in Horwich.
But when Mr Booth heard about the £105 charge, he refused to pay - and for each day the car was in storage, the bill went up an extra £12.
Police patrol cars are fitted with a camera linked to the DVLA database that can instantly tell officers from the registration number if a vehicle is being driven illegally. Police use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which checks the DVLA and the Motor Insurers' Information Centre.
Mr Booth says he told the police officer who stopped him that he was insured.
"The police's attitude towards me was unbelievable. They said I might have cancelled my payments, in which case they would charge me with deception," he said.
"I asked if I could produce my documents later in the day, but they said my car would be towed away and I was left stranded and had to walk into work."
Mr Booth now pays £7.20 for a taxi to work every day and £1.55 for a bus journey home.
Ian Crowder, head of insurance public relations at The AA, confirmed Mr Booth was fully insured.
He said: "We think the police are behaving in cavalier fashion.
"Mr Booth was fully insured and was paying by instalments. His insurance was automatically updated on January 4.
"As far as we can tell he is not in the wrong and he and his family have lost out. We will be investigating this case."
A spokesman for HM Recovery, at Horwich Business Park, in Chorley New Rd, confirmed the car had been disposed of but claimed Mr Booth had signed a disposal notice. Mr Booth denies this.
He said: "I have not signed anything."
A police spokesman said: "When conducting investigations into whether vehicles are legitimately insured, GMP officers do not solely rely on the motor insurance database for verification. This is because it is not the responsibility of police forces to update the database and on occasions it can be inaccurate.
"An incident where a car was seized in Bolton on January 8, 2007, has been brought to the attention of officers.
"The circumstances surrounding this seizure will now be fully investigated to establish whether or not the seizure was lawfully made.
"In 2006, 41,000 vehicles were seized by GMP officers in relation to insurance and licensing offences. Subsequent investigations showed only two of these vehicles were unlawfully seized."
A FATHER of four's car was crushed after police wrongly accused him of driving without insurance.
Officers stopped Steven Booth's Peugeot while he was driving to work in Blackburn Road, Bolton.
They told him that according to their database he had no insurance and made him get out and walk, leaving his car parked at the side of the road. Police then arranged for the car to be towed away.
advertisement
Because Mr Booth and his family could not raise the £105 fee for it to be released from the compound within the specified 14-day period, it was crushed.
Yet the car was fully insured by the AA. Now Mr Booth and his family do not have any transport.
He said: "I did nothing wrong - but they crushed my car."
Mr Booth, aged 36, of Trafford Street, Farnworth, was stopped at 2am on January 8 as he was driving to work in the car, for a night shift delivering fruit and vegetables.
His wife, Rachel, took the AA insurance certificate to Farnworth Police Station at 12.30pm the same day.
Mrs Booth was given a form to claim back the car from HM Recovery in Horwich.
But when Mr Booth heard about the £105 charge, he refused to pay - and for each day the car was in storage, the bill went up an extra £12.
Police patrol cars are fitted with a camera linked to the DVLA database that can instantly tell officers from the registration number if a vehicle is being driven illegally. Police use Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) technology which checks the DVLA and the Motor Insurers' Information Centre.
Mr Booth says he told the police officer who stopped him that he was insured.
"The police's attitude towards me was unbelievable. They said I might have cancelled my payments, in which case they would charge me with deception," he said.
"I asked if I could produce my documents later in the day, but they said my car would be towed away and I was left stranded and had to walk into work."
Mr Booth now pays £7.20 for a taxi to work every day and £1.55 for a bus journey home.
Ian Crowder, head of insurance public relations at The AA, confirmed Mr Booth was fully insured.
He said: "We think the police are behaving in cavalier fashion.
"Mr Booth was fully insured and was paying by instalments. His insurance was automatically updated on January 4.
"As far as we can tell he is not in the wrong and he and his family have lost out. We will be investigating this case."
A spokesman for HM Recovery, at Horwich Business Park, in Chorley New Rd, confirmed the car had been disposed of but claimed Mr Booth had signed a disposal notice. Mr Booth denies this.
He said: "I have not signed anything."
A police spokesman said: "When conducting investigations into whether vehicles are legitimately insured, GMP officers do not solely rely on the motor insurance database for verification. This is because it is not the responsibility of police forces to update the database and on occasions it can be inaccurate.
"An incident where a car was seized in Bolton on January 8, 2007, has been brought to the attention of officers.
"The circumstances surrounding this seizure will now be fully investigated to establish whether or not the seizure was lawfully made.
"In 2006, 41,000 vehicles were seized by GMP officers in relation to insurance and licensing offences. Subsequent investigations showed only two of these vehicles were unlawfully seized."
I open the floor to Wildcat
This is Lancashire said:
"In 2006, 41,000 vehicles were seized by GMP officers in relation to insurance and licensing offences. Subsequent investigations showed only two of these vehicles were unlawfully seized."
ONLY 2 ?
So if i'm caught "only" doing 35 in a 30 would i be able to dismiss that so easily?
Who the hell runs this bunch of retarded cowboys posing as police officers?
I mean are they serious?
They take this man's car off him using force and leave him standing on the street; they then actually expect him to pay a PRIVATE contractor that THEY instructed in a totally erroneous manner, not just for taking the car away, but also for storage!!!!
And all the while the man and his vehicle are completely legal and legitimate!
How about some of the BiB on here explaining how this can possibly happen.
No! Let's hear Mr. Perfect, aka Vonhosen, who defends every single element of police enforcement on here to the hilt, explain to us what transpired.
And maybe try and leave us all with the impression that quite possibly someone in the whole of GMP has the balls to stand up and apologise to this man and compensate him for his humiliation, the loss of his vehicle, and the total lack of respect that he must now be feeling for the law in this country.
I mean are they serious?
They take this man's car off him using force and leave him standing on the street; they then actually expect him to pay a PRIVATE contractor that THEY instructed in a totally erroneous manner, not just for taking the car away, but also for storage!!!!
And all the while the man and his vehicle are completely legal and legitimate!
How about some of the BiB on here explaining how this can possibly happen.
No! Let's hear Mr. Perfect, aka Vonhosen, who defends every single element of police enforcement on here to the hilt, explain to us what transpired.
And maybe try and leave us all with the impression that quite possibly someone in the whole of GMP has the balls to stand up and apologise to this man and compensate him for his humiliation, the loss of his vehicle, and the total lack of respect that he must now be feeling for the law in this country.
jith said:
Let's hear Mr. Perfect, aka Vonhosen
Never claimed to be perfect, infact I have consistently said I am not.
jith said:
.... who defends every single element of police enforcement on here to the hilt, explain to us what transpired.
I don't defend every aspect of Police behaviour or enforcement.
I will state as I see.
However most of the time I simply offer explanations with regard to Police proceedures, without commenting on the actions of individuals involved because I am not in possession of the full facts & don't therefore feel I am in position to pass judgement.
In this case they say he signed a disposal notice.
He says he didn't.
The Police say they are investigating the whole matter.
jith said:
And maybe try and leave us all with the impression that quite possibly someone in the whole of GMP has the balls to stand up and apologise to this man and compensate him for his humiliation, the loss of his vehicle, and the total lack of respect that he must now be feeling for the law in this country.
That's what the investigation is for isn't it ?
When those investigating have all the information, then I expect them to take the appropriate action commensurate with the findings.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 5th February 20:48
eccles said:
something sounds a bit dodgy if the contractor says he's signed the form allowing the car to be crushed, but the owner says he hasn't.
I don't really think that that is the issue. For me the question is more along the lines of WHY THE HELL SHOULD HE HAVE TO PAY TO GET HIS OWN CAR BACK WHEN HE WAS INSURED???
That it then got crushed because he wouldn't pay to have it released is by the by - it should never have got to that. He can't be penalised because their database is faulty!!
fluffnik said:
Complaint of theft against the CC.
Wouldn't hold water as they honestly and reasonably believed themselves to be acting lawfully (permission from the Police Database). Theft is the dishonest appropriation.
As for him stating that some sort of document has been signed, that may be a cause of concern, and possible criminal proceedings.
Just another reason why acting purely on a Database is a recipe for disaster. I am sure GMP will re-imburse him the cost of his car and the losses he subsequently suffered, and will carry on crushing cars regardless.
Edited by jasandjules on Monday 5th February 21:18
7db said:
WTF? You have to pay if *they* make a mistake?
That's not right. It's probably legal, but it's not not right.
That's not right. It's probably legal, but it's not not right.
It went up by £12 per day too
I am surprised they cannot produce the "disposal note" they claim he signed.
Perhaps it was the same officer who forced a car through an amber at Moses Gate who pulled him ..
One hopes the ensuing disciplinary will be per latest guidelines .. und the sad specimen of a "officer" brought to public account over this.
bimsb6 said:
chrispy porker said:
What, was he there too?
the plod were working as his agents he is ultimately responsible .
Captain of the ship ist supposed to go down with his ship.. und as the leader... like the Head teacher of a school.. manager of a football club.. MD of a firm.. "buck rest with him... und ist his leadership style which filter down to the rank und file
vonhosen said:
jith said:
Let's hear Mr. Perfect, aka Vonhosen
Never claimed to be perfect, infact I have consistently said I am not.
vonhosen said:
jith said:
.... who defends every single element of police enforcement on here to the hilt, explain to us what transpired.
I don't defend every aspect of Police behaviour or enforcement.
vonhosen said:
I will state as I see.
Which ist .. the law sayeth .. und sayeth .. und sayeth ..
In the name of Brainstorm, the Gatsoprat und the Holy Drone
Amen
The thought police are after me now .. under the 
again! vonhosen said:
However most of the time I simply offer explanations with regard to Police proceedures, without commenting on the actions of individuals involved because I am not in possession of the full facts & don't therefore feel I am in position to pass judgement.
In this case they say he signed a disposal notice.
He says he didn't.
They try to cover their backs. Why do they not produce this. This incident happen on 8 January. He now tell the Bolton paper about it when he hit brick wall over compo und ist without a car - which may have been "elderly" .. but if car ist well maintained ..und roadworthy .. und give good service to this family who perhaps struggle to make end meet.
vonhosen said:
The Police say they are investigating the whole matter.
Not BiB bashing .. but the Vine prog today epitomise what public out there really think.. they are the ones who have to be convinced that police play fair und square. Prog was promoting his Panorama prog.. about taking law into own hands .. und all too often . the police arrest the victim of the crime because chav complain about citizen's arrest or being called a rude name back by their victim.
One comment was that "throwing stones und breaking the glass of a bloke's conservatory was "low priority"
Perhaps reading a form stating he want his car back at no cost as it was taken for no valid reason ist "low priority"
Und "investigation" these days seem to be meaning "whitewash" if authority in the wrong.
This was old car.. probably had market value at less than the release fee .. but to this gent priceless as all he could afford to run und he looked after it.
vonhosen said:
jith said:
And maybe try and leave us all with the impression that quite possibly someone in the whole of GMP has the balls to stand up and apologise to this man and compensate him for his humiliation, the loss of his vehicle, and the total lack of respect that he must now be feeling for the law in this country.
That's what the investigation is for isn't it ?
When those investigating have all the information, then I expect them to take the appropriate action commensurate with the findings.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 5th February 20:48
What ist there to "investigate"?
Guy was stopped on way to work. Car seized. Insurers confirm car was insured on 4 January.
He cannot pay the fee to release - und understandably does not see why he should pay as this car was legal und he fulfilled his legal obligation to have licence, MOT, insurance certificate und did so on the same day his car was seized. He ist entitled to have his car back at no fee und with an apology und refund for his taxi und perhaps even compo for the humiliating experience on way to work.
Car then crushed. People who crush it try to squirm out of blame (ist a bit like playing pass the points game with a NIP here
) - but between 8 January und today when intrepid Bolton journalist Paul Keaveny write up for North West regionals ... they still cannot provide piece of paper showing consent to crush car .. which the gent stipulate he did not sign. Given this gent stipulated his legal obligations were fulfilled und bolshy twit in a uniform refused to believe him at the time und ist digrace to force by not checking his facts properly .. (GMP chaps have always been nice to me when a "lost cat" down there ) .. then one has eveery reason to believe him when he say he did not sign any form regarding demise of his trusty wheels. Und as for this "database"
They seriously expect the good folk of Manchester to bend over und take what they now dub the "toll tax" of Pay as you drive.. when they cannot even get something as simple as this sorted out on a database
Pah ..police numpty state...
Edited by WildCat on Monday 5th February 22:03
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff