NCP towed my car from train car park for non payment of private parking tickets

[sailor sam]

The police are known to 'fob' people off in certain situations. We have seen it many times on this forum in different transport topics, A common one is when dealing with non-injury RTCs which have been caused by a traffic offence to which they havn't themselves witnessed. I have known them attempt to diss-suade a driver from pressing charges against the 'offending' driver... it actually happend to me. A milk lorry shed it's load as it left the sloping forecourt of a petrol station and some of the bottles/crates struck my car as the lorry's side doors had been left open. I had to insist that the driver was charged with an insecure load to the point of threatening to report the officer for refusing to deal with my complaint. Reluctantly he took a statement from me and the lorry driver was prosecuted which greatly assisted my claim. My point is that sometimes the police get it wrong. Maybe it is due to their 'legal training' not being up to scratch or the fact they don't want to deal with the paperwork.

 

In this case (again going on the information posted by the OP), I still say that the police should be at the very least investigating the circumstances of the car being removed to assertian whether an offence has been commited or not. I maintain that the car has been removed/taken unlawfully as there isn't a proven debt in the first place.

[jpm321]

Maybe not theft but TWOC maybe better word

[sameagle]

I've been fortunate in that I've not had too many dealings with the Police over the years, but one those rare occasions, I always get the distinct impression that the law is one of the things that they have very little knowledge of.

 

That is also the view of one of my drinking pals, and he is a Solicitor.

 

On reflection, his knowledge of law is sketchy at times!

[green_and_mean]

Maybe not theft but TWOC maybe better word

 

TWOC is only applicable if the vehicle is taken to be used as a conveyance.

[jpm321]

whilst reading the BPA code of practice found the following

 

B10 Parking charges

B10.1 A driver who is invited to park on private land and pay a

fee does so under a contract with the car park operator.

Any transaction between the driver and the operator

comes under the laws of contract.

 

although BPA is able to force companies to comply , i think companies that upset BPA do not get DVLA access

 

 

and this

d Charge recovery and court action

If you do not receive a payment following the final

reminder, you may instruct a debt collector to recover

the charge or apply to the Small Claims Courts Service

to recover any money due. If the Small Claims Court

issues a judgment in your favour, the Court will serve

this judgment by post or in person. However, we

recommend that you take a co-operative approach to

collecting outstanding money and avoid court action

when possible. The courts expect parties in civil actions

to be co-operative, and to try to resolve disputes without

court proceedings. The courts do not look favourably

upon operators who try to demand money within short

timescales and by using threats, and will award costs

against them.

 

 

 

think i will print this and take to recovery site tonight when i call the police

 

 

[green_and_mean]

whilst reading the BPA code of practice found the following

 

B10 Parking charges

B10.1 A driver who is invited to park on private land and pay a

fee does so under a contract with the car park operator.

Any transaction between the driver and the operator

comes under the laws of contract.

 

although BPA is able to force companies to comply , i think companies that upset BPA do not get DVLA access

 

 

and this

d Charge recovery and court action

If you do not receive a payment following the final

reminder, you may instruct a debt collector to recover

the charge or apply to the Small Claims Courts Service

to recover any money due. If the Small Claims Court

issues a judgment in your favour, the Court will serve

this judgment by post or in person. However, we

recommend that you take a co-operative approach to

collecting outstanding money and avoid court action

when possible. The courts expect parties in civil actions

to be co-operative, and to try to resolve disputes without

court proceedings. The courts do not look favourably

upon operators who try to demand money within short

timescales and by using threats, and will award costs

against them.

 

 

 

think i will print this and take to recovery site tonight when i call the police

 

 

 

 

Did you also read this bit??

 

 

A3 Removing vehicles

A3.1 Vehicles breaching private land or car park conditions may be

removed to a pound without the owner’s consent. However,

you must first have considered whether immobilisation

would be more appropriate in the circumstances. Examples

of such consideration can be found in A3.2 below.

A3.2 Removal of the vehicle may be appropriate if one of the

following applies:

• The vehicle driver has on three or more occasions

parked without authority at that location

• The landowner has instructed the operator in writing

to remove unauthorised vehicles

• The safety of the public, or of other authorised users

of the site, is at risk because of the unauthorised

parking; for example, because the vehicle is causing an

obstruction or is a safety hazard, or is blocking a fire

exit or an access used by emergency vehicles

• There is no opportunity to relocate or move the

vehicle to somewhere else on the site

[SURFBOY]

But how would they know if the "DRIVER" has, on 3 or more occasions, parked without authority at that location?

[Gick]

Dear jpm321,

 

There has been much discussion about whether the Police would be able to help and whether the action of NCP and their recovery company have committed theft.

 

On the Police action aspect, it is true that only basic training on many Acts of Parliament is given to the beat/traffic officers, much of it quite naturally aligned to their powers of arrest etc. Additional training is given to those responsible for investigating crime, ie. CID and specialist branches. The higher up the rank the more likely is the legal knowledge. The operational officers will always have to bear in mind the timescale involved, responding when either the alleged crime is in commission, or as has been mentioned earlier, confrontation could lead to a breach of the peace. In this case the vehicle is likely to remain in the compound, so any urgency about disposal would not at first be applicable.

 

I would suggest that you make an appointment to see the area Inspector and provide him/her with a digest of the situation, stressing that no breach of contract had been committed by you, that arbitrary action tantemount to theft has been taken.

 

1 Basic definition of theft.

 

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

 

No doubt the oft quoted 'intention to permanently deprive' in the above will be raised, but you may wish to quote section 6 of the Theft Act 1968:

 

6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

 

As there are many examples of Recovery companies selling at auction vehicles that they have stored in order to defray their costs, you could argue that this is a distict possibility and thus you would be permanently deprived. This is something that has probably not been argued in court to a point of 'stated case', but should be sufficient to satisfy the Inspector that your allegation should be properly investigated.

 

You could point out to the Inspector that the longer that the Recovery have your vehicl, the greater chance of it being damaged or deteriorating.

 

If you were unable to convince the Inspector, you should approach the Recovery company, accompanied by a credible witness but not 'minders', with the above information. In order to strengthen your position, you should first ask them what their intentions would be if you continued to refuse to pay the charges, how much the storage would increase and casually ask what would happen if the vehicle was still there in 12 months time. It is likely that they would offer the information that it would be sold to get their money back. At that time you hit them with the above sections 1 & 6 definition from the Theft Act 1968,

 

Unless green_and_mean can direct us to Stones to provide an exemption for the Recovery company, It would appear that there is a prima facie case of theft against them, not NCP.

 

I hope that ths helps.

 

Regards

[jpm321]

Dear jpm321,

 

There has been much discussion about whether the Police would be able to help and whether the action of NCP and their recovery company have committed theft.

 

On the Police action aspect, it is true that only basic training on many Acts of Parliament is given to the beat/traffic officers, much of it quite naturally aligned to their powers of arrest etc. Additional training is given to those responsible for investigating crime, ie. CID and specialist branches. The higher up the rank the more likely is the legal knowledge. The operational officers will always have to bear in mind the timescale involved, responding when either the alleged crime is in commission, or as has been mentioned earlier, confrontation could lead to a breach of the peace. In this case the vehicle is likely to remain in the compound, so any urgency about disposal would not at first be applicable.

 

I would suggest that you make an appointment to see the area Inspector and provide him/her with a digest of the situation, stressing that no breach of contract had been committed by you, that arbitrary action tantemount to theft has been taken.

 

1 Basic definition of theft.

 

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

 

No doubt the oft quoted 'intention to permanently deprive' in the above will be raised, but you may wish to quote section 6 of the Theft Act 1968:

 

6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

 

As there are many examples of Recovery companies selling at auction vehicles that they have stored in order to defray their costs, you could argue that this is a distict possibility and thus you would be permanently deprived. This is something that has probably not been argued in court to a point of 'stated case', but should be sufficient to satisfy the Inspector that your allegation should be properly investigated.

 

You could point out to the Inspector that the longer that the Recovery have your vehicl, the greater chance of it being damaged or deteriorating.

 

If you were unable to convince the Inspector, you should approach the Recovery company, accompanied by a credible witness but not 'minders', with the above information. In order to strengthen your position, you should first ask them what their intentions would be if you continued to refuse to pay the charges, how much the storage would increase and casually ask what would happen if the vehicle was still there in 12 months time. It is likely that they would offer the information that it would be sold to get their money back. At that time you hit them with the above sections 1 & 6 definition from the Theft Act 1968,

 

Unless green_and_mean can direct us to Stones to provide an exemption for the Recovery company, It would appear that there is a prima facie case of theft against them, not NCP.

 

I hope that ths helps.

 

Regards

 

 

HI Many Thanks for this

 

I will try to make an appointment with the Police to discuss

[green_and_mean]

Dear jpm321,

 

There has been much discussion about whether the Police would be able to help and whether the action of NCP and their recovery company have committed theft.

 

On the Police action aspect, it is true that only basic training on many Acts of Parliament is given to the beat/traffic officers, much of it quite naturally aligned to their powers of arrest etc. Additional training is given to those responsible for investigating crime, ie. CID and specialist branches. The higher up the rank the more likely is the legal knowledge. The operational officers will always have to bear in mind the timescale involved, responding when either the alleged crime is in commission, or as has been mentioned earlier, confrontation could lead to a breach of the peace. In this case the vehicle is likely to remain in the compound, so any urgency about disposal would not at first be applicable.

 

I would suggest that you make an appointment to see the area Inspector and provide him/her with a digest of the situation, stressing that no breach of contract had been committed by you, that arbitrary action tantemount to theft has been taken.

 

1 Basic definition of theft.

 

(1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.

(2)It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.

(3)The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).

 

No doubt the oft quoted 'intention to permanently deprive' in the above will be raised, but you may wish to quote section 6 of the Theft Act 1968:

 

6“With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it”.

(1)A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

 

As there are many examples of Recovery companies selling at auction vehicles that they have stored in order to defray their costs, you could argue that this is a distict possibility and thus you would be permanently deprived. This is something that has probably not been argued in court to a point of 'stated case', but should be sufficient to satisfy the Inspector that your allegation should be properly investigated.

 

You could point out to the Inspector that the longer that the Recovery have your vehicl, the greater chance of it being damaged or deteriorating.

 

If you were unable to convince the Inspector, you should approach the Recovery company, accompanied by a credible witness but not 'minders', with the above information. In order to strengthen your position, you should first ask them what their intentions would be if you continued to refuse to pay the charges, how much the storage would increase and casually ask what would happen if the vehicle was still there in 12 months time. It is likely that they would offer the information that it would be sold to get their money back. At that time you hit them with the above sections 1 & 6 definition from the Theft Act 1968,

 

Unless green_and_mean can direct us to Stones to provide an exemption for the Recovery company, It would appear that there is a prima facie case of theft against them, not NCP.

 

I hope that ths helps.

 

Regards

 

I'm glad you are no longer a Police officer as you would obviously go around arresting people with on no legal basis at all. If you actually read you cut and pasted quotation you will see that one of the qualifications for theft is it has to be dishonest, so who are you going to charge with theft? The recovery driver has been instructed to remove the vehicle and is probably under the assumption the land owner has the legal right to do so, proving he knew he was acting dishonestly would never get past the CPS let alone reach court. So the next option is going to be NCP who are you going to charge at NCP with theft or maybe you are going to round up the entire board of directors? That is of course once you get past the obstacle of proving they intended to keep the vehicle and had no intention of returning it!!

[jpm321]

but dont the recovery company or NCP have to provide proof that they can remove it?

 

Same as i have to prove they took it unlawfully

 

would the police allow the vehicle to stay at the pound and tell me to go through civil claim, if so why cant the give me my vehicle and tell NCP to go through civil claim

[sailor sam]

I'm glad you are no longer a Police officer as you would obviously go around arresting people with on no legal basis at all. If you actually read you cut and pasted quotation you will see that one of the qualifications for theft is it has to be dishonest, so who are you going to charge with theft? The recovery driver has been instructed to remove the vehicle and is probably under the assumption the land owner has the legal right to do so, proving he knew he was acting dishonestly would never get past the CPS let alone reach court. So the next option is going to be NCP who are you going to charge at NCP with theft or maybe you are going to round up the entire board of directors? That is of course once you get past the obstacle of proving they intended to keep the vehicle and had no intention of returning it!!

 

Easy enough! According to the OP, NCP have refused to release the car unless he pays their charges. So it's safe to assume that NCP 'have no intention of returning it' because it appears that the OP has no intention of paying their charges. As i've said many times here. NCP must use the correct legal channels like anyone else to 'enforce' the debt which is taking the matter through the small claims court. Taking and holding the OPs car against the debt (which is no doubt legally unenforceable) is unlawfull IMHO.

[Inflatable Armadillo]

Easy enough! According to the OP, NCP have refused to release the car unless he pays their charges. So it's safe to assume that NCP 'have no intention of returning it' because it appears that the OP has no intention of paying their charges. As i've said many times here. NCP must use the correct legal channels like anyone else to 'enforce' the debt which is taking the matter through the small claims court. Taking and holding the OPs car against the debt (which is no doubt legally unenforceable) is unlawfull IMHO.

 

I would stop bothering with this poster to be honest. They are not helping and clearly misunderstand that it is highly likley that NCP have taken the car for a alleged debt, as you say, they are unlikely to be unable to enforce in Court.

[Al27]

Any news from the OP? I understand you are talking to the BPA, although I'm not sure how successful that will be.

 

On the face of it, your choices are:

 

• Involve the police again, as per Sailor Sam's advice

• Pay and sue in county court

• Apply for an injunction to secure the immediate release of the car

• Take back the car using reasonable force

[BASFORDLAD2]

I think getting the injunction is the best move.

[my-spirit-soars-free]

Are you in the AA/RAC etc? If you are, try ringing their legal helpline - I have found them OK in the past.

 

 

Even if you are not, they *may* be willing to help in view of the fact that this is a matter of importance to every motorist, the thought that any Tom, Dick or Harry can start a company and take a car for an alleged debt is one that should concern us all.

[sailor sam]

Go see a senior police officer like Gick said! (post #58)

[BASFORDLAD2]

I would advise this manager u are getting an injunction.

 

Why have you not started down this route??

[Gick]

Dear green-and-mean,

 

your response in post #60 is as foolish as many of your others on this subject. At no point have I said that anyone should be arrested. You should be aware that the purpose of arresting someone is to

a) prevent the continuance of a crime,

b) preserve evidence of a crime,

c) facilitate the questioning of a suspect under caution in relation to a crime,

d) obtain further evidence of a crime.

 

For the word crime in the above, also read on suspicion that a crime has been committed.

 

The question of the dishonest intention is one of those that would be determined during the investigation which is the purpose of approaching a senior officer. If the Recovery firm are presented with the fact that no debt is owed to NCP, their retention of the vehicle, irrespective of the instruction from NCP, would fall into the category of dishonest. It is often the case that an arrest takes place at a later stage following the initial involvement of a Police Officer.

 

I agree with Al27, that an injunction would provide the means of defending any allegation of criminal damage (provided that it is reasonably incurred) during the retrieval. This assumes that they did not comply with one of the requirement of the injunction which should be to return the vehicle to the place from which it was illegally removed. If physical resistence were put up by the employees, the Police would certainly be duty bound to attend to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

 

The question of charging any person or persons with any crime now rests with CPS, who have the task of deciding the viability of any evidence presented and the possibility of a successful conviction. Thier constraints are often financial dictated by being 'in the public interest'.

 

For your information green_and_mean, during my time in the Police Force, of all the many people that I arrested, only one failed to be taken to court, that of 'driving under the influence' (yes, predating the breathalyzer) when the Sergeant determined that the driver was borderline and gave him the benefit of the doubt. The culprit was a local doctor, any link? Of all those that went to court I had a 100% record of conviction.

 

I still await your posting where in Stones there is an exemption for the Recovery firm against section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 and please do not quote 'dishonest' again, it does not wash.

 

The intention of my post is to provide a series of escalating actions that can be taken to quickly resolve the OP's situation. Perhaps you, being the font of all knowledge, can provide him with the one course of action to get their vehicle back quickly without paying the extortion.

[greasmonkey]

so if they can do this every driver who as ignored there invoices

would have to hide there car.because they could come to your house,

your work place,or any where and take it till you pay

this could be a new way of them getting your money

[Al27]

To apply for an injunction costs £270 straight off, so it depends if paying off the 'tickets' would be cheaper or not.

 

The threat of an injunction can be useful though. They may like to be warned that it will ultimately cost them £270 + a daily amount of loss incurred from being deprived of the vehicle.

[green_and_mean]

 

For your information green_and_mean, during my time in the Police Force, of all the many people that I arrested, only one failed to be taken to court, that of 'driving under the influence' (yes, predating the breathalyzer) when the Sergeant determined that the driver was borderline and gave him the benefit of the doubt. The culprit was a local doctor, any link? Of all those that went to court I had a 100% record of conviction.

 

 

What a complete load of rubbish, how long did you work for a week? lol The average Crown court conviction rate is 40% on not guilty pleas yet you managed 100% outstanding!! You also managed to arrest 99% without any being cautioned or turning out to be innocent or insufficient evidence to proceed. You must be the most succesful cop in the entire UK I hope they gave you a medal!!

[DBC]

One simple question for you G&M - what are your legal qualifications?

[green_and_mean]

One simple question for you G&M - what are your legal qualifications?

 

You don't need to qualified to understand the law, at least I can read.

[DBC]

You don't need to qualified to understand the law, at least I can read.

 

So your so your opinions have no validity as any others on here but why do you think nobody agrees with you? If you pop over to Pepipoo you will see that everyone there are of the opinion that this is theft on the part of NCP.