Police mistake and wronged man. Options

[Don]

Howdy all,
Sorry I was only on for one day (after joining this splendid forum), unfortunately I had my grandchildren to look after and plus my leg was playing up. But back now to the debate.

Did anyone see that story in our local paper about the chap who was fined £150 for the release of his car, he was wrongly charged with driving with no insurance? I think the chap is called Adrian Dale. He was in that notorious area of Newbury, Turnpike Estate, the Gaywood Drive that goes through that area. I think the time was early hours of the morning so the police obviously thought that nobody could be doing any good driving cars at that hour of the morning. Anyway, the chap was innocent. The police no doubt muddled by that infamous area. The police are now refusing to give him his money back. This isn’t on. Not only that but it sends out a message that the cops are only in it to make money for their employers. They should remember that they are there to serve society, not the other way around. In my day of the Dixon of dock green police officers they couldn’t have be more helpful and if they had made a mistake they were quick to rectify it. That is the way it should be. Nowadays they have all sorts of schemes to get money. Speed cameras, camera cars, secret cameras etc. It has become a moneymaking business, rather than a police force to serve us and keep us safe.

The other think that surprises me was that they have sophisticated systems that can tell whether one has insurance or a licence. So how did it go so wrong? Were they so fearful of their situation – being on Turnpike at that time of morning – that they rushed it and thought Mr Dale was suspicious enough to be out that time that they would book him and allow others to sort out the mess? Whatever the answer is, it is not on for the police to behave in this way.

I suppose I have two questions here. Should the police refund this wronged man and shouldn’t they get their facts right before jumping, no matter what the hostility of the area is?

Don

[JaneGibbs]

It is a shame that there are no go areas in Newbury, and even more sad is when the police suspect everybody in that area for doing bad. Obviously the man was guilty because of the time of night and where he was. It does feel like a police state. That is why us women find it hard to go out after dark alone.

[Andy Capp]

I somehow think we don't have possession of all the facts and the police were certainly no Dixon of Dock Green in the old days. I think they have never been so accountable as they are now.

All that being said, on the face of it, I am astounded that they are not refunding the man.

[Simon Kirby]

I suppose I have two questions here. Should the police refund this wronged man and shouldn’t they get their facts right before jumping, no matter what the hostility of the area is?

It's difficult to know what actually happened isn't it. I understand that the police can seize a vehicle if they have reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is being driven without insurance, and you have to pay the recovery costs whether or not you actually had insurance. That sounds tough, but I also understand that the police need to have warned you previously (like some other day, and a different officer) that they might subsequently seize the vehicle and that gives you the opportunity to keep your insurance certificate in the glove box, and to put right the problem with your insurance details not appearing on the national insurance database.

So it is possible to have your vehicle seized even though you have insurance, and you will have to pay the release fee, but you will have had fair warning so little scope to complain, and if the police exceeded their powers you'd have a strong complaint with the IPCC.

So there's just not enough facts in this story to know what's what.

[user23]

Are there really "no go" areas in Newbury?

[GMR]

I somehow think we don't have possession of all the facts and the police were certainly no Dixon of Dock Green in the old days. I think they have never been so accountable as they are now. All that being said, on the face of it, I am astounded that they are not refunding the man.

What facts do you want? They were wrong so should give the money back.

As for the "old days," they were respected more in those days than they are today.

As for a "notorious" area that made me laugh, he doesn't know the half of it. Not everything gets reported that happens in Turnpike.

[Andy Capp]

What facts do you want? They were wrong so should give the money back.

I doubted we have all the facts, and still do. I try not to take things in the media at face value.

As for the "old days," they were respected more in those days than they are today.

Cobblers, they may have been more feared, but just imagine the corruption that is evident from back then.

Rose tinted stuff I fear.

As for a "notorious" area that made me laugh, he doesn't know the half of it. Not everything gets reported that happens in Turnpike.

As is the same elsewhere.

[GMR]

I doubted we have all the facts, and still do. I try not to take things in the media at face value.

I agree.

Cobblers, they may have been more feared, but just imagine the corruption that is evident from back then. Rose tinted stuff I fear.

Not at all. Of course they were feared and corrupt, but that wasn't what I said. I said they were more respected by the public than they are today.

As is the same elsewhere.

True.

[GMR]

Are there really "no go" areas in Newbury?

To be honest you can go anywhere you want in any part of this country or on this planet. However, whether you walk out safely or not is another matter.

I suppose I am still alive, so that must say something about Turnpike

[Andy Capp]

Not at all. Of course they were feared and corrupt, but that wasn't what I said. I said they were more respected by the public than they are today.

In what context? The implication was that the public respected the police for being honest and trustworthy. My argument is that it was sometimes a misplaced trust.

[GMR]

In what context? The implication was that the public respected the police for being honest and trustworthy. My argument is that it was sometimes a misplaced trust.

Of course it was misplaced trust, who said it wasn't? But I suppose you could argue that back then people were more naïve and the press weren't as vigorous as they are today.

[Andy Capp]

Of course it was misplaced trust, who said it wasn't? But I suppose you could argue that back then people were more naïve and the press weren't as vigorous as they are today.

Yes, that is what I said, in a different way, but now I don't understand what your 'respect' point was.

[GMR]

Yes, that is what I said, in a different way, but now I don't understand what your 'respect' point was.

Read back and it should click into place. If not just ask for more help and I'll see what I can do. I can be kind that way.

[On the edge]

Of course it was misplaced trust, who said it wasn't? But I suppose you could argue that back then people were more naïve and the press weren't as vigorous as they are today.

Certainly was, as the people in the West Midlands found out! Soho used to be quite an attraction too...yeah, and back then you 'ad good honest criminals too...

[Biker1]

Are there really "no go" areas in Newbury?

If there are is it the fault of the police?

[Andy Capp]

Are there really "no go" areas in Newbury?

Not in the Honduras sense; however, there are plenty of places in Newbury district that are no-go areas unless you have plenty of money!

[Exhausted]

Maybe the police didn't want to refund the recovery/storage charge because it wasn't the police who made that charge. You will note that the fine was cancelled as were the points on the licence. The fault for all of this lies with the insurers or possibly the broker who issued the insurance.
Every insured vehicle has to be registered on the Motor Insurance Database MID which is run and operated by the Motor Insurance Bureau MIB. If you are a fleet operator then each operator has his own sign on and is responsible for taking his own cars on and off the MID. Individual, private insured persons should be able to rely on their insurer to speedily enter the car's data. It takes a few minutes only to do this. That database is where the DVLA and the police and any other authorised body get their information. So, there you go, the fault lies with the insurer, they should do the refund. Take them to the small claims court and I bet they cough up.

[Andy Capp]

Hear, hear!

[user23]

If there are is it the fault of the police?

In the strictest sense of the phrase no, they're caused by people thinking they can't go to a particular area, for whatever reason.

Some of this is because of media coverage. Take the comments in this video, about Birmingham, for example.

[On the edge]

In the strictest sense of the phrase no, they're caused by people thinking they can't go to a particular area, for whatever reason.

Some of this is because of media coverage. Take the comments in this video, about Birmingham, for example.

I'm getting worried User23, another of your postings I agree with!