Jump to content
The mkiv Supra Owners Club

My mates situation


Matt H

Recommended Posts

My mate phoned me up last night to tell me, after he got back from work to the place we park at, his car had been stolen.

 

Skip to later on that night, say 10.00. He phones me up, he car hasnt been stolen, its been towed away!

 

The police were called and apparantly his car was parked in some way that it was obstructing an access / gate to the scout hut (not that the thing gets used during the day anyway). So my mate returns to his car, thinks its been stolen but its been towed by the pigs. Not a word was said to him, wasnt even phoned up and told to shift it or anything.

 

He went to collect it this morning, but was again failed to be told by the yard owner where it was that he must have all kinds of proof with him before they release the car, stool samples etc :roll:

 

Anyway, my mate is pretty positive he didnt park accross any access, so when asking for proof i/e photos of where he was parked, nothing could be produced. Surely you need some kind of proof, otherwise you could just go around collecting cars off drives and saying they were parked in unstuitable locations.

 

They want £182 to release his car, anybody been in a similar situation? any suggestions, hes gona pay it but i think hes getting screwed, so maybe take it up with a solicitor afterwards?

 

What do you reckon, i reckon photo evidence, much like traffic wardens have to do, would be a minimum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just break in and get, like gone in 60 seconds :D

 

Regards,

 

Gaz.

 

Altough it wont be gone in 60 seconds :D

 

ask for proof that the police had actually asked for the car to be moved

 

I dont doubt that because my mate phoned up the piggy bank to state that the car was stolen to which they told him what had happened so they obviously organised otherwise they wouldnt know anything about it

 

Even parking wardens take photos of the cars with the tickets on so i would have thought at the very least the police should photo the car as evidence it was parked illegally. Id make sure your mate sees that evidence before paying anything.

 

Thats my take on it, but he has to pay up front because its £12 every day extra its in there, not point in clocking up a further bill if nothing comes of it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell him to look at the signs in future and cough up the fine.

 

Start reading the post from the start, maybe read it all, then do an edit ;)

 

To clarify, its a residential road, with no Traffic Regulation Orders in force, it was due to apparant obstuction to access, the issue is, as you would appriciate if you read the post, there is no photographic proof that he was parked where they say he was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question Matt. Does your friend have photographic proof he wasn't parked in an obstructive way ?

 

If not then im afraid he will have to get his wallet out :(

 

Thing is, if that is correct then it's just wrong! Does that mean that every time we park a car we need to take a picture of it just in case something happend? Sounds like the kind of thing Ian C already does :D

 

IMHO, the question is, was he parked in an obstructive way. Honestly. If he's just trying to get out of it then don't bother, but if there is a genuine injustice then fight it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course You can appeal. perhaps get the info from where it was collected, if you inted to fight it they should release that info to you.

I suspect like most things in this country it would be cheaper to accept the fine and move on :(

It isn't right, maybe get your mate to have a chat with the scout leader (it was a scout hut right ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt this is something which requires photographic evidence to prove guilt.

 

As such, at best it will come down to your mate saying it wasn't obstructing, and the people who reported it, and the guys who towed it saying that it was.

 

Who do you think the decision would go with?

 

:(

 

 

Edit:

 

Personally, I don't believe that law enforcement should require photographic evidence to be honest - otherwise you end up that the police can't do anything without filming it to prove that they followed all the rules and regs to the letter.

If they fail to do so, the b*stard lawyers will hang them out to dry in court and yet more criminals will be walking away free. That's if the police even bother to try enforcing the law in that situation. The country is already in the sh*t because we're halfway down this road already....

 

Unfortunately, the alternative is that the authorities have to be taken on trust, which means the odd injustice (like your mate claims) will get through... :(

 

Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, if that is correct then it's just wrong! Does that mean that every time we park a car we need to take a picture of it just in case something happend?

 

This situation sucks. I can't really see how a photograph could help either side of the argument really. How do you prove a photograph is genuine? i.e. Was it taken at the exact time/date of the alleged obstruction? (Unless it was taken from a trusted CCTV source.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick question Matt. Does your friend have photographic proof he wasn't parked in an obstructive way ?

 

If not then im afraid he will have to get his wallet out :(

 

:rlol: what a dumb thing to say, he doesnt have to prove he wasnt parked illegally, they have to prove he was!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt this is something which requires photographic evidence to prove guilt.

 

As such, at best it will come down to your mate saying it wasn't obstructing, and the people who reported it, and the guys who towed it saying that it was.

 

Who do you think the decision would go with?

 

:(

 

Thats the nail on the head isnt it. All traffic wardens now do, how is this any different? I would expect and hope that proof would have to be provided if challenged, which is why i think he might have a chance as they wont be able to proove anything. If they had a photo of him obstructing this gate, them it would be hands up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dumb ok then Matt.

The fact that your mates car is in a compound somewhere pretty much solves that one hence why i asked if he could prove they took it illegally :)

 

Are you on the bottle today? how does a car being in a compound prove anything? if my car was towed from my drive and put in a compound does that mean it was parked illegally, because it was in a compound?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I don't believe that law enforcement should require photographic evidence to be honest - otherwise you end up that the police can't do anything without filming it to prove that they followed all the rules and regs to the letter.

If they fail to do so, the b*stard lawyers will hang them out to dry in court and yet more criminals will be walking away free. That's if the police even bother to try enforcing the law in that situation. The country is already in the sh*t because we're halfway down this road already....

 

Unfortunately, the alternative is that the authorities have to be taken on trust, which means the odd injustice (like your mate claims) will get through... :(

 

Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid :(

 

Wow, what a joke the system would be if they didnt have to prove anything. What makes a traffic warden / cop, any better than anyone else? why should they be allowed to just do things and be trusted? that would be a scary world, judge dredd style

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.s, im not saying my mate didnt park accross that gate, he says hes pretty sure he didnt, but i would have though that towing your car away, sticking it in a compound without notifying you, resulting in;

 

My mates evening last night being wrecked, firstly by thinking his car was stolen, then having to get me to come and pick him up. Then having his mum be late for work this moring to take him to trafford, with him being late for work also when he has just started out in his career, then paying £182 for it to be released.

 

I'd bloody well expect whoever was responsible to have some hard, concrete proof that he was causing an obstruction. this isnt a £30 fine here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, what a joke the system would be if they didnt have to prove anything. What makes a traffic warden / cop, any better than anyone else? why should they be allowed to just do things and be trusted? that would be a scary world, judge dredd style

 

Errrr - isn't that what we have always had? The authorities never really had to "prove" anything as long as they all corroborate the same description of events.

 

Surely the whole point is that we need to have an authority structure that IS trusted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. You might also be interested in our Guidelines, Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.