Safe Speed Forums

See below for the rest of the story

http://www.eadt.co.uk/content/eadt/news/story.aspx?brand=EADOnline&category=News&tBrand=EADOnline&tCategory=news&itemid=IPED10%20Aug%202007%2023%3A44%3A36%3A000

The council don't give a t0$$

the car was bl00dy legal!

Theft and criminal damage then! Unfortunately they won't be the last.


"A spokeswoman said: “We apologise to the owner of the vehicle for any distress caused. We have a strict policy of dealing with abandoned cars very quickly. The council has a legal right under the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978 as amended, to remove and crush a car if we deem it only fit to be destroyed. Following a complaint, our insurance officer is now in touch with the owners.”"

But it wasn't abandoned!

She may as well have said....'we have a right to fine those who flout the smoking ban'....

I'd press criminal charges followed by a hefty compensation case.

Sorry to disappoint you, but neither theft nor criminal damage...

Theft - dishonestly appropriates the property of another with the intention permanently to deprive them of it...

Crim dam - without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage such property. Alternativeley, being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged...

No dishonesty in that those doing the removing had a sincere and honest belief that they had the right, and a lawful excuse in that the people concerned would simply rely on the LA's statutory power to remove the vehicle. (Unless, of course, someone was acting maliciously.)

A civil action for damages, now that's a much better bet - only need balance of probabilities for that!

but it was a criminal act as the council stole someones car without them having been to court, a court of Law is the only body allowed to issue a fine or forfeiture, blimey if that was the case I could go around issuing fines and crushing cars because I felt like it!!

anyway the very issuing of a fine or forfeiture before conviction makes that fine or forfeiture null and void, it's a bit like demanding money with menaces

since when were councils allowed to steal your possessions from you?

are they above the Law?

right I am now off to issue my own fines on people just because I don't like the look of them!

No, it wasn't theft.

No, it wasn't criminal damage.

Yes, it was actionable - but in the civil Court not the criminal.

That is an opinion but I would like to see it tested.

Crim dam - without lawful excuse, destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage such property. Alternativeley, being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged...

I would look towards the second part of criminal damage...the reckless element. The court would surely apply the reasonable test to this. When deciding whether or not to crush a vehicle that you have picked up off the street what checks did you undertake prior to its destruction and what measures did you take to seek the lawful owner. I would argue, if it was my car, that it would be reasonable for the LA to check the DVLA database, to check with each house holder and impound the car for a defined period before its destruction. If they did not take these steps then they, i would argue, have been reckless.

I would ask the defence to prove that

a: they had a lawful excuse to crush my vehicle

and

b: that they had not been reckless in their assumption that the vehicle was indeed abandoned.

it is my opinion that, if prosecuted robustly the charge could be proved.

The problem is of course that the types of vehicles that they crush will tend to be owned by those without the means to mount a robust prosecution. IMHO the family should contact their insurer wrt legal cover and whether it would fund a private prosecution of this nature.

clearly there is the civil avenue but the car wasn't worth much so the punishment wouldn't be a deterrent.

I'd like to see the criminal test case.

theres always a misafeasement (excuse the spelling) route

Maybe Fisherman will offer his opinion in a short while

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Some one locally tried to get rid of one problem car via the crusher scheme ( fire brigade run scheme via LA - to stop arson) --even though car was untaxed ( source DVLA - suspect any way), and had no disc, windscreen was cracked, exhaust virtually non existent, fact that it could be traced to a resident stopped it's removal.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on

so because it was the Council it was not "Criminal"?

since when were Councils above the Law then?

what if I did the same thing?, not Criminal then

see my point?

You put it a little simplistically, but I think I agree with you for once.

Large businesses and councils etc often do seem to get a free pass on blatantly criminal behaviour. Someone claiming lawful excuse for damaging another's property would normally be required to show what the lawful excuse is, or if they were mistaken, to show that they had clear reasonable grounds for believing they had such an excuse. What made them get it wrong? Was the car showing false numberplates? Was there a software malfunction? Was there a reason to destroy it immediately rather than do further checks first? These are the kind of things that would be a genuine error. Not bothering to check is not one.