Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Police incorrectly seizing my car
Hi I would really appreciate some help:
My partner was driving my company car. The company has insurance for anyone they give their permission to. In the company car policy they give their permission to anyone the keeper (me in this case) gives their permission to. Thus my partner is insured and has actually claimed on this insurance in the past.
He was stopped for on suspicion of assault (this eventually went on to "no further action" as it was etablished the claims were false).
When he was stopped he had a family friend in the car. The family friend is a known alcholic (much older gentleman) and my boyf was playing the good samaritan driving him home as he was under the influence of alcohol. At the roadside the older gentleman in his confused state said my boyf was taxi. As such the police seized the vehicle as it does not have licence or insurance to be a taxi.
My boyf immediately advised the man was incorrect and there was no supporting evidence my boyf was acting as a taxi. It is in fact ludicrous its only a two door car and my boyf was merely driving his friend in a social manner.
The police officer ignored my boyf. He also made a number of threats to my boyf about how he could "make him look like the devil" at the police station.
My boyf did not sign the slip advising why the car was seized a it is incorrect.
My boyf had no illegal items on him nor was he bailed or charged with any criminal offence. The drunk whose word they took it was a taxi did not give any official statement.
I now have to pay 200 pounds or theycrush the car in 7 days. I am livid about both the payment and the stain on my car / partners character especially as it is a company car.
What right of appeal do I have and why?
All help so gratefully received.
My partner was driving my company car. The company has insurance for anyone they give their permission to. In the company car policy they give their permission to anyone the keeper (me in this case) gives their permission to. Thus my partner is insured and has actually claimed on this insurance in the past.
He was stopped for on suspicion of assault (this eventually went on to "no further action" as it was etablished the claims were false).
When he was stopped he had a family friend in the car. The family friend is a known alcholic (much older gentleman) and my boyf was playing the good samaritan driving him home as he was under the influence of alcohol. At the roadside the older gentleman in his confused state said my boyf was taxi. As such the police seized the vehicle as it does not have licence or insurance to be a taxi.
My boyf immediately advised the man was incorrect and there was no supporting evidence my boyf was acting as a taxi. It is in fact ludicrous its only a two door car and my boyf was merely driving his friend in a social manner.
The police officer ignored my boyf. He also made a number of threats to my boyf about how he could "make him look like the devil" at the police station.
My boyf did not sign the slip advising why the car was seized a it is incorrect.
My boyf had no illegal items on him nor was he bailed or charged with any criminal offence. The drunk whose word they took it was a taxi did not give any official statement.
I now have to pay 200 pounds or theycrush the car in 7 days. I am livid about both the payment and the stain on my car / partners character especially as it is a company car.
What right of appeal do I have and why?
All help so gratefully received.
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by missmw. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
If this is 'right' OG is correct in his action.
However, I think that you are being 'had' - look at the membership time.
Secondly companies only give out cars to employees and permit a spouse/partner on, not everybody in Christiandom the employee wants to put on the insurance.... Imagine their liability if they did.
Fertile imagination at work as to the scenario though, should go far as a Daily Mail writer.
However, I think that you are being 'had' - look at the membership time.
Secondly companies only give out cars to employees and permit a spouse/partner on, not everybody in Christiandom the employee wants to put on the insurance.... Imagine their liability if they did.
Fertile imagination at work as to the scenario though, should go far as a Daily Mail writer.
"companies only give out cars to employees and permit a spouse/partner on"
Not true - authorisation is purely at the discretion of the specific company.
Some companies authorise spouse/partner.
Some companies authorise spouse/partner and child.
Some companies authorise spouse/partner and other nominated relative.
etc. etc.
(All the above being purely academic since the OP refers to "partner")
Not true - authorisation is purely at the discretion of the specific company.
Some companies authorise spouse/partner.
Some companies authorise spouse/partner and child.
Some companies authorise spouse/partner and other nominated relative.
etc. etc.
(All the above being purely academic since the OP refers to "partner")
Does the company place any restrictions on drivers based on age (eg under 25) and is your boyfriend in this age category?
Baased on what you say I'm surprised the police made a issue of this but maybe they were reacting (overreacting) to the way your bf spoke to them or maybe they had dealt with him before and had been looking for an opportunity.
Anyway, it's worthing asking this family friend to write a letter to the police.
But maybe you and he should just put it down to experience.
Baased on what you say I'm surprised the police made a issue of this but maybe they were reacting (overreacting) to the way your bf spoke to them or maybe they had dealt with him before and had been looking for an opportunity.
Anyway, it's worthing asking this family friend to write a letter to the police.
But maybe you and he should just put it down to experience.
Just to add my pennies worth in regards to the insurance side of things. We have a fleet policy on the company vans. The policy states that anyone is insured to drive any of the vehicles with our permission. The only stipulations being about the age of the drivers. We could let next doors milk mans uncles brothers doctor to drive our van if they wanted and they would be covered on our insurance so she could well be correct.
The way the police react sometimes causes me a lot of concern. But whatever you do don't let the situation arise where they have any opportunity to crush the car. If you have to pay, then do so with a letter making it totally clear it is under protest & that you will be pursuing a complaint.
Go straight to the IPCC - don't bother with a complaint to the local force.
You really should get your employer involved in this. They should also write a letter making it clear your partner had authority (via you) to drive the car & was insured, & that it was not being used as a taxi. Also get hold of the old man when he is sober, explain to him the effect of his action & get him to write confirming he was drunk, did not know what he was saying & it was not correct.
Go straight to the IPCC - don't bother with a complaint to the local force.
You really should get your employer involved in this. They should also write a letter making it clear your partner had authority (via you) to drive the car & was insured, & that it was not being used as a taxi. Also get hold of the old man when he is sober, explain to him the effect of his action & get him to write confirming he was drunk, did not know what he was saying & it was not correct.
"In the company car policy they give their permission to anyone the keeper (me in this case) gives their permission to". I'm sorry, but this is nonsense.
It is not the policy which describes who may drive. It is the insurance certificate.
And neither document is likely to say specifically that an employee can pass on that permission to a partner.
It may well be that you were told it is in order - but do you have that in writing?
What would be the position if your partner had had a really serious accident involving very expensive multi personal injury claims. Would a verbal agreement be translated into a written one - backdated?
Your story about this aspect sounds a bit woolly to me.
It is not the policy which describes who may drive. It is the insurance certificate.
And neither document is likely to say specifically that an employee can pass on that permission to a partner.
It may well be that you were told it is in order - but do you have that in writing?
What would be the position if your partner had had a really serious accident involving very expensive multi personal injury claims. Would a verbal agreement be translated into a written one - backdated?
Your story about this aspect sounds a bit woolly to me.
Segilla - what leads you to surmise that the agreement was verbal?
It is standard practice for a company to issue a document or handbook to employees allocated company vehicles. This handbook will specify the groups of persons authorised to drive by default and if necessary how to nominate others to be authorised. It is hardly practical to pass round the single insurance certificate to all relevant employees where a blanket policy is in operation.
Here is an extract from the Barclays Company Car policy in regard of Insurance...
"The BCC car is insured whilst it is being driven by you and any other driver authorised by you (hereafter ‘additional driver’). You may authorise an additional driver provided the additional driver is not disqualified from driving and holds a full driving licence valid in the UK. In all cases, an additional driver must have held a full driving licence for a minimum of 12 months before he/she may drive a BCC car or other vehicle provided by Barclays or GE.
http://www.barclaysco.../policycompanycar.htm
It is standard practice for a company to issue a document or handbook to employees allocated company vehicles. This handbook will specify the groups of persons authorised to drive by default and if necessary how to nominate others to be authorised. It is hardly practical to pass round the single insurance certificate to all relevant employees where a blanket policy is in operation.
Here is an extract from the Barclays Company Car policy in regard of Insurance...
"The BCC car is insured whilst it is being driven by you and any other driver authorised by you (hereafter ‘additional driver’). You may authorise an additional driver provided the additional driver is not disqualified from driving and holds a full driving licence valid in the UK. In all cases, an additional driver must have held a full driving licence for a minimum of 12 months before he/she may drive a BCC car or other vehicle provided by Barclays or GE.
http://www.barclaysco.../policycompanycar.htm
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles46 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles54 mins ago
Crosswords77 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.