[kenworthy]

A mother had to pay £150 to recover her car from a police compound.
But Sarah McDonald- Lee hadn't been parked illegally and there was nothing wrong with her car.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...l#ixzz0ezSh1FlY

She has admitted the Police did well, and i have no problem with that. But now you do not wish top pay a £150 bill. Think of it this way, you got away cheaply, this incident could have been so much worse, so i put it to you, pay the £150 bill, and think yourself damn lucky.

[desmata]

'Set down in legislation?'

What legislation? our force is just as broke burt we still pay if we seize cars under police powers. Sometimes the garage gets a bit confused but we always sort it out. Never say its leigstlation, tough. oh and here is the bad police press number.

[mikeh2000]

I had s similar situation once, whereby a young kid was knocked off his bike and taken straight to hospital as a precaution. I was on the way to execute a drugs warrant, but the road was blocked and I couldn't ignore it, but once he was gone to hospital there was no way the bike could be left at the side of the road, as it would have been nicked.
As such I got it picked up as the rider was unable to nominate anyone, but when he went to pick it up, he was charged the same amount.
I did explain to them why I had had the bike removed, but they weren't happy; I then had a good look at RMSL powers and ACPO, and they said that if a vehicles involved in a RTC or broken down, and it's not in a dangerous position, then the Police don't have to remain with the vehicle.

[linus2]

Quote

The part-time courier was delivering a parcel on January 19 and had left the keys in the ignition when the opportunist thief jumped into the driver's seat. Sophie was strapped in the back.

These events are unfortunate and often do give the Police bad press, however, as the above quote from the newspaper article states, she left the keys with the vehicle. Usually the vehicle recovery costs are paid for through insurance companies, but on occassions like this, the insurance company would not be interested as reasonable steps were not taken to ensure the security of the vehicle.

[tom_major]

Clearly she made a mistake, has had a scare and was lucky, but she does pay for the police service already through taxation. Not so much sticking up for her though, rather asking the question why the thief doesn't have to pay the £150 as it is because of the thief's action that the vehicle had t be recovered. I remember recovering a stolen laptop, police weren't interested, had to trace the thief, after taking a day off work to travel from the NW to S. London and pay the train fare after being threatened they would drag me out of the house, it cost me more than the thief was fined. Yes this woman was complacent and made a follish mistake, clealry she'll count herself lucky, but what are the odds she will be punished more than the thief?

[blueb]

If the media is accepted there is a huge contradiction. Owner says the vehicle was removed by police for forensics, yet it seems it was actually removed because she had abandoned it. Can't really see how they can have it both ways. It seems it was removed because it formed part of the investigation. Even if the owner had turned up within seconds of the incident, they would still have removed it despite any pleas she may have had, or offers that she actually had her own recovery truck immediately behind her.
Perhaps when she gets home and sees another 'abandoned' vehicle in her road, a quick call to the police will get it recovered!

[flabber-my-gast]

If she had stated she didnt want the car taking for forensic examination, then the police couldnt have taken it, she doesnt have to co-operate. I think she was hard done by. It should have been made clear to her the implications of having the car taken. Not her fault, not exactly the polices fault, maybe a breakdown in communication. The insurance should pay, but they obviously worm their way out!!

[Jaydee]

Not going to pass judgement on the case in general as I get the feeling we are not getting the whole story here. However it was really really stupid to leave a car insecure with a child inside it even if it was only for a moment....

[gripper]

I wonder if she told her insurance company she was a courior, using her own car, AND that she was carrying a passenger.
Leaving a vehicle running whilst unattended, and various child offences spring to mind.
Maybe her husband should have thought of these things, before letting her go to the MAIL of all papers.
Thieves these days have no compassion, nor do recovery companies.