Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Would you pay just to get your own car back?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
im a member of a forum for owners of honda prelude cars and this has just come up on the forum, it just goes to show how shitie this country is getting:

http://preludeuk.forumup.com/viewtopic.php?t=8156&mforum=preludeuk


what do you guys think about this? surly its a bit shittie not even letting him get HIS poperty back from his own car??

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who do you think should pay for the recovery and return of his uninsured vehicle?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Who do you think should pay for the recovery and return of his uninsured vehicle?

    at the end of the day the car wasnt on the road, i think the little shit that stole the car should.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fine, if they catch him then the owner can take out a small claims proceeding against him - but first he would have to incur the loss.

    Point it, had he been insured then he wouldn't have this problem and it is his responsibility to pick up the costs of the return of his property. If not his, then who else? You, me?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Point it, had he been insured then he wouldn't have this problem and it is his responsibility to pick up the costs of the return of his property. If not his, then who else? You, me?

    Why on earth should the public have to pay for something that isn't anything to do with them?

    He should pay for it. His own fault for not having it insured in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fine, if they catch him then the owner can take out a small claims proceeding against him - but first he would have to incur the loss.

    Point it, had he been insured then he wouldn't have this problem and it is his responsibility to pick up the costs of the return of his property. If not his, then who else? You, me?

    ok, if i was to find your lost wellet and hand it to the police maybe they should charge you for looking after the item?

    and i think the main point is that he is being refessed access to the car to get his personnal belongings out of, surly you dont think thats fair?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote: »
    Why on earth should the public have to pay for something that isn't anything to do with them?

    He should pay for it. His own fault for not having it insured in the first place.


    so what about all the other items people have that are uninsured? you think maybe if the police locate them you should have to pay to get them back?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    so what about all the other items people have that are uninsured? you think maybe if the police locate them you should have to pay to get them back?

    The owner should have to pay to get them back.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote: »
    The owner should have to pay to get them back.

    so if someone was to steel your handband, and later it was handed into the police station you think it would be ok for them to charge you for it?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What on earth is a handband?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    handbag i mean, but thats not the point, it could be anything
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't you see the difference?

    The car is in storage and had to be recovered from the road. That comes with a cost. Insurance usually picks that up, it is part of the reason why we have insurance in the first place. We all put into a pot and if one of us has a loss then we all pick up the tab - it's the whole basis of shared risks which is the insurance market.

    Now this guys decides to save money by not insuring himself and therefore not buying into that sharing of risk. His choice. Thems the breaks I'm afraid.

    Now you can come up with as many hypothetical examples as you like but fact remains that he gambled and lost.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Can't you see the difference?

    The car is in storage and had to be recovered from the road. That comes with a cost. Insurance usually picks that up, it is part of the reason why we have insurance in the first place. We all put into a pot and if one of us has a loss then we all pick up the tab - it's the whole basis of shared risks which is the insurance market.

    Now this guys decides to save money by not insuring himself and therefore not buying into that sharing of risk. His choice. Thems the breaks I'm afraid.

    Now you can come up with as many hypothetical examples as you like but fact remains that he gambled and lost.


    yeah but the fact is that he didnt need to have insurance. and the big point in it if you had read it was the fact he as been refused access to get his stuff out of the car, nearly a years worth of course work for uni, and you think this is far?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Fine, if they catch him then the owner can take out a small claims proceeding against him.

    yeah right, you really think the sort of scum that goes around steeling cars have real jobs?? if it went to the same caims court he would end up paying £5 a month for the next 10 years, fuck that, if it was my car, i would get the mans details, go round to his house and beat the living hell out of him. and take what i could from his house.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    he didnt need to have insurance.

    Not legally, no. But I think that this proves that he did actually need to insure himself.
    and the big point in it if you had read it was the fact he as been refused access to get his stuff out of the car, nearly a years worth of course work for uni, and you think this is far?

    It's not pleasant but it's fiar. If they let him remove everything of value to him, what is to stop him just leaving the vehicle with them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    yeah right, you really think the sort of scum that goes around steeling cars have real jobs?? if it went to the same caims court he would end up paying £5 a month for the next 10 years, fuck that

    So what do you want then? If you don't want him to pay for it and you don't want the thief to pay for it and you don't think that he should have insured himself, who the fuck should pick up the bill?
    if it was my car, i would get the mans details, go round to his house and beat the living hell out of him.

    1. No you wouldn't.

    2. How does that get his money/possessions back?
    and take what i could from his house.

    Ah, so the thief is scum because he steals, but you aren't because...

    You have a really screwed up thought process here IMHO
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So what do you want then? If you don't want him to pay for it and you don't want the thief to pay for it and you don't think that he should have insured himself, who the fuck should pick up the bill?

    at the end of the day when the car was found the police should have contacted him, then he could have chosen what he wanted to have done with it, not jut given the car to a local twat of a company who wont even allow him access to what at the end of the day is his property
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's evidence.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If he doesn't pay, Joe Public, ie you and me will pay.
    You should always have at least 3rd party cover, on road or not.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Territt wrote: »
    if it was my car, i would get the mans details, go round to his house and beat the living hell out of him. and take what i could from his house.

    And get done for GBH/ABH/Assualt. It wouldn't get your stuff back either.
    You have a really screwed up thought process here IMHO

    Agreed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    none of you seem to be gettign the point, its not about the car, its about them withholding his items in the car, incudding over a years worth of uni work,
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    If he doesn't pay, Joe Public, ie you and me will pay.
    You should always have at least 3rd party cover, on road or not.


    and how the fuck would 3rd party cover work??? he would still be in the same place now,
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The car was off the road and so the owner was under no legal obligation to have the car insured. Insurance is an option you take out to further cover yourself from the grievances associated with theft, accidents etc., not a replacement for the service which tax consuming public services should be providing.

    The car should be stored by the police for an amount of time after they recovered it in order to give the guy the chance to pick up his vehicle. Unless I'm mistaken, by paying his taxes the man has already paid for the police's time and effort.

    This problem has arisen because of the police pawning of the responsibility of holding stolen goods to private companies out to make a quick buck.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Unless I'm mistaken, by paying his taxes the man has already paid for the police's time and effort.

    The evidence(or lack thereof) suggests you are (mistaken). ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    The evidence(or lack thereof) suggests you are (mistaken). ;)

    What? :confused:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What? :confused:

    If you can provide me with evidence that "the police" have a legal duty to protect/serve you in any specific way, I`ll pay some of YOUR taxes.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    seeker wrote: »
    If you can provide me with evidence that "the police" have a legal duty to protect/serve you in any specific way, I`ll pay some of YOUR taxes.

    The police have very specifically defined duties. It's just you don't accept that "laws" written with "pens" on pieces of "paper" which have been "voted" on by "members of parliment", mean anything. It's tiresome to say the least.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The police have very specifically defined duties. It's just you don't accept that "laws" written with "pens" on pieces of "paper" which have been "voted" on by "members of parliment", mean anything. It's tiresome to say the least.

    What I allegedly accept maybe be tiresome but it`s irrelevant to what I said and requested earlier.

    The offer still stands if you can show I have overlooked the aforementioned "LEGAL DUTY".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If he had 3rd party fire and theft, my apologies. The ins company would pay.
Sign In or Register to comment.