Driving and insuring a Cat B car

[Rave]

I do in this one particular case and one particular car. Remember it's only a bit of carbon fibre and metal made by a bunch of Italians a few years ago. Not really rare or irreplaceable.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

I agree it's not rare or irreplaceable. What it is though is valuable, because it's expensive to make, and thus to buy. The same is true of lots of things, from JCBs to aircraft, and I wouldn't expect the police to chuck those straight in a crusher either.

 

Nothing good comes of wilfully destroying useful things. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp

[Dan_ZTT]

 

As for the police " can't be seen to be promoting the marketing of stolen goods" , what do you think the stuff that gets sold at police auctions is?

 

 

 

Cars sold at police auctions are going to be either seized for no tax/insurance and not claimed back by owner, or bought with dirty money (e.g. drug dealer's car) and seized under proceeds of crime act

 

A recovered stolen car would be returned to the rightful owner, or to the insurance company if they've already paid out on it, it wouldn't be sold by the police

[Rave]

Yeah, but they're known and catalogued. Frig knows what's in that Ferrari.

 

 

 

You don't seriously believe that do you??? You're comfortable with a criminal buying good's he's stolen back from the police, for auction value, potentially financed using the proceeds of crime? Sounds like a massive Vs-up to fairness and justice in this country.

 

Ultimately that Ferrari is not legitimate, selling it legitimises it. And selling it back to the owner is a massive fuck-you to the whole system.

 

We would know what's in the Ferrari if it had been taken apart and examined. Which since Ferraris are valuable, would have been worth doing.

 

And of course I seriously believe that, otherwise I wouldn't have typed it . You can't not sell something just because there is a chance it will be bought by people you disapprove of. Criminals buy stuff with the proceeds of crime all the time; the only way to stop them doing it would be to stop selling any stuff at all. Is that your proposal?

[busmansholiday]

Drugs and (hand) guns are illegal. I would be pretty aghast if the police destroyed a valuable antique shotgun (or even a valuable modern one like a Beretta Extrema) rather than than auctioning it off, as well.

They generally do destroy them. We used to have a van, complete with armed escort turn up once in a while full of guns, swords and all sorts that plod had confiscated. We'd charge the lot into a furnace all under their supervision to make sure non were missed.

[Alexg]

 

You can't not sell something just because there is a chance it will be bought by people you disapprove of. Criminals buy stuff with the proceeds of crime all the time; the only way to stop them doing it would be to stop selling any stuff at all. Is that your proposal?

 

Nice strawman there. My objection is the Police wilfully selling an illegitimate car, made of stolen parts, back to the dirty-cash-laden criminal they confiscated it from.

[Rave]

A recovered stolen car would be returned to the rightful owner, or to the insurance company if they've already paid out on it, it wouldn't be sold by the police

 

Well yes, except this supposedly stolen car wasn't given back to the rightful owner or the insurance company, it was immediately crushed, hence this argument.

[Rave]

Nice strawman there. My objection is the Police wilfully selling an illegitimate car, made of stolen parts, back to the dirty-cash-laden criminal they confiscated it from.

 

It's not a straw man, it's a reducto ad absurdum.

[Rave]

They generally do destroy them. We used to have a van, complete with armed escort turn up once in a while full of guns, swords and all sorts that plod had confiscated. We'd charge the lot into a furnace all under their supervision to make sure non were missed.

 

Fair enough, I can see that in the vast majority of cases that would make far more sense. But it would be stupid to destroy a £10,000 shotgun which has legitimate uses for field sports or whatever.

 

I don't have a problem with them sending, say, a 10 year old Focus straight to scrap either. But a complete Ferrari has a real cash value even with a cracked tub, value which should not be being destroyed in a crusher. The police can and do sell on cars they have seized where the value of the car justifies it, SiC's Daily Mail story shows us that.

[The Reverend Bluejeans]

We would know what's in the Ferrari if it had been taken apart and examined. Which since Ferraris are valuable, would have been worth doing.

 

 

 

 

 

And who is going to do that?

[omegod]

Got a few spare boxes of these in work if anyone's in need, seems there's a bit of hormonal upset going on here 

 

 

 

[Rave]

And who is going to do that?

 

A specialist supercar breaker with a forensic operator looking over their shoulder? Say they're on a wage of £30,000 a year each, it's not going to take them anything like a year to strip £100k's worth of parts off the car.

 

Or, just don't bother with the forensic investigator at all, if we're all happy to accept that the parts are stolen. They're still valuable.

 

Let's say the police recover a Van Gogh painting that they know for sure to be stolen. They cannot find the rightful owner. Do they then destroy it? And if not, why is this Ferrari different?

[Rave]

Don't like how this has been handled? run for government and change the fucking rules, till then meh.  

 

I think I'll stick in an FOI request.

[Jams]

Have I logged on to pistontwats?

[wuvvum]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree in that case   .

Excellent idea.  Any time now would be good.

[SiC]

Have I logged on to pistontwats?

No. Luckily there is no racism in this thread. Pretty disgusting that its allowed to go on there.

[Pillock]

Wow, am I ever sorry I linked to a related article. 

[Dirk Diggler]

I thought it was an argument born of gargle when I read it last night; maybe not

[DodgeRover]

A recovered stolen car would be returned to the rightful owner, or to the insurance company if they've already paid out on it, it wouldn't be sold by the police

A lot of stuff never gets returned to either the owner or the insurers as it doesn't get identified - they don't have the time/ resources, the recovery fee + storage charges add up dramatically so even if the owner is identified the cost to get their own property back will be massive.

 

In this case 2 things happen they're either crushed in a job lot, nothing removed at all I don't even think they were allowed to depollute them or they go to whichever breaker is flavour of the month strictly for parts only and identification marks are supposed to be removed.

 

In a previous job I've been to the impound/ storage yard and tried to get an agreement on removing parts from the crush stuff while being monitored but was told absolutely no way, there were some pretty new and expensive bikes/ cars/ 4wds there, some had been stolen (or hired with false identies) and run on false plates or involved in crimes.

[Lankytim]

What's the criteria for the cat ratings? I've driven trucks that the previous driver has died in due to an accident. 

 

 

Commercial vehicles don't have a "cat" marker against them, they can be absolutely cabbaged and repaired. I think this extends to vans, too.

[JJ0063]

I may or may not actually work for a company that rhymes with hadrians ducks.

 

I know they have been able to insure Cat B’s when they’re legitimately put back on the road with extenuating circumstances... I know it’s not easy though.

 

https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/category-b-insurance/

[DodgeRover]

I may or may not actually work for a company that rhymes with hadrians ducks.

 

https://www.adrianflux.co.uk/category-b-insurance/

You have my condolences - they seem to be the most moaned about insurer on the internet.

[Pillock]

Hey, you can't be moaned about if you have no customers.

 

(I've done my time with hated retailers!)

[Rave]

I thought it was an argument born of gargle when I read it last night; maybe not

 

You say "argument", I say "lively airing of differing opinions between several willing participants" .

 

If anyone is reading or posting in this thread with a gun to their head I apologize unreservedly obvs

 

Edit: just spotted that I called it an argument earlier myself. Busted