The cash for crash compo culture is also alive and well in genuine accidents.
I didn't realise police forces had a formal arrangement to accept tip-off fees from garages.
Harmless in that it's all open and above board, but the punter is forced to use the garage the police call.
It's not within a police officer's remit to tell us how we spend our money.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010446/The-cash-crash-conspiracy-The-4-6bn-racket-involving-greedy-lawyers-insurers-thats-sending-YOUR-premiums-sky-high.html
|
|
I'd call that corruption.
|
>> I'd call that corruption.
>>
Me too and on a huge scale, hardly surprising though these days...i wonder why Mr Straw didn't sort this out when he had the chance?
Disappointing that police officers should be linked in with such blatant favouring in the noted cases, though their priority will be getting damaged vehicles cleared quickly, doubt it's their personal decision but they are in the front line.
Could be why the rental trucks i drive have a prominent sticker, stating that ''recovery services are under contract to company X'', then followed by some jargon making it plain others (referrals no doubt) will not be recognized.
|
Better late than never.But how to change the tide?
|
|
Not a million miles from the secret handshake fraternity.
|
I see the daily mail doesn't say how this actually works, in practice.
There is an approved list but its not corrupt and its all above board. How do i know? I inquired about the choice my laguna was shipped off to. And I spoke to the proprietor.
The OP is just pathetic stirring.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 03:35
|
...The OP is just pathetic stirring...
No, it isn't.
An approved list, albeit a paid-for one, is just about acceptable.
What is not acceptable is a copper saying you must use Acme Recovery because his force has taken a bung from them.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 3 Jul 11 at 03:35
|
The article is a disgrace. It does not explain how the *multiple* companies are chosen from the list, it is in fact on strict rotas.. They have to have approved companies on a list as any old jonnie or family member with a washing line (its happened) would turn up to recover vehicle from dangerous motorway situations.
The use of the word "tip off" fee is inflammatory in the extreme, and you use of the word "bung is similar. How can it be when the operators are called on a rota basis?
Its a terrible article, possibly one of the most misleading I have ever seen from what is supposed to be a respectable purveyor of news. It doesn't know the meaning of the word.
And its just reinforced my opinion of those who not only read it, but actually are taken in by it.
|
"I didn't realise police forces had a formal arrangement to accept tip-off fees from garages"
Utter rubbish. Very tightly controlled on a rota basis. Police list recovery companies have to meet a high criteria before they are put on the 'list'. If they fall below those standards they are removed.
Having said that the customer gets the first choice. Often they have no idea who to call and are in a state of distress. It will be next on the list then.
Now if an incident is causing mammoth congestion an tailbacks to the public who would you suggest. Someone who has a reputation for taking their time or someone with a reputation for a speedy and professional response?
Oh, and insurance companies pay for the priviledge of RTC record extracts. Its a fixed fee but all the work is done for them.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sat 2 Jul 11 at 16:26
|
..."I didn't realise police forces had a formal arrangement to accept tip-off fees from garages"...Utter rubbish...
Hardly, two police forces confirmed their income from the arrangement.
|
|
I have to agree with Zero, the news article is so misleading it is unfair with regards to the vehicle recovery system. They have taken a few basic facts, then used their report to twist the way in which the system works to make a horror story out of it all.
|
Zero and Fullchat are correct. Dreadful bit of journalism.
Further to the above, when you've got a road blocked, in a dangerous spot, using up sparce resources to fend off...do you A, let the customer call his/her own resouces or favoured outfit to the accident..or..B, persuade them to use the one that is contracted to your Force area and who guarantees to get there in a certain time (and if they don't, run the risk of losing the contract, so make damned sure they do get there quickly enough).
There's no back hander element in that..it's a wish to clear the road in an hour, rather than 2 or 3 or even longer. I learnt my lesson a long time back on that. The driver can still insist on their own choice, but we'll usually set a time limit to it..and when explained properly they usually go with the flow. The AA/RAC etc will get to a break down call out within an hour...but they won't send a recovery truck to an accident necessarily within that time...hence why the Daily Wail article was so bad, when it gave the example about the fellow who wanted to use the RAC.
Presumably, most tax paying members of the public would wish their cops to be patrolling their areas for crime..not stood at accident scenes for hours on end.
If some officers are passing motorists details to accident claim companies, then they are exceptionally foolish indeed...because with a strict complaints system..and a guaranteed disciplinary hearing and the sack if caught...then i'd think a reasonably well paid job, pension, security etc in this day and age, would be worth more than a few quid...but then there's bad apples in every barrel.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 2 Jul 11 at 17:31
|
...There's no back hander element in that..
No one is saying there is.
Problems have arisen in a limited number of cases when the crashed driver has been ordered to use the police-approved firm, when he wants to use another one.
|
>> Problems have arisen in a limited number of cases when the crashed driver has been
>> ordered to use the police-approved firm, when he wants to use another one.
For good operational reasons, as has been explained, tho not covered at all in the article.
|
...For good operational reasons, as has been explained, tho not covered at all in the article...
We don't know that.
It could be the company the driver wanted to use would have turned up quicker than the company the police nominated.
And what happens if the driver says he has no insurance or money, so cannot pay any company and intends to rely on his mate to fetch the car?
I don't think third party insurance would cover an accident recovery, so the driver could be legal and still be in a position of not wanting to use the company called by the police.
It remains a strange situation where a police officer is effectively telling the citizen how to spend his money and with whom.
|
>> And what happens if the driver says he has no insurance or money, so cannot
>> pay any company and intends to rely on his mate to fetch the car?
yeah - the washing line family
>> It remains a strange situation where a police officer is effectively telling the citizen how
>> to spend his money and with whom.
They are clearing the road. Don't know about you but I ain't got time for washing line Fred to turn up to cart some old crap heap off the road.
You are flogging a dead horse here mate. And making mountains out of molehills.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 2 Jul 11 at 19:09
|
...Don't know about you but I ain't got time for washing line Fred to turn up to cart some old crap heap off the road...
One of the newspapers I work for has its own garage which looks after the delivery vans and company cars.
The instructions to users are clear, in the event of an accident, contact the garage.
It may be the garage would be content for the police-nominated garage to recover the vehicle, but it may not.
I believe the RAC's top service includes accident recovery in certain circumstances.
Had you paid £200 for that insurance, would you be happy for a copper - or anyone else - to insist you couldn't use it, and order you to pay someone else instead?
Of course not.
No harm in the police officer offering to contact a recovery garage, but insisting the driver uses a particular garage is an argument waiting to happen.
|
At the end of the day, I and the rest of the road using public want you, your wreck and your principals out of the way. if your rights aint quick enough, that's tough.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 2 Jul 11 at 19:34
|
>> I believe the RAC's top service includes accident recovery in certain circumstances.
Link please?
|
...Link please?...
The RAC offer to 'arrange recovery' as part of its accident care service:
help.rac.co.uk/help/breakdown/products/do-you-cover-accidents
If I parked my car in a ditch somewhere a long way from home, I might be inclined to use it as a source of a reputable local recovery company.
|
Oh right they dont recover then
They call the same outfit the police do. Except now you are insinuating the police do not use local or reputable.
|
www.autohome.co.uk/uk-breakdown-cover.htm
My lot recover and have done so the two times my vehicles have been write off accident damaged, one long distance, one a couple of hours away.
Both times the vehicles were not causing road problems.
|
...Except now you are insinuating the police do not use local or reputable...
That's one of your more stupid posts.
|
|
Oh really? coming from you that's rich. You deny it?
|
Zero,
Were I a long way from home, having just crawled from the wreckage and wanting to find a recovery firm, I might ring my breakdown service and say:
"I know you don't do accidents, but could you give me the numbers of a couple of your listed garages on the basis they might do recovery, or will know of someone who does."
I've no idea where you got the garbage about police and reputable companies from.
At the risk of insulting our female members, the extraordinary lengths you go to to twist everything leads me to ask if you are a woman?
|
|
good lord, what an extraordinary statement from you there iffy. Even by your standards. I wont respond to that as there is no need to really, happy for that to stand as your finest moment.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 2 Jul 11 at 21:09
|
Iffy,
If someone's car is blocking a road having had an accident..and they CAN nominate someone who can remove it sharpish...no problem...they can nominate whoever they like. This is the case and always has been.
If however, they cannot....then the Police control room calls one out......one that has had to bid for a contract....and promises to get there pronto...and the control room staff have no choice on which one to call, there's a drop down list on the computer system and you follow the strict rotation or area coverage as indicated by that.
My experience, which is now some decades of policing..is that the police called one is usually considerably quicker than anyone else's...and...many people in those distressing situations don't think straight because they're traumatised...so it can hardly be surprising that the Old Bill prefer to call 'their one'.
That's it. There's no grubby fivers being exchanged, there's no erosion of driver's civil liberties, there's no financial pressure on a driver to use a certain firm over any other.... and in any case the insurance usually covers it all anyway.
The officer at the scene, his/her supervisor, the control room, the Highways Agency, etc all want the road cleared as soon as possible...and do not want a 4 or 5 hour wait, because Mr Faff has organised (or tried to) something else.
|
|
You are a spoilsport Westpig, I was enjoying Iffy and Zero acting like a pair of 10 year olds. :-)
|
I'm wondering if Iffy ever writes for the Daily Mail.
I also wonder if he uses the name Paul......
|
Daily Fail and Iffy sussed again.
Ho ho.
;-)
|
...Daily Fail and Iffy sussed again...
Daily Success, I think you'll find.
And I've no idea what a discussion about police forces being paid by breakdown companies has to do with me or a newspaper.
|
Er, they published it and you triumphantly posted a link to it.
And the article was then torn to shreds by people who actually know what they're talking about in regard to it.
|
.., they published it and you triumphantly posted a link to it...And the article was then torn to shreds by people who actually know what they're talking about in regard to it.
I posted the article for discussion, not 'triumphantly', so you are wrong about that.
The police forces do accept payments from the breakdown companies, the article is correct about that.
Most of the article was about insurance and the consequences of a crash, which didn't attract any adverse comment on here, which it surely would have done.
Torn to shreds?
Don't make me laugh.
All the posts from 'people who actually know what they're talking about in regard to it' said was what the article said - police forces use a panel of breakdown companies to make sure the job gets done.
|
>> said was what the article said
Not really, contrast
Daily Wail>> "The £4.6bn racket involving greedy lawyers and insurers"
with
FC>> "Very tightly controlled on a rota basis. Police list recovery companies have to meet a high criteria before they are put on the 'list'. If they fall below those standards they are removed."
They're saying different things. One's shrieking speculation with accusations of corruption. One's a report with information.
There's an important difference.
|
...They're saying different things. One's shrieking speculation with accusations of corruption. One's a report with information...
Skoda,
If there is any speculation about corruption, it is directed only against the crash for crash lawyers and the repairers.
The stuff about the police taking money for the recovery contract is entirely separate.
As the article says, and as I've said several times, there is no suggestion of the coppers doing anything underhand.
OK, it took a Freedom of Information Act request to get the figures from the two forces, but I suspect those figures would have been in the agenda of annual police authority meeting, which is a public document, and a public meeting, come to that.
But like so many of this type of document/meeting, few people bother to look/go.
|
It’s a typical Mail article Iffy. It conflates several issues which are loosely or even barely connected and then uses intemperate language and a hint of conspiracy to tickle its reader’s prejudices.
Claims farming companies seem to have been paying for tip offs so they can cold call accident victims. The insurance industry, instead of stamping on something that has been inflating its costs, seems to have colluded. Each company seems happy to pocket the other’s money without any thought that it comes from the customer’s pocket. The cost of starting, fighting and ultimately compromising these claims is scandalous. Perhaps the changes to no win no fee and the Jackson reforms to costs in the civil courts will solve the problem. I won’t be holding my breath waiting though.
Whether the police should be taking an admin fee for calling out the tow truck is a moot point. On the one hand it’s part of their job but on the other it’s a consequence of a private matter (the accident) and costs should be born by the drivers’ insurance policy. An admin fee for calling out the rota contractor is not by any stretch a 'tip off' fee.
|
>> It’s a typical Mail article Iffy.
Charlie Brooker is, as usual, spot on about tabloid journalism, here:
tinyurl.com/4x6xcsv
And he wrote this before the News of the World/Milly Dowler phone hack revelation.
Which I note only The Independent is covering on its front page today, so far as I can tell. I haven't looked, but I've heard the Daily Fail is leading with the "royal" tour of Canada. Carphounds, to coin a phrase.
|
...Which I note only The Independent is covering on its front page today, so far as I can tell. I haven't looked, but I've heard the Daily Fail is leading with the "royal" tour of Canada...
Happily, you are not the editor, because if you were the Daily Mail would indeed fail.
I've not looked, but the NoW phone hack story is everywhere, it's the lead story on the Mail's website, so I expect it's in the paper as well.
|
>> Happily, you are not the editor, because if you were the Daily Mail would indeed
>> fail.
Yes, I'd make sure of it.
>> I've not looked, but the NoW phone hack story is everywhere, it's the lead story
>> on the Mail's website, so I expect it's in the paper as well.
It's only just put the story on the website front page, and I understand that it was given a lower billing in print than a reality star's nose job.
Seems to me as though they didn't want to give it any prominence until they realised the public's level of disgust at the story.
As Danny Baker called them on Twitter this morning: "Hideous, cynical, dinosaurs."
|
...As Danny Baker called them on Twitter this morning: "Hideous, cynical, dinosaurs."...
So Baker's joined the likes of Cameron, Miliband, and a few of the major advertisers - all scrabbling for the moral high ground.
Dangerous thing to do - every chance it will come back and bite you on the backside when you least expect it.
|
>> So Baker's joined the likes of Cameron, Miliband, and a few of the major advertisers
None of them are wrong though, are they?
|
...None of them are wrong though, are they?...
Funny how everything in the press is either malicious lies or 100 per cent nailed on truth, depending on which suits.
|
|
Ok Iffy, do you approve of, or excuse / justify the press for hacking into the voicemail of murder victims, or their immediate families?
|
Listening to it on BBC this morning, shouldn't we be asking who gave them these ex directory land line numbers too?
Pat
|
Pat/Zero,
Thinking of starting a separate thread on this - I'm surprised that no one else has...so I'll bump it across to Non-Motoring.
PU
|
>> Listening to it on BBC this morning, shouldn't we be asking who gave them these
>> ex directory land line numbers too?
>>
>> Pat
Do you mean how did NoW or it's agents get the numbers?
According to the Guardian, which has majored on this stuff for over a year, they had another shady PI type who obtained them by bribery/subterfuge. Cannot recall the exact detail but was reported at length in Monday's (??) paper.
|
>> Funny how everything in the press is either malicious lies or 100 per cent nailed
>> on truth, depending on which suits.
>>
I don't think that at all. Your comment is a twist at the end of the spectrum. Most yarns in life have two sides of a story....on a sliding scale. It would be most rare for one side to be 100% accurate and the other 0% accurate, just through the fallibility of humans alone.
However the Tabloid Press manipulate things to sensationalise the story to sell newspapers, that's their job.
The 'qualities' do it to some degree, but nothing like as bad, depending on the paper, but sadly are getting worse.
If I read something that is from my area of work/expertise, then i'm obviously in a position to be able to comment on how accurate any reporting is. Furthermore, as you get older and wiser, you can sometimes dip in to other areas of knowledge...but obviously with caution.
Sometimes, you can see the truth with a capital 'T', even though you don't know all the facts..e.g. reading some victim statements. It leaps out of the page at you.
|
>> So Baker's joined the likes of Cameron, Miliband, and a few of the major advertisers
>> - all scrabbling for the moral high ground.
Ford being one of them. Tee hee.
It's pretty hard not to claim the moral high ground on this one - yes, all of us have done immoral things, but for the vast majority of us, this is so far beyond the pale it's sickening.
>> Dangerous thing to do
Like supporting the Daily Mail or the NotW.
|
"The RAC offer to 'arrange recovery' as part of its accident care service:"
"Your membership doesn't include vehicle recovery following a road traffic accident, fire, theft, act of vandalism or any other incident covered by a motor insurance policy. However, if requested by you, RAC may arrange recovery of your vehicle following a road traffic accident, fire, theft or act of vandalism but you will be liable for payment of the associated cost of such recovery, including specialist equipment charges if applicable. You may be able to make a claim against your motor insurer for the cost of us recovering your vehicle but this will be subject to the terms and conditions of your motor insurance policy."
The RAC and AA do not do accident recovery. They may 'arrange' recovery. They do not have the specialist equipment.
Similarly a car broken down causing a massive tailback. Response from the main players is "within the hour" . Sorry that isn't acceptable to either the Police and other road users. And if they do arrive, "Sorry mate can't shift that".
Brother in law with a tow rope who will be home from work in 45 minutes (maybe). Again not acceptable. Road needs clearing ASAP.
If its possible to move a car off the road and free the obstruction then they can have who they want when they want except if there is any potential risk then its the Police call again. I've dragged cars to safe areas against regulations but its got the road open and the driver/occupants are safe. In an ideal word everyone would have purchased the necessary breakdown cover but they don't. They then start bleating when faced with a bill. Anyway charges are pretty much standard across the board.
|
|
Urban myth says that recovery companies listen in to police reports so steal a march on the "official" remover.
|
In the good old days when Police communications where less sophisticated anyone with a VHF/UHF radio could listen in to find out what was going on and it was not unknown for enterprising individuals to just happen to be passing at the appropriate time including reporters. They generally got short shrift.
The introduction of digital encrypted Airwave communications put an end to all that.
|
A colleague of mine got some decent stories about a high-profile murder investigation by listening to the police radio.
Things went OK until he made the mistake of turning up somewhere only someone on a police radio would know about.
He was questioned - not under caution - by a very grumpy senior investigating officer who knew fine well what was going on, but had no proof.
|
>> He was questioned - not under caution - by a very grumpy senior investigating officer
>> who knew fine well what was going on, but had no proof.
These days he'd have had a scanner who's memory might have provided enough proof.
Plenty of FX in mine but mostly ATC which the authorities seem to tolerate.
|
>> high-profile murder investigation by listening to the police radio.
News reporting can be a bit of a humourless grind, but one does overhear stuff in one way or another sometimes.
During the Libyan incursion into northern Chad in the early eighties there were a lot of hacks in the capital. We hacks had access to the telex room in the post office day and night. I was trying to telephone my wife in there late one night when I was accidentally plugged into a conversation between a secretary at the French foreign ministry and a stolid Chadian international telephonist. The lady in Paris wanted to be put through to the Chadian president, at that time Hissene Habré, on behalf of her boss. She was getting quite exasperated, but had a pinched, refined accent even over the crackly satellite connection.
'C'est de la part de M. Cheysson! M Claude Cheysson!' she cried. When would this recalcitrant African do as he was told? Didn't he know who M Cheysson was?
He probably did, but something in her voice had put him in dumb jobsworth mode. 'Chiffon?' he asked quite rudely. 'Chiffon? Qui c'est M Claude Chiffon? C'est un jourrrnaliste ou quoi?' I loved it, but it wasn't a 'story'. I had nowhere to put it. Freelances don't get much latitude from London newsdesks. But I listened, giggling and fascinated, to the end. He wouldn't put her through. He said he'd call the presidential palace and let them know. If they wanted to call back, they would. And that was that.
Later it occurred to me that French hacks might just possibly have put the whole thing up as a practical joke (some of them were quite capable of it). But I don't think so. I imagine the day operator would have been a bit more cooperative and the call between the two great men would have taken place next morning.
|
>> by listening to the police radio.
>>
Some years back, whilst driving around Central London on a night duty, I came across a fair bit of smoke coming from a building in Knightsbridge. Turned out it was the French Embassy...(didn't know that, because the building was fairly anonymous..and..I was er, sort of, slightly off my patch so to speak).
Anyway, called Trumpton and load of back up...and the Sky News crew turned up before most of the Fire Brigade...
|
Aye, right.
As is said in this area. :-)
|
|
Foxtrot Oscar round here :-)
|
>> Foxtrot Oscar round here :-)
That's a police thing I think, my mum never swore when I was wee but I knew that before I knew the real one.
|
A new take on cash for crash - Old Navy
