1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178 
Recovery firms are to blame
Page 19
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A LOT HAS BEEN written recently over the Mansfield vs NYK Logistics case.
It appears to me that no one is reading and understanding the exact wording contained in the legislation laid down by Parliament, and under which the police use this legislation.
It states quite clearly that the Chief Constable may charge £105.1t doesn't say that this figure applies to anyone else.
The problems that have arisen are as a result of police contracts being issued and accepted that refer to the recovery operator acting as an agent for the Chief Constable. In this case the £105 was correctly outlined by the judge in the case. The recovery companies are to blame for the current problems, along with those companies set up to negotiate and administer the schemes for the police.The police are also to blame where the schemes are run in-house.
Recovery companies have been too eager to get police work at any cost Just look at the other areas where the police are required to have specialist companies available to carry out work — for example. the boarding of shop windows and the removal of evidence [other than vehiclesi.There are no charges laid down for these.
Name and address supplied