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 
ment of its vehicle recovery scheme back inhouse following a two-year legal wrangle over who should chase up non-payers.
Page 6
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The decision is seen as a further vindication of six vehicle recovery operators who claim the contractor, CRC Public Resources, failed to collect more than £500,000 of their debts despite having to pay it a management fee for each call-out, A judge has already ruled that CRC, formerly SHL, will have to pay the operators' legal costs after deciding it had a proper legal contract with them.
A further hearing, expected in April, will decide whether CRC breached the contract by failing to chase up the debts.
The operators, who belong to Staffordshire Recovery Group (SRC), needed to prove they had a contract with either GRG or the police in order to claim compensation for the debts. Their lawyer, Peter Beckeriey, says: "We are all delighted at this outcome. We are now keen to bring the case to a conclusion so that SRC can receive the compensation that is due to it."
He argues that the case will put recovery operators on a much firmer legal footing when working on other police schemes around the country.
Bob loon, managing director of CRC, says: "We firmly believe we are not In any breach of any contract that the judge has found."
CRC also administers police recovery schemes in South Wales, Dyfed-Powys, Wiltshire and Leicestershire. The Staffordshire contract ends on 31March.
Staffordshire Police has declined to comment about its decision but last month described the court action as "a wholly unnecessary approach to solving any problems with the scheme" (CMS-11 Dee).