The ‘reduce costs’ argument was the only aspect of this that made sense to me, albeit intertwined within other reasons, possibly intentionally so. But, I note Mick’s comment ‘Recovery Operators Recover these e bikes on Trucks Then store for 14 days all free of charge’. If this applies to WMP then the Crime Commissioner’s comment is incorrect.
If so, what is achieved by raising the issue of a reduction other than pomp and bluster; ‘puff’ – akin to ‘spearheading the 2019 Vehicle Crimes Taskforce?
If someone has their ‘vehicle’ seized and in 2 weeks (14 days) it will be crushed, destroyed, it is not going to be returned to them ever. The moment it is captured, the vehicle is not going to see the light of day or a road again. It will languish in a storage facility until it is taken away and squashed. It ceases to be a problem as of day 1.
The Crime Commissioner appears to be heralding a raft of positive outcomes, but do the arguments stack up? The benefits conveyed by the WMP & CC appear to be:
- 1. ‘Tackling the growing threat posed by e-bikes’.
The bikes are going to be destroyed. Even if this is occurring 7 days sooner, they are still not going to be returned after seizure.
- 2. ‘e-scooters and other vehicles being used recklessly and unlawfully on the region’s roads’
Agreed. But not once seized; holding them pre-crush for 7 days, 14 days, 14 weeks or longer will not affect this
- 3. ‘used by criminal gangs and networks’
Not once seized irrespective of how long pre-crush
- 4. “These vehicles are often being used to commit crime and cause fear in our communities”
Again, not once seized irrespective of how long pre-crush
- 5. “They are fast, nimble, and often modified to exceed legal limits.
Not once seized irrespective of how long pre-crush; they are in storage, off road – stationary
- 6. ‘They are used by individuals who have no regard for public safety’
Not once seized irrespective of how long pre-crush; as at the date/time of seizure, these vehicles are not going to interact with the public again
- 7. ‘their presence can be both dangerous and intimidating’.
Not in a storage facility!
- 8. ‘often used without insurance, registration, or safety equipment’
Agreed, hence they are seized and … stored pre-destruction; no insurance, registration or safety equipment is required in gaol/jail (the storage facility)
- 9. ‘frequently involved in dangerous group riding, off-road activity, and pavement use’.
As above, once seized, in a pound, awaiting destruction, who will engage in such activity?
- 10. ‘The community expects us to take positive and targeted action to protect them’
The act of seizure is a positive action, and the public likely appreciates this. The vehicle is going to be crushed, what do the public gain from this occurring 7 days earlier?
- 11 ‘will deliver swift justice’
In an age of 2-year backlogs for court appearances, 2 weeks to crush appears ‘faster than a speeding bullet’. ‘Justice’ occurs at the point of seizure; it is swift, instantaneous – the vehicle is extracted from the public environment. Need justice be any faster?
- 12. ‘Prevent reoffending and reduce the burden on police resources’.
How does a seized vehicle re-offend when sitting in a storage compound, awaiting its fate, termination?
- 13. Most vehicles used in this way are never reclaimed.’
The point is what? If they are not reclaimed in 14 days, they are not reclaimed in 7 days. Altering the destruction period will not affect this. The extra 7 days may ensure the ‘appropriate checks and balances, to ensure that innocent vehicle owners are not unfairly penalised’ remain.
- 14. ‘pose a continued risk, if returned to the streets’.
Why would they be returned to the streets? They have been seized; why would the police return them, other than if there was good reason to do so, i.e. they had not committed an offence or ‘innocence’ was associated?
Any subsequent illegality would presumably be a new risk/activity, or warrant an enquiry about police restoration
- 15. ‘Reduce storage costs’
This appears to be the crux of the issue for under-resourced* constabularies. But is there a cost saving – if not, what is to be achieved?
I cannot comment upon the costs/savings involved – yet. To make an informed comment I have made requests of:
West Midlands Police https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wmp_vehicle_storage_costs
The WMP Crime commissioner https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vehicle_storage_costs
I have done so via WhatDoTheyKnow.com – registration is free, once signed up, you can ‘follow’ the responses.
- 16. ‘Improve operational efficiency’
I know too little to comment upon this, but 14 days (10 working days) appears efficient – impressive. Presumably, the paperwork is unaffected by a destruction reduction period. Could this not lead to more challenges by the innocent who were not alerted in time to react, and in turn, more admin’?
- 17. ‘Send a clear deterrent message to those engaging in criminal and anti-social behaviour’.
The current message is ‘we are going to crush your vehicle’. Seemingly, this is inconsequential as many are flouting the law. Will cutting this time from 14 to 7 days make a difference? This needs to be explained.
A deterrent message, which is somewhat rough around the edges, could be:
We are going to crush your vehicle in 14 days. If you wish it returned, please provide your arguments for this, insurance, proof of ownership (as appropriate) or in the absence of this confirm we may destroy the vehicle.
The vehicle is currently in storage. Until we hear from you, the vehicle is attracting £26/day storage costs for which you are liable. At the expiration of 14 days, we will destroy the vehicle and bill you £364 (14 days at £26/day). Failure to pay and we will issue proceedings against you (seek a country court judgment, which will be recorded against you for 6 years). We will place details of the offence on our website.’
In the event of no insurance, this should attract a fine and 6 point,s which will appear against a licence for 4 years (valid for totting up for 3 years), information available to an insurer. Failure to disclose could amount to a fraud offence.
How about increasing the storage period to 28 days … and doubling the potential costs to a user … £728?
*This is an explanation I anticipate will increasingly be presented; we need more money, more officers and less crime*.