REVscene - Vancouver Automotive Forum

AE98 · 05-25-2009, 01:28 PM

Hi there,

This happend last week to my brother and I want some sound advice and suggestions from police and public here on how to solve this.

My brother whose N license was suspended had his gf drive my dad's car to the mall, the gf has N license, and my dad is currently out of the country.

Inside the mall, the gf was afraid to park so my brother parked the car inside the mall. They then came back after a while and the gf drove the car away. The police then pulled the car over and examed both my brother's and the gf's license. They then decided the gf could not drive the car because she is not a family member (and thus ICBC doesnt cover her insurance) and more importantly, they saw my brother parking inside the mall whose license was suspended. However when they pulled over the car its the gf that is driving.

They then towed the car away and gave it a 60 days suspension. We now have to pay for the storage which is charged by the day and the towing..We been going all over ICBC and the police station and rusty's trying to get the car back and theres no way out.

The question is, can the police tow the car away base on that? shouldnt they just issue a warning and have something else come and drive the car away?

Im absolutely furious as its my dad's work car and hes out of the country on a trip and when he comes back it will be big problem for the family.

any help is appreciated.

Adsdeman · 05-25-2009, 01:34 PM

If you are driving with a suspended license you get towed.
If you drive without insurance you get towed.
You did both, however the 60 day holding period seems a little harsh!

AE98 · 05-25-2009, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adsdeman

If you are driving with a suspended license you get towed.
If you drive without insurance you get towed.
You did both, however the 60 day holding period seems a little harsh!

well, the thing is,
my brother wasn't driving at the time during pull over, the gf was. my brother only parked inside the mall.

secondly, the car HAS insurance, its just that the gf is driving.

SumAznGuy · 05-25-2009, 01:43 PM

The police don't "steal" cars for no particular reason and without hearing from the police's side, it is hard to judge to see what was right and what isn't.

BAsed on what we do know, you brother is shit out of luck and the car is in storage at Rusty's for the full 60 days. That will mean you will have to pay the towing fees and 60 day storage fee when your dad goes to get his car back.

As to why this happened, well 2 things. The story doesn't add up as they were parking inside a Richmond mall. Lots of people in Richmond can't drive or park so there is no reason for the police to target them based on that.
#2, since they were pulled over and had their liscence's checked and since neither people were the primary owner/operators and your brother's N was suspended, if they feel the GF wasn't qualifed to drive, that is why the car was towed. 60 days might have been excessive, but again I wasn't there and your brother's story doesn't add up.

AE98 · 05-25-2009, 01:46 PM

well,
according to my brother, the car was pulled because the police saw them switching seats inside the parking lot, which seems suspecious to them.

anyhow I am hoping anyone with some useful advise on how we can retrieve the car faster or lower the cost.

SumAznGuy · 05-25-2009, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AE98

well,
according to my brother, the car was pulled because the police saw them switching seats inside the parking lot, which seems suspecious to them.

anyhow I am hoping anyone with some useful advise on how we can retrieve the car faster or lower the cost.

Ain't gonna happen. Car is in the holding lot for 60 days. IIRC, the storeage fee was like $35 per day X 60 days = your dad give your brother a severe beating.

Sucks, but that is the way it is being that the car is under his name and not your brother's.

And changing drivers to park is not a "suspcious" thing. 99.9999% of the people in Ditchmond can't part and needs someone else to park for them.

sebberry · 05-25-2009, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumAznGuy

And changing drivers to park is not a "suspcious" thing. 99.9999% of the people in Ditchmond can't part and needs someone else to park for them.

That's a blatant failure of the driver's education and examination system. Perhaps traffic fines should help fund driver's ed and not pad the city's pockets.

zulutango · 05-25-2009, 02:50 PM

The car was impounded for 60 days as this was his second time caught with no DL and driving. Think ICBC would cover him while he was "parking it'? The fact that they got caught switching drivers says it all. If you have no DL or are prohibited/suspended you do NOT drive a vehicle. Thought that concept was easy enough to understand? The "warnings" he got were...the suspension, the fact he had no DL...how many more do you think should be given?

AE98 · 05-25-2009, 02:54 PM

well, no need to question me, I have never been involved in any sort of traffic violations, and thats why Im puzzled, and i'm asking for my brother.

I just think the whole 60 days impound is ridicoulous

on a side note, I agree with the poster above that there IS a blatant failure in BC trying to educate the drivers...Alot of Chinese immigrants in Richmond really can't drive. But, if you ever visit Taiwan, China or Hong Kong, you will be amazed at the driving / parking skills people have there. In Taiwan I have seen alot of people park within literally milimeters bumper to bumper and never scratch. Once you are back in Canada you feel the streets are filled with idiots who are not only slow (wait for couple seconds after green lights) and stupid (stopping on a green light for no particular reasons)

CRS · 05-25-2009, 03:15 PM

I truly enjoy the deflection of blame and responsibility here.

AE98, I hope when you say you're "furious" that you are directing that anger to your brother and not anyone else. He is clearly at fault here and there is simply nothing more to discuss. He is suspended which means he is NOT allowed to driver EVER. Not for a trip to the corner store, the bank or even parking. If he is in the drivers seat and the car is on, he is breaking the law.

Go and kick your brother's ass for being stupid and make him pay the entire amount plus the fees. If your dad's insurance does not cover anyone outside the family, the gf should not have been driving. And no, ignorance is not a defense. Both your brother and his gf broke the law and the police have every right to stop and tow the vehicle.

If this is a "big problem" to your family, you should tell your brother to pay for a rental so your dad can work when he gets back. It is an expensive lesson to learn so I sure hope that he has learned something. In fact, I hope that you direct your anger towards him and not the police. The police were simply doing their job by keeping high risk drivers like your brother off the road and abiding by ICBC's insurance policy.

Oh, and the police HARDLY stole the car right off the street. They didn't break the lock, hot wire it, and drive it off the lot. That was not the case AT ALL. So I highly doubt they "stole it".

jackmeister · 05-25-2009, 03:23 PM

is there actually a policy that non-family members can't drive one's car?

like if i was piss drunk my girlfriend cant drive my car home?

CRS · 05-25-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackmeister

is there actually a policy that non-family members can't drive one's car?

like if i was piss drunk my girlfriend cant drive my car home?

It depends on the plan you have. Do you have a third person liability?

What type of drivers license does your GF have? Class 7N or 5? What is her age? How long has she been driving?

All of this matters as to what ICBC will cover.

jackmeister · 05-25-2009, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRS

It depends on the plan you have. Do you have a third person liability?

What type of drivers license does your GF have? Class 7N or 5? What is her age? How long has she been driving?

All of this matters as to what ICBC will cover.

is there a rule that determines yes or no? you made it sound like theres a huge grey area.

say i have $5m third party liability coverage, and she has class 7 (had it for 8 years, renewed once), would that be enough?

i just want to be sure, because no one wants to be DD and end up getting suspended and car towed because they were not technically covered by ICBC

CRS · 05-25-2009, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackmeister

is there a rule that determines yes or no? you made it sound like theres a huge grey area.

say i have $5m third party liability coverage, and she has class 7 (had it for 8 years, renewed once), would that be enough?

i just want to be sure, because no one wants to be DD and end up getting suspended and car towed because they were not technically covered by ICBC

I think there is a variety of things to look for. I could easily be mistaken though.

Checking ICBC's website would be a good idea or calling your insurance broker and see what kind of plan you have. IIRC, those things I listed are things ICBC looks for to see if you quality under a certain insurance.

SpuGen · 05-25-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackmeister

is there actually a policy that non-family members can't drive one's car?

like if i was piss drunk my girlfriend cant drive my car home?

I think thats in a grey area.
If you were piss drunk and couldn't drive home, then I think it should be "ok" to have someone else drive you home. But then again, if you were piss drunk, you shouldn't have driven in the first place. Even if you didn't plan to get drunk, don't drink, it's that simple.

And to OP. Couldn't your brother just take the bus to the mall? Maybe have the girlfriend take HER parents car?

willystyle · 05-25-2009, 07:29 PM

Your title is so misleading.

skidmark · 05-25-2009, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AE98

The question is, can the police tow the car away base on that?

Absolutely!

Quote:

Shouldnt they just issue a warning and have something else come and drive the car away?

It would be nice if they had that discretion. The Motor Vehicle Act says:

If a peace officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person has operated a motor vehicle while
(a) the person is prohibited from driving a motor vehicle under
(i) section 92, 93, 94.2, 98, 99 or 215 of this Act,
(ii) the Youth Justice Act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the
Criminal Code,
(iii) the Young Offenders Act (Canada), as it read before its repeal by the
Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada), or
(iv) the Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, as it read before its
repeal by the Youth Justice Act, or
(b) the person's driver's licence and his or her right to apply for or obtain a
driver's licence are suspended under section 89 (1) (b) or (c), 232 or 233,
the peace officer must cause the motor vehicle to be taken to and impounded at a
place directed by the peace officer.

The law says MUST, not MAY, so they are not allowed to "just issue a warning."

Five-Oh · 05-25-2009, 09:40 PM

I think you are getting your brother's slanted version of the story here. The car was not towed and impounded because of the girl friend not being properly insured to drive the vehicle. There are no insurance violations that cause a 60 day impound. The vehicle was towed/impounded because your brother was prohibited from driving and was caught driving.

A 60 day Notice of Vehicle Impoundment is issued on the spot to any person caught driving while prohibited no matter what vehicle they were driving. So that means whether you are driving your car, a friend's car, or even a company vehicle, that vehicle is automatically impounded for 60 days. That 60 day impound is also generally accompanied with a charge under section 95 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The police also have to have evidence that your brother was driving the vehicle to impound the vehicle. The mere suspicion that your brother was in the car and may have been driving is not enough, he has to be witnessed by the investigating officer.

That being said, there are instructions on the blue piece of paper titled Notice of Vehicle Impoundment that your brother received that tell him how to apply to get the vehicle out early.

wing_woo · 05-26-2009, 08:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackmeister

is there a rule that determines yes or no? you made it sound like theres a huge grey area.

say i have $5m third party liability coverage, and she has class 7 (had it for 8 years, renewed once), would that be enough?

i just want to be sure, because no one wants to be DD and end up getting suspended and car towed because they were not technically covered by ICBC

It all depends on your insurance coverage. If your dad has the insurance where anyone driving the car MUST have 10 years or more driving experience, then the gf wouldn't be allowed to drive the car if she's doesn't have 10 years driving experience. The brother if he doesn't have that would also not be able to drive. You have to look at your insurance papers and basically read what it says. It'll tell you if there are any additional terms. People add these terms on to reduce the cost of the insurance and if you break them, then you aren't covered.

gars · 05-26-2009, 09:05 AM

my dad has coverage like that... since i'm out of town, he puts that on and saves a few hundred bucks a year. i came back home and my 8 years of experience won't cover me if i'm in an accident.

60 days does suck - but i heard that if the car doesn't belong to the driver (such as in this case), the owner should be able to get it out early.

Soundy · 05-26-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wing_woo

It all depends on your insurance coverage. If your dad has the insurance where anyone driving the car MUST have 10 years or more driving experience, then the gf wouldn't be allowed to drive the car if she's doesn't have 10 years driving experience.

Not quite correct.

http://www.icbc.com/cs/Satellite?pag...ience-discount

Quote:

Ten or more years of driving experience

If you have 10 years or more driving experience, talk to your Autoplan broker to see whether your policy qualifies for savings.

Who is eligible?

You must be at the base rate or lower on the Claim-Rated Scale.

The experience rate classes apply to the vehicle and not to the drivers. In order to qualify, the owner, principal operator and all members of their households who drive the vehicle must have had a valid driver's license for 10 years or more.

If you have a cumulative 10 years' experience, you could also be eligible. This means that if your licence was suspended, prohibited, lapsed or cancelled at any point, but you have a minimum of 10 years' experience in total, you can still apply. (Please note: periods during which a license has been suspended, prohibited, lapsed or cancelled are not included in the 10-year period.)

El Bastardo · 05-26-2009, 11:53 AM

I was going to post this in the VOT discussion on this issue but since I like this version of the thread more I'll post it here;

Whos to say that the father, the registered owner of the vehicle/primary driver/man who foots the insurance bill, would consent to his son's girlfriend driving his vehicle?

wing_woo · 05-26-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soundy

Not quite correct.

http://www.icbc.com/cs/Satellite?pag...ience-discount

When I said 10 years driving experience, I meant "had their license for 10 years" as that is how ICBC determines driving experience.

CRS · 05-26-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wing_woo

When I said 10 years driving experience, I meant "had their license for 10 years" as that is how ICBC determines driving experience.

I think Soundy is calling out the technicality that IF you are NOT a member of the household, you don't need the 10 years.

Or atleast, that is how it is worded.

But LB's point is certainly something to entertain.

wing_woo · 05-26-2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRS

I think Soundy is calling out the technicality that IF you are NOT a member of the household, you don't need the 10 years.

Or atleast, that is how it is worded.

But LB's point is certainly something to entertain.

I see. I never noticed it being worded that way. It does seem to indicate that someone not part of your household can drive the car if they don't have the minimum of 10 years. weird.