Thank you very much for getting back so quickly.Please provide some details.
What do you mean that the police report is "no good?"
Understand that parking enforcement does not regularly run a license plate to check if it is stolen or not, so if it got a parking ticket, so be it. But, you have a great argument to show that you are not responsible ... provided it was reported stolen prior to the time the parking cite was issued.
Meaning the OP would have to pay the ticket first and then sue to be compensated for his/her loss.Small claims court is civil court, and yes, I believe you would probably win. However, until you have suffered a loss, you have no damages to sue them for. You may have to continue the frustrating phone calls from hell until you can speak with someone who can address the issue.
Just not fair. Not fair at all. I did nothing wrong!Small claims court is civil court, and yes, I believe you would probably win. However, until you have suffered a loss, you have no damages to sue them for. You may have to continue the frustrating phone calls from hell until you can speak with someone who can address the issue.
Are you employed?Just not fair. Not fair at all. I did nothing wrong!
I cannot go to court to have a court order not to pay this ticket?
Yes, I do have a job. Not a high pay one. My wife doesn't have a job, so I really don't want to pay this $275 for something I didn't do.Are you employed?
Yet, you want to obtain an order from the court saying you don't have to pay this. It will cost you much more than $275 to do that.Yes, I do have a job. Not a high pay one. My wife doesn't have a job, so I really don't want to pay this $275 for something I didn't do.
While I absolutely agree with you from an economics point of view, I find it infuriating that any city would have record of a stolen car, and would actually issue parking tickets to that stolen car, without impounding the car as stolen!..and would then attempt to collect the parking tickets against the victim of the crime!Yet, you want to obtain an order from the court saying you don't have to pay this. It will cost you much more than $275 to do that.
I understand you didn't do this. I understand you don't want to pay for something you didn't do. But, from a economics point of view, it sometimes makes more sense to do just that.
I fear he is a victim of the monstrous bureaucracy. The machine wants specific items of evidence, and no one is entirely sure who shoul dhave those documents or by when.While I absolutely agree with you from an economics point of view, I find it infuriating that any city would have record of a stolen car, and would actually issue parking tickets to that stolen car, without impounding the car as stolen!..and would then attempt to collect the parking tickets against the victim of the crime!
Yeah. Aren't there some sort of "Action Line" programs on the local news stations where reporters pick up on these things and solve them for you?I think that I would go to the media on that one...and hopefully put some egg on the face of the city government.
I can only suppose that the car did not come back as stolen or it was the CHP ... they don't often put out their stops to their dispatch so they won't get a "hit" from SVS until they enter information later - if at all. Or, the information on the stolen vehicle was not entered into SVS until after the stop.I once had a car stolen, and the police stopped the people driving it for an infraction and LET THEM GO. They did apologize after the fact, but it still left a very bad taste in my mouth, and at least they didn't try to hold me responsible for the infraction.
Actually, in my case, which was in Indiana, the officers flat out admitted that they didn't run the plates...hence the apology. What happened was that they stopped the car, issued a warning, and then later on ran the plates and discovered that the car was stolen. It was actually pretty gracious of them to admit that fault and apologize, which is why I didn't take it further.I fear he is a victim of the monstrous bureaucracy. The machine wants specific items of evidence, and no one is entirely sure who shoul dhave those documents or by when.
As for not impounding it as stolen, parking agencies rarely run vehicles they cite for parking violations as that would be a huge drain on the telecommunications system in some jurisdictions. It just is not practical to run each and every vehicle cited in counties like Los Angeles.
Yeah. Aren't there some sort of "Action Line" programs on the local news stations where reporters pick up on these things and solve them for you?
I can only suppose that the car did not come back as stolen or it was the CHP ... they don't often put out their stops to their dispatch so they won't get a "hit" from SVS until they enter information later - if at all. Or, the information on the stolen vehicle was not entered into SVS until after the stop.
That's not uncommon. Not every agency will run plates on every stop for a host of reasons. It's bad practice, but sometimes is the practical reality.Actually, in my case, which was in Indiana, the officers flat out admitted that they didn't run the plates...hence the apology.
I am certainly glad that they did apologize. However, I doubt there would be any further action you could have taken. There is no law that requires the police to run plates and they have no affirmative duty to recover your car.What happened was that they stopped the car, issued a warning, and then later on ran the plates and discovered that the car was stolen. It was actually pretty gracious of them to admit that fault and apologize, which is why I didn't take it further.
Hopefully the OP can get one of those reporters.And yes, most TV stations have those "action lines" and those lines generally do cut through a lot of bureaucracy.
LA County is one of the largest, and who knows what division is supposed to receive what information. Yeah, it sucks, but I can understand the SNAFU. It'd be nice if there was a means to address these problems, but there may not be an easy fix for the OP on this.I do understand that its complicated dealing with bureaucracy but heck...if the bureaucracy cannot even use their own databases to determine that a car was stolen once it has been brought to their attention, then something is seriously wrong with the bureaucracy.
Because they can't simply believe him when he claims it was stolen. ANYONE can SAY their car was stolen before the parking cite was issued.Why should the victim even have to provide ANY proof?
Parking enforcement may not have access to the SVS. Plus, if the vehicle was recovered and he appealed the matter months or even a year later, the entry would have been purged and there'd be nothing there. Even a police department that gets a hit in SVS is required to confirm it before they can act on it.The info is already there in one database or another.
Because after a certain period of time (I think it's 90 days for stolen vehicles ... maybe 30 ... I'd have to look that up but my NCIC manual is at the office) the record drops off. And, as I mentioned, the parking service may not have access to that database.Why shouldn't the agency be required to at least check the various databases once someone has told them that the vehicle was stolen?