Couple hit with car towing bill after dramatic storm rescue in Milford-on-Sea

Daily Echo: Couple hit with car towing bill after dramatic storm rescue Couple hit with car towing bill after dramatic storm rescue

COUPLE who were rescued from a seaside restaurant in Milford-On-Sea during the Valentine’s Day storm have hit out at the police after being handed a hefty bill for the cost of recovering of their “abandoned” vehicle.

Following their terrifying ordeal, Gregory Pepper and his partner Jane Hopkins were shocked to find their storm-battered car had been towed away from outside The Marine eatery, without their knowledge or consent.

To add insult to injury they then received a notice from Hampshire Police demanding they pay £150 for the cost of recovering the vehicle.

“We went down the morning after and that was when the police officer told us to leave the cars where they were so we left it,” Mr Pepper explained.

 

“But when we went back later that day it was gone. I was parked on a single yellow line which you can do. They just took it,” he added.

Daily Echo:

The couple were among 41 staff and diners who were rescued by emergency services after the restaurant was engulfed by waves.

“By the time I got down there [the garage] on the Monday morning I had already received the notice from the police saying we had to pay £150,” Mr Pepper continued.

“We won’t have to pay the money because it will be covered by insurance but that’s not the point,” he added.

In a statement Hampshire Police said two cars were removed from the area because they were not fit to drive.

It added: “The cars were not drivable, and even if they had been it would have been impossible for the owners to recover them because of a substantial amount of debris strewn across the entire area as a result of the tidal surge.

“We would reassure the owners that Hampshire Constabulary has a long-standing agreement with the Association of British Insurers which asserts, where the police have acted in an emergency and used their statutory powers as in this case, insurers will normally accept the prescribed recovery costs as part of a legitimate claim and we would strongly advise them to add this to the insurance claim for their badly damaged vehicles.”

Comments (8)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:52am Mon 10 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner? bigfella777
  • Score: 26

8:15am Mon 10 Mar 14

issacchunt says...

bigfella777 wrote:
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?[/p][/quote]They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too? issacchunt
  • Score: -5

9:10am Mon 10 Mar 14

townieboy says...

Pay up shut up.
Pay up shut up. townieboy
  • Score: 14

10:06am Mon 10 Mar 14

bigfella777 says...

issacchunt wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?
It was not roadworthy , read the story again.
[quote][p][bold]issacchunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?[/p][/quote]They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?[/p][/quote]It was not roadworthy , read the story again. bigfella777
  • Score: 8

11:26am Mon 10 Mar 14

S!monOn says...

issacchunt wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?
No sympathy.... they went to seaside restaurant during the violent storms blowing in from the sea and expected everything to be find and dandy.

Isn't that stupidity?
[quote][p][bold]issacchunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?[/p][/quote]They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?[/p][/quote]No sympathy.... they went to seaside restaurant during the violent storms blowing in from the sea and expected everything to be find and dandy. Isn't that stupidity? S!monOn
  • Score: 16

11:54am Mon 10 Mar 14

Torchie1 says...

bigfella777 wrote:
issacchunt wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?
It was not roadworthy , read the story again.
So you go along with A/ a length of rope and B/ another car to tow it with. Not exactly rocket science is it?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]issacchunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?[/p][/quote]They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?[/p][/quote]It was not roadworthy , read the story again.[/p][/quote]So you go along with A/ a length of rope and B/ another car to tow it with. Not exactly rocket science is it? Torchie1
  • Score: -6

12:57pm Mon 10 Mar 14

gilbertratchet says...

bigfella777 wrote:
issacchunt wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?
It was not roadworthy , read the story again.
It was deemed unroadworthy by the police AFTER the storm. It's not like the car rang them up and said "lol I'm unroadworthy don't bother", now, is it?
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]issacchunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?[/p][/quote]They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?[/p][/quote]It was not roadworthy , read the story again.[/p][/quote]It was deemed unroadworthy by the police AFTER the storm. It's not like the car rang them up and said "lol I'm unroadworthy don't bother", now, is it? gilbertratchet
  • Score: -2

4:48pm Mon 10 Mar 14

issacchunt says...

gilbertratchet wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
issacchunt wrote:
bigfella777 wrote:
It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?
They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?
It was not roadworthy , read the story again.
It was deemed unroadworthy by the police AFTER the storm. It's not like the car rang them up and said "lol I'm unroadworthy don't bother", now, is it?
Like most people they would of recovered it with the AA or RAC which they would pay a yearly subscription for so paying the old bill's favoured tender winning recovery is not on if they could resolve it themselves.

on top of that the insurance won't pay if they are only third party insured. The argument is that they would of recovered their own property but were stopped from doing so and lumbered with an avoidable bill.
[quote][p][bold]gilbertratchet[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]issacchunt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: It sounds quite reasonable to me, they saved him all the trouble. I wonder if he was that unappreciative when they rescued him and his partner?[/p][/quote]They went back to get the car themselves, that sounded pretty reasonable too?[/p][/quote]It was not roadworthy , read the story again.[/p][/quote]It was deemed unroadworthy by the police AFTER the storm. It's not like the car rang them up and said "lol I'm unroadworthy don't bother", now, is it?[/p][/quote]Like most people they would of recovered it with the AA or RAC which they would pay a yearly subscription for so paying the old bill's favoured tender winning recovery is not on if they could resolve it themselves. on top of that the insurance won't pay if they are only third party insured. The argument is that they would of recovered their own property but were stopped from doing so and lumbered with an avoidable bill. issacchunt
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree