Reply With QuoteYou don't get the towing or impound fees back. It is unlikely that you would recover them in a suit either.Originally Posted by Traian
You license has, in fact been suspended, so it will still show on your abstract.
Lost wages? Good luck.
|
|
What happens if you beat the stunting charge in court.
How do you recover your money spent on the towing?
Also does that 7 day suspension still show on your record?
How about lost wages?
For #1,3 i know that you would have to sue.
But for #2 i hope they will take it off your record.
Last edited by ManoWar; 11-19-2007 at 06:38 PM.
Moderator
You don't get the towing or impound fees back. It is unlikely that you would recover them in a suit either.
You license has, in fact been suspended, so it will still show on your abstract.
Lost wages? Good luck.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
you should be able to sue the government and police in small claims court after you have won your case. they're a different jurisdiction than the traffic court that you would have been ticketed for. take the oj trial as example. he won the criminal case but lost the civil case.
the suspension should be the same as a 24 hour dui suspension. it won't stay on your abstract. You don't have to go to the ministry to reinstate your license. the governemtn sends you a new license after the 7 days are up.
Moderator
A lawsuit against the police is only likely to be successful if you can show that the officer was "negligent" or "malicious" in applying the charge.
Failing that, the only hope is to join together with potentially a rather large number of others in the same position, and challenge the law on constitutional grounds. That will be expensive, and if you lose the case, you lose whatever additional legal fees are incurred.
I suspect the government is hoping that such a constitutional challenge will be so expensive to pursue that most people will not do it.
None of this makes it right, but it is what it is.
And that's what makes this new law so fair. You get mistaken for someone else, charged, ****ed over on the side of the road, and then in your day in court they find you innocent and say "whoops, sorry about that, on your way".
Do opposing views and opinions bother you? Click here to ignore me!
a class action suit is a civil matter so even that would be a different court system. But in the mean time, if you were proven innocent, then you should be able to sue the people that wrongfully accused you, for loss of wages, the towing fees, and lawyer fees. I'm sure you can extract some type of negligence from the incident, especially since you were cleared of wrong doing.
i'm not a lawyer by all means so i'm wondering how it would hold up in a small claims court. I'd like to think that the lawyer charges and towing fees, and wages lost ( say from not going to work) would be the same as someone overcharging you on a service, or someone not paying you for a service. In this case, the police, who serve the public overcharged you for their services. ie the police contracted towing company, at the very least.
Criminal law does not work that way. Whatever money you decide to spend in order to hire an agent or lawyer is gone. The towing and impound fees are gone. Any insurance rate increases due to the suspension are your responsibility. The ONLY way to recuperate your losses is to prove malicious prosecution or some sort of gross misconduct by the officer. If he acted in good faith, I'm almost certain you have no recourse.
Welcome to Ontario (and Florida apparently). Bring the KY Jelly.
What happens if you beat the stunting charge in court.
nothing...
How do you recover your money spent on the towing?
From what I've read (in the HTA I think), it says that the cops are not responsible for any cost for the towing and the storage of the vehicle unless you can prove that the vehicle was stolen at the time of the "crime".
Also does that 7 day suspension still show on your record?
Yes it goes on your driver's abstract but it shouldn't affect your insurance. I was told by my agent that anything under 1 year suspension doesn't affect insurance. BUT don't lie and say you never got a suspension because the ins. comp. will cancel your insurance for "non-disclosure" which is worst then a suspension.
How about lost wages?
nothing.
Read section 172 of the HTA for more info
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/sta...08_e.htm#BK243
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
01001001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01010010
01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010
00100000 01000010 01100101 00100000 01010010
01101001 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111
I specifically recall being asked by ins companies : Has your license been suspended in the past 5 years?
i guess that can be an issue, but if im not mistaken, you are exhonorated of the "license suspension" if your are not convicted by the courts, so that shouldnt be a problem
RR
Moderator
I would debate that. The fact that you have been found"not guilty" in court does not remove the fact that you have had your license suspended. If asked by the insurance company if you have received a suspension in the last X years, how do you answer? The last time I was shopping for insurance, I was asked if I had received a suspension in the last SIX years.
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
This is a tough one because is it the ins company who decides on whether the 7-day should be counted or is there a set standard with the IBC that the companies follow. The other question is can an ins company find out about a 7-day through other means .... like thru a MVR.
For example, if the company asked if you had any convictions in the last 6 years and your last one was over 3 years ago, you could say no because you know the conviction won't show up on an MVR if they order it so you can't get caught in a 'lie'.
So questions that can hopefully be answered by others on this forum who work in or with the ins industry and willing to help out.
that's not true... YOU have access to your driver's abstract for the last 3 years but the insurance comp. has access for a lot longer (for ever?)
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
01001001 00100111 01100100 00100000 01010010
01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110010
00100000 01000010 01100101 00100000 01010010
01101001 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111
Regardless of who you are (individual, ins company), when you order an MVR (in Ontario), only the past 3 years of convictions is shown. With regards to suspensions & reinstatements, I am not exactly sure if its 3 years or more (I may have to research that one quietly). Take this from someone who has written systems for working with MVRs (without divulging any further).
Now after an insurance company has ordered an MVR, they can persist that data in their systems 'forever'.
When you apply for insurance to a new company, they have no information about you so they must rely on your answers and other information sources (Autoplus for insurance & claims history, MVRs for driver history).
I use the term MVR loosely to mean 'driver's abstract' since that's what I call them out of habit ... in case I cause any confusion.
Last edited by zeekat; 11-20-2007 at 10:58 AM.
Not quite.
You are comparing your "Driver's abstract" (goes back three years, lists ticket convictions, classes, suspensions, etc. Listings on the MOT database) to a MVR (which is your insurance record, that goes back to day one. Listings on the insurance company's databases).
The MOT supplies your driver's abstract. Autoplus sells MVRs to insurance brokers and companies.
The roadside suspension is classed an "administrative suspension" and cannot be used against you in determining your risk exposure (insurance rate).
Last edited by bitzz; 11-20-2007 at 10:59 AM.
So long as these don't show up on an abstract if ordered. If it does, then the effect on your insurance rate depends upon if the company has explicitly decided to ignore 'administrative suspensions' in rating and how these suspensions are coded by the ministry in the abstract data and how the company's systems are coded to work with the abstract data. Details we as customers are not exactly privy to so call it a matter of trust. LOL
When an individual orders an abstract, the individual would get something like a report. When an ins company (or sometimes a broker/agent) orders an abstract, it's usually all data.
Autoplus is actually the insurance & claims history database that is compiled from data submitted by the insurance companies. MVRs which can be ordered through the same vendor that hosts Autoplus is more of a direct to the MOTs with the vendor being the middleman between the insurance companies and the MOTs.
Last edited by zeekat; 11-20-2007 at 11:21 AM.
MVR/Abstract show the history for only three years... and insurance company will only care about the last three years....for ticket only
For accidents, insurance records this for six years. Autoplus records accidents not tickets
You can obtain a history of your licence from the ministry that will go back a number of years but insurers never order these.
Insurers have to abide by rules and regulations set out by the Goverment (Insurance Act)
Let's get this straight.
A MVR is not the same as a driver's abstract. Two different animals.
An insurance company cannot use an administrative suspension in determining your risk exposure BY LAW. It does show up on your driver's abstract.
Just like they can ask you about your credit history BUT they cannot use it to determine your risk.
Moderator
Availability of driving records
Perhaps they can't use it to determine your risk, but what about for purposes of selling you insurance at all?
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks