That ill-fated day, Olga, as always, went down the subway and went to the center. But when she returned to the car in the evening after work, she was not there. Who could need the old "eight"? She was not even upset, but surprised. Walked through the neighboring yards - maybe the teenagers took a ride, and left, but there was no car anywhere.
Then Olga went to the nearest police station. The attendant listened to her and held out a statement form.
- Describe what happened to you.
After that they sent to the interrogator. The young officer listened attentively to the story, checked the documents for the car and asked a couple of questions on duty like: “Do you remember exactly that you left the car in this place?” Then the investigator, a young girl, took up the matter. Together with two more police officers, they went to the scene of the incident “for conducting investigative measures”. All this took 15 minutes: the investigator sketched a diagram of the scene of the incident, wrote down the numbers of neighboring houses and said that in a couple of days Olga would be invited to the police station for a “purely formal” interrogation. On that and parted. A week passed, no one called her, and a notification came in the mail that “upon the theft of a VAZ 2108 car of 3 A.N. ****** a criminal case has been instituted on the grounds of Part 1 of Art. 158 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for No.__.” And they stretched for long days in anticipation of the miracle that they could find a car.
NOT HAPPENED AND HALF YEAR …
Ironically, exactly 100 days later, on Sunday, at ten in the morning, the telephone rang in Olga’s apartment. A young male voice introduced himself as a traffic policeman in the South-Eastern District and suggested that he come "about your car."
- Where is she? Did you find her? - Olga was worried.
- Yes, everything is in order, you just do not worry. Come to us and ask in the call center of Peter.
- What Peter?
- Well, just Petra. Everyone knows me there.
The caller was definitely not in a hurry to introduce himself. In the end, after persistent inquiries, he nevertheless said that he was a traffic policeman, “engaged in your business,” and his surname was Burlak.
- Nobody stole your car. She was detained for violating parking rules - interfering with the movement of vehicles. Located in the parking lot. In general, come …
An hour later, Olga and her husband were in the traffic police of the district. The young man sympathized with them very much: after all, based on the approved tariffs (52 rubles 70 kopecks for each hour (!) Of storage) Olga had to pay almost 127 thousand rubles for 100 days of parking - about a thousand dollars more than her car cost 1999 years before he disappeared. When Olga said that the car was listed as being stolen, Peter hesitated a little, but quickly found himself and suggested:
“Okay, I see that you are good people, so I’ll offer a way out.” But only for you! A thousand dollars - and pick up the car tomorrow. Or if you want, sell it to me for $ 500 …
The spouses categorically refused these options. We went to the police - a criminal case was opened there and, probably, they will be able to help. They were reassured: if there is a criminal case, the investigator will pick up the car from the parking lot without any questions.
The next day, Olga phoned the head of the investigative department, Vladimir Chekaldin. But the news that the car was found did not please him: “Your case has been suspended, now it’s not our problem - deal with your car yourself,” he snapped.
Then Olga went to the parking lot. For some reason, the man who introduced himself as the director refused to give his name, but for a long time he sympathized with and complained about the negligent police officers who “do not want to do anything”. And after that he suggested …. to pay him a thousand dollars - he will quickly solve all the problems. Or sell the G8 for $ 500. Option Olga is already known. He was immediately rejected. After that, she turned to the magazine “Behind the Wheel”.
THE LAW IS - NO LAW
The situation was clear to us at first sight. The grounds for the detention of vehicles are determined by Article 27.13 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. One of them is “violation of the rules for stopping or parking vehicles on the roadway, which caused obstacles for the movement of other vehicles, as well as stopping or parking the vehicle in the tunnel” (Clause 4 of Article 12.21 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation). Moreover, the procedure for detaining vehicles directly was established by Decree of the Government of Russia dated December 18, 2003 No. 759 “On approval of the rules for detaining a vehicle, parking it, storage, and also prohibiting operation”. But the same resolution (paragraph 15) requires traffic policemen to immediately inform the duty department of the territorial internal affairs department when a vehicle is detained in the absence of the owner. And already the operational duty of this body "informs the owner (representative of the owner) about the detention of a land vehicle." In this case, it was this provision that was violated. But did the traffic police inspectors forget to inform the Tekstilshchiki district police department on duty about the detention of Olga’s car, or did the duty officer forget to pass this information on to the owner?
There was no choice but to go to court. I prepared a complaint about the actions of officials who violated the rights and freedoms of citizens (their responsibility was to establish the owner of the car and inform him). The complaint was mailed to the court.
The first meeting was appointed a month later (!). Not a single traffic police officer, police department or state unitary enterprise showed up there. But the judge immediately stated that the complaint was submitted incorrectly:
“It is not a complaint that needs to be filed, but a statement of claim to recover its property from someone else’s illegal possession,” she said. “You want to pick up the car, so take it through the courts.” Pay the fee, file a lawsuit - and more ….
“But there is no illegal retention here,” I objected. - The applicant’s property rights have been violated due to non-compliance with the procedure for detaining a car!
“Do not fool me,” the judge snapped, and ruled that Olga K. would not be accepted.
Now we had two ways left. The first is to prepare a statement of claim, as the judge advised us, but the prospects here were very vague. The car really was parked legally (there was a traffic violation!), And the State Unitary Enterprise of the State Transport Company in full compliance with the law could demand payment for storing the car.
Therefore, we chose a different path: we appealed against the judge’s decision to refuse to accept the application in the Moscow City Court. We sent a complaint there.
And three weeks later, the city court overturned the decision to refuse to accept Olga K.'s complaint and returned the case to the trial court.
We no longer hoped that the case would be considered before the new year, when unexpectedly Olga received a letter from the State Unitary Enterprise. “Dear Olga K.! - read the message. - GUP GTO of Moscow offers you to get your VAZ 2108 3 car without paying the cost of transportation and storage, from the parking lot at the address: st. Grayvoronovskaya, 40 a. " This was followed by the name of the employee and two telephones for communication - work and mobile (!).
We called right away, and - lo and behold! - The representative of the State Unitary Enterprise apologized several times to Olga “for the inconvenience”, offering to come to pick up the car at any convenient time.
So suddenly this story ended. Apparently, the traffic police and the police department simply decided to "close the case", realizing that most likely they would lose it. Apparently, they simply agreed in their own way with the State Unitary Enterprise of the TRP. They returned the car.