Beloved 1920 Rolls Royce recovered by Essex Police
Mr Fitton had been preparing to take the car to Tilbury Docks ahead of the ferry trip to Helsinki, Finland.
Mr Fitton said he had travelled the world in the car for the past 25 years."I was staying at a local hotel and was shocked to find my beautiful car missing the following morning," he said."The route included touring Finland, Sweden, Latvia and Estonia before returning to the UK at the end of the month."Essex police district commander Tony Atkin added: "We know how distressing it is to have your car stolen whether it's a vintage car, a van used for business or a car to do the school run."That's why we take every report seriously and work hard to recover stolen vehicles quickly."
Follow Essex news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
an hour ago
- Times
Rip up the benefits system and start again
As a fan of Jeremy Clarkson's writing I asked ChatGPT to compose, 'in the style of Jeremy Clarkson', some thoughts on a monstrosity reported often enough in this newspaper: the state-funded Motability scheme. AI's Clarkson impersonation began. 'Disabled? Have a BMW on me.' Sharp and amusing; but not what I want to say. You cannot (I maintain) get to grips with where state assistance has ended up without getting to grips with where it started. My column takes the Motability scheme as an illustration of this wider argument. Let me set out how we got to a situation in which one fifth of all new car sales in Britain are Motability cars, and disabled claimants whose conditions range from acne to neurodiversity may indeed get all or part of the cost of a new car that is replaceable every three years. Outrageous? Well, I think so. But we got here by a series of 'if — then' judgments, each of which has seemed fair and rational at the time. Read on, and tell me which was a misstep … • Just 900 people on top-level benefits joined work coach scheme in June We start just after the end of the Second World War, from which many servicemen returned disabled. The Labour government hit upon what became known as the Invacar (older readers may remember those weird little one-person, pale blue three-wheelers) for those war-wounded who could neither walk easily nor afford a conventional private car. Fair enough, don't you think? Invacar production continued for decades as governments of both parties introduced disability benefits for those who struggled to get about; and whether a disability stemmed from war service or some other cause seemed irrelevant. A system of disability benefits evolved which entitled all seriously mobility-impaired claimants access to an Invacar. Fair enough, don't you think? But the Invacar was dangerously unstable, underpowered and could take no passengers. What if a disabled mum wanted to take her toddler with her? The mobility allowance that was introduced in 1976 started at £5 per week (more than £40 at today's prices) and has crept up to the present rate for 'enhanced' impairment to mobility: £77.05. Naturally, many claimants entitled to these regular extra benefits have wanted to use the money to get a proper car. Fair enough, don't you think? • Artist misled NHS about disability when seeking £3m payout So the government arranged for a company to be set up. Motability Operations Ltd deploys claimants' benefits to lease cars for them. Using economies of scale and financed by the individual's benefits, it gets a better deal with a simpler process than a claimant could manage individually. It oils the wheels and costs the taxpayer nothing. If the whole Motability scheme were abolished tomorrow, there would be no saving for the taxpayer. The mobility-impaired would still get the same benefits, but if they wanted a car they would have to make their own arrangements, probably on worse terms than the company can get them. Fair enough, don't you think? So here we are today. The company operates the largest fleet in Europe, spending almost £3 billion of taxpayers' money last year on car leases, insurance and breakdown cover. TikTok influencers boast about how you can get a new car virtually free; online critics mock a scheme to benefit 'bed-wetting boy-racers'; the benefit is available for acquiring even BMWs and Ford Mustangs; complaints abound about Motability cars' use for purposes beyond transporting the disabled; and The Times reports that the 'scheme now has vast eligibility, allowing people with anxiety, dyslexia, severe acne and Munchausen syndrome to claim. Hundreds of thousands of people receive the enhanced mobility award on Pip (personal independence payment) for mental health conditions, learning difficulties and skin conditions to get around.' Few across the whole political spectrum would fail to be disturbed. We on the right speak of 'the bloated state'. We talk about trimming, snipping, pruning, reforming, cutting back. But how? Reduce the benefits? That hits even the most appallingly impaired claimants. Stop the misuse of Motability cars for purposes unrelated to disability? How? Fitting vehicles with transponders would be impossible. Oblige owners to have the Motability logo painted in large letters on the side of their cars? Invite neighbours to squeal, or make DWP swoops? Cries of 'shaming' or 'Stalinist' would fill the air. So how about removing mental problems as a qualifying disability? But the most common, from autism to anxiety to depression may in severe cases be genuinely confining without a car. • Pensions sector seeks Gen Z talent amid recruitment challenges I've zeroed in on Motability only as a parable for the expanding reach and ballooning cost of benefits right across our welfare state. I read, for instance, that the Welsh government is introducing a prepaid subsidy card for those whose food intolerances add to their food costs. Things are spinning out of control. Indignant at manifest abuse, we call for a 'crackdown on scroungers'. We argue that the welfare state should 'sharpen its focus' so that it can 'address genuine need' and exclude 'the undeserving'. Yes, the undeserving predictably muscle in, and whenever the government gives there will be scroungers among those who take. But the core problem is not the undeserving but the deserving. The weight of their numbers and the burden of meeting their entitlements is in danger of toppling the whole economy supporting them. Kemi Badenoch was right to say last month that it's 'not about cutting bits of the state' or 'top slicing' spending. 'It's about looking at what the state does; why it does it.' I take my triple-locked state pension and concessionary travel pass, though I could easily manage without. But even as every such snipping around the edges dies in the Commons voting lobbies or falls victim to second thoughts at No 10, we still shrink from the alternative: abandoning the pruning shears and pulling things up by the roots. The scandal is that there is no scandal. Though cheating, gaming the system and over-claiming do exist, they're not the root of the problem. The root is that the state has taken on responsibilities it should not bear. Governments have tried to level the ups and downs with which time and fate may curse or bless any human being, but we cannot level that landscape; and even if we could, we wouldn't like the result. We cannot entitle everyone to compensation for their difficulties. Entitlement has crept, step by understandable step, too far. Hearts must harden. But I'm convinced that our fellow citizens are not yet ready for this. Your choice and mine, therefore, is between joining the bandwagon as it careers towards the abyss or adding our voices to a small chorus doomed to be drowned out until after the crash.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Motor finance victims urged to complain as compensation could hit £18bn
Millions of drivers could be owed a share of up to £18bn after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced it will consult on an industry-wide compensation scheme. Motorists could receive a pay-out after it emerged many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans, the FCA said. The authority estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The final total cost of any compensation scheme is estimated to be between £9 billion and £18 billion, the FCA added. Consumer champion Martin Lewis said in a video posted to X that millions of people are likely to be due a share of up to £18 billion. He told Sky News the consultation is 'likely to mean 40% of people who got a car finance deal between 2007 and 2021 will be due some form of redress, likely to be hundreds not thousands of pounds'. The consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. It comes after Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court on cases in which the FCA had intervened. While some motor finance customers will not get compensation because in many cases commission payments were legal, the court ruled that in certain circumstances the failure to properly disclose commission arrangements could be unfair and therefore unlawful, the FCA added. People who have already complained do not need to do anything, the FCA said. Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much to their motor finance lender have been urged to complain now. Consumers do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid, it added. To make an initial complaint, the FCA says people should get in touch with their lender or broker, then the provider should send an acknowledgement within eight weeks. Under the FCA's current rules, it will not have to send a final response until after December 4 2025. But as the FCA is consulting on a compensation scheme, the deadline may be extended. If customers are unhappy with their provider's response, they can then complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the FCA added. The authority will propose rules on how lenders should 'consistently, efficiently and fairly' decide whether someone is owed compensation and how much. It will monitor if firms are following the rules and act if they are not. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: 'It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated. 'We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal. 'Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy to participate in, so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, it will cost you a significant chunk of any money you get. 'It will take time to establish a scheme but we hope to start getting people any money they are owed next year.'
Sky News
3 hours ago
- Sky News
£100m border security boost - as govt vows 'major crackdown' on people smuggling gangs
The government has vowed to push for a "major new crackdown" on people smuggling gangs with a £100m cash boost for border security. The investment will support the pilot of the new "one in, one out" returns agreement between the UK and France, and other efforts to crack down on small boat crossings. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said this new funding will "strengthen" the government's "serious and comprehensive plan" to dismantle the business model of criminal gangs smuggling migrants across the Channel. But the Conservatives have claimed the cash injection will make "no real difference", with shadow home secretary Chris Philp branding the move a Labour "gimmick" and a "desperate grab for headlines". The funding will pay for up to 300 new National Crime Agency (NCA) officials, "state-of-the art" detection technology and new equipment to "smash the networks putting lives at risk in the Channel", ministers say. It will also allow the Border Security Command, the NCA, the police and other law enforcement agency partners to "strengthen investigations targeting smuggling kingpins and disrupt their operations across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and beyond". 1:46 The new investment comes as official figures show more than 25,000 people have arrived on small boats so far in 2025 - a record for this point in the year. Ms Cooper said: "In the last 12 months, we have set the foundations for this new and much stronger law enforcement approach - establishing the new Border Security Command, strengthening the National Crime Agency and UK police operations, increasing Immigration Enforcement, introducing new counter terror style powers in our Border Security Bill, and establishing cooperation agreements with Europol and other countries. "Now this additional funding will strengthen every aspect of our plan, and will turbo-charge the ability of our law enforcement agencies to track the gangs and bring them down, working with our partners overseas, and using state-of-the-art technology and equipment. "Alongside our new agreements with France, this will help us drive forward our Plan for Change commitments to protect the UK's border security and restore order to our immigration system." The £100m investment will also support new powers to be introduced when the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill becomes law, the Home Office said. This includes the introduction of a UK-wide offence to criminalise the creation and publication of online material that promotes a breach of immigration law, such as the advertisement of small boat crossings on social media. 0:54 Research suggests about 80% of migrants arriving to the UK by small boat used internet platforms during their journey - including to contact agents linked to smuggling gangs. While it is already illegal to assist illegal immigration, ministers hope the creation of a new offence will give police more powers and disrupt business models. Mr Philp accused the Labour government of having "no serious plan, just excuses, while ruthless criminal gangs flood our borders with illegal immigrants".
