Morning all I could not have put it better...! Best wishes to everyone involved Dougal

A very good morning to you Sparkie, Very sorry to hear that you have been (a) unwell and (b) had some problems, but it is extremely gratifying to see you are still in the battle! I am sure you know my very best thoughts are with you always. Kind regards to you and everyone Dougal

Hi Ruth, Delighted you are better. If you need any help with GE please let me know, although there are plenty of us here who are more than able to assist! Very best wishes for a continuing recovery and good full health!! As always Dougal

Evening everyone Count me in...... Best wishes Dougal

Morning, Even if the tactics of these rogues bears fruit - how can it ever be legal? Answer : it never is. I have had personal experience of the Bailiff, and they are rude, arrogant, and rough in all ways in relation to their 'business' (I use the term loosely!) They think they are above the law and do not need to abide by the rules. They are NOT an 'Officer of the Court'. They must be certificated by the Court - this does NOT make them officers of the Court, because the Certificate, I understand, states that they are engaged in the collection of debts), and they must be certificated at the time of levying distress, or any other matter in relation to debt collection. The problem is basically this: There are some Bailiffs who are professionals, and carry out their work properly and diligently (usually these are Court Bailiffs - who are based at County Courts), but for some strange reason we never hear about them, and curiously enough they are greatly outnumbered by the Cowboys who don't give a **** for the law! The sooner we stop arguing amongst ourselves and get something done to regulate this walking rubbish which fills our streets in the name of 'enforcement' the better! (rant over....feel better now!) As ever Dougal

Good morning, On behalf of all disabled drivers who use Motability cars and their insurers many thanks! I am one of them! (Severe back injury 7 years ago) Without your efforts we could all still be 'in the dark' over the insurance situation...looking forward to hearing what is said in the promised letter. I can see what the lady in Motabilitys' legal department are thinking by relying on the Tax being exempt - that could (in their eyes be an 'identifiable benefit), but do you think that the police may consider that 'the use the vehicle is being to at the material time' as being the crucial point? Certainly it is an excellent effort on your part as this could have wide reaching repercussions. Kind regards Dougal

Good morning, In answer the to post from russhh: I have been retired from the police for over 10 years, but the law is still the law. I then went on to prosecute for the Department of Transport. I try only to suggest what seems appropriate in view of the information provided on these posts and if anyone feels 'that it would be dangerous for anybody to take some of my advice at face value', I am sure most people will take a current legal opinion before acting. We also both know that on request a Police officer must provide their warrant number, and as far as I know the situation has not changed - unless the circumstances dictate otherwise (terror legislation and so forth). The reason for my making the point about warrant numbers, is that sadly there have been examples of matters where it has later been impossible to trace a police officer to prove or disprove occurrences in a particular case. I tactfully suggest a read of the Fraud Act 2006, especially sections 1 - 4. In the matter we are looking at the actions of the clamper which seem to fall completely within section 3. [There may also be offences committed by the Company which may be disclosed in due course.] Fraud by failing to disclose information: A person is in breach of this section if he— (a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b)intends, by failing to disclose the information— (i)to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii)to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss. Now I know that it is often the case that a matter reported to the Police will sometimes not be taken on board and the response will be 'it is a civil matter', and sadly I shall also assume this is because 'targets' must be achieved. To russhh: I am delighted that you have sprung to the defence of the PC in this matter. Whilst I take on board your criticism, do you honestly consider the actions of the clamper were (a) legal and (b) right in the view of a normal person? Do you also feel that the actions (as reported) of the PC were in proper and correct fulfilment of duty? My intention has always been to ensure that anyone who is disadvantaged to their detriment by another may consider redress via the law. Hopefully this matter will come to a satisfactory conclusion, but at present i think it leaves a poor impression of the rights of an individual when placed in a difficult situation which may require the assistance of the police. As russhh says 'a little learning is dangerous'. I am sure that anyone reading my posts will seek further advice, and I am always pleased to be corrected by those whose knowledge is greater than mine. As always my best wishes to everyone, Dougal

Morning again, I agree and as said although it relates to this forum (Bailiffs) it really is something that we should consider a separate forum for which could form a national petition for change to the law - or am I dreaming..... I will fully support anyone who wishes to make a start on this, I regret that I do not have the computer skills to do so, but will assist wherever possible. Best wishes to fellow caggers Dougal

Morning all, MUST GO TO THE POLICE STATION TODAY!!!!!. If you wait for a response from the site owner you may be criticised by the Police for not reporting the problem with their officer and the 'clampers' sooner. Sorry, but that is the way it works......['as a retired PC myself and I know what they will think!] Kind regards Dougal

Morning everyone I agree completely with Johno1066...what seriously concerns me is mis-information provided by those who know exactly what is the TRUE position and the lack of attention by the authorities to whether a bailiff is actually certified at the time of either (a) execution of a warrant or (b) use of ANPR or information received from ANPR sources. Something is very amiss here in my humble opinion, sorry to see green and mean has 'jumped ship' [ quote : "Different department I'm afraid I have nothing to do with collecting debts."] Seriously this problem with bailiffs really needs addressing via the proper route and I am sure a good press officer/newshound would love to read some of the problems that have been posted on this (and other) sites. It really is a national scandal - apologies now, rant over...! Best wishes as always to everyone (except bailiffs and some certain council employees...lol!) Dougal

Good morning, Just some thoughts so that a case can be prepared/drafted: So the situation is this: Your wife in employed to use her car to deliver pizzas, and acts on her employer’s instructions in doing so. [Hope her car is insured for this purpose - business use]. A pizza is ordered and your wife is contacted to collect the order and deliver it, being invited (by implication) by a customer to go onto private land, the customer being an occupier of that private land, to deliver the pizza to the customer. The road is still under development and has yet to be adopted by the local authority. She is followed onto the land by the clampers and subsequently almost immediately clamped when she stops to carry out her lawful enterprise of delivering the goods ordered by the occupier of that land. She calls the Police. The police officer should have realised/known this was private land and that a police presence was only there to prevent a breach of the peace or to arrest an offender. The police officer warns your wife that she may be committing an offence – where is the offence? This is private property and from the details no crime has been committed by your wife. However the Police officer has completely ignored the offences [set out in earlier posts] of deception [Clamper hides ID and will not provide details], therefore a deception takes place. THIS IS NEGLECT OF DUTY BY THE PC. Your wife pays £100 for clamp to be released – offence under the Fraud Act possible – due to no ID by Clamper, no details of ID provided by Clamper, and poor signage on private property. There should also be given some thought to a Civil action for damages in these circumstances. Did your wife get a receipt for the money? If not, why not Any further thoughts/developments? Have you been to the Police Station yet? DO NOT LEAVE IT TOO LONG! Kind regards Dougal

Morning all, I also have all parts of my anatomy crossed!!! Best wishes Dougal Remember : 'Keep smiling - it makes people wonder what you have been doing!'

Morning all, Knowing Sparkie as I do, he will be quick to share with us any news! I send him and everyone my warmest wishes Dougal

Morning Just to put this to bed The police do not need your consent....... Regards Dougal PS: Johno1066, thanks for your advice yesterday at 21.16, I will take it!

Evening all That's funny I don't remember saying that any taking of a vehicle was theft.....I wonder what green and mean did/does for a living - will we ever know...? The Police are of course empowered by law to seize a MV for no insurance. The situation with Councils is different and regard has to be had to the restrictions in place at the time. Unfortunately the last sentence is not accurate, there are several defences, one is a defence of reasonably believing that the owners consent would have been given if the owner had known of the circumstances. There is of course a test for this, and that is whether that belief was 'reasonably held' by the offender..... I am bored by going round in circles, and have no intention of explaining my thoughts any further...I suggest we concentrate on the matter in hand...that is the attempted removal of this vehicle, the attitude and remarks of the PC, and the attitude and remarks of the 'clampers', including their failure to display their ID or provide details. Any other discussion of other matters must be left to the Courts [or to green and mean] to decide....in my humble opinion. Best wishes Dougal

Afternoon, Ask yourself this 'why is your action in relation to the DVD not theft?'.....see what answer you can come up with.....and I am sorry, but there is no relevance of your supposed act in relation to the removal of a motor vehicle in the context of this thread..... Goodbye for now Dougal

Afternoon everyone, I'll answer those points from Green and Mean thus: 1. I do not know 'where' the details are - I am almost (not completely) sure that what I have said is right, I have read the text somewhere, I just cannot recall where! 2. It is not the reading of the plates by the computer that is at issue, it is the use of the equipment by person/s unauthorised to do so, and acting on the information received, when it may have been unlawfully received in the first place. 3.[see other posts regarding the Fraud Act, which has largely superseded the Theft Act.] If the bailiff/person using the equipment was not correctly certificated then that person would already have 'mens rea'. There would be no need to prove 'dishonesty'. In the meantime, back to the plot... Best wishes Dougal

And it's a good morning from me... Simply these - as an ex-PC myself (now retired) I am almost certain that somewhere there are restrictions applying to the use of ANPR vehicles, my knowledge is not as great as others, so I could be wrong, although I don't think it is 'total rubbish' but thereagain my manners are better than that - it must have been my upbringing! As for Human Rights, I am certainly no expert but my limited knowledge (unlike others), indicates to me that there is a right to privacy although how far reaching that right may be has yet to be fully tested in the Courts. Finally as far as Theft goes it is no longer neccessary to prove intent - and that fact is available for all to read, however the actions of a suspect may be construed as being dishonest with regard to and consideration of the circumstances of the offence. I always acknowledge those whose teaching and experience are invaluable - although in this case that does not appear to apply. Best wishes to all Dougal

Good morning all, Now then, speaking as an ex Police Constable, I am terribly upset by the actions of the Police in this case and in many others. A complaint must be made to the Police NOW. This officer was aiding and abetting' the clamper's in their commission of a criminal act. When you go to the Police Station you will see staff at the 'front desk', DO NOT REPORT THE MATTER TO THEM - THEY ARE USUALLY CIVILIANS AND WILL NOT DEAL WITH THIS SERIOUS MATTER PROPERLY. You should ask to see the 'Officer in charge' of the Police Station. It may be necessary to make an appointment, but nonetheless you will be seeing someone who WILL deal with your complaint. As for the Civil proceedings, I would be inclined to see what happens with the PC and how the Officer in charge deals with the complaint. I do agree that all parties should be named as joint defendants in due course. Firstly prior to issuing civil proceedings I would write to the site owner/builder at their head office for the attention of the Managing Director - why? - because what has happened here is probably happening all over the UK! I would also get a witness statement from the resident who sent you the text and who wondered (initially) what all the noise was about on the night of 26th April. Now then, it is a nice day for a trip to the Police Station, once you have been and seen the 'officer in charge' (MAKE SURE YOU GET THEIR NAME, RANK AND WARRANT NUMBER - THEY MUST GIVE YOU THEIR WARRANT NUMBER WHEN ASKED), I would also have someone else along as a witness, (don't tell the Police that...just have someone with you...) Once this has been done, please let us know the outcome: 1. What the officer said 2. What the officer is going to do 3. How the complaint will be dealt with (DON'T accept 'Local resolution', this carried virtually no weight, as it is just a 'ticking off' for the PC who was there when the car was clamped. You also need to ensure (during this meeting) that there will be a full investigation into the possibility of crime being committed by the PC who was present, and this should include aiding and abetting the commission of an offence (which was being committed by the clampers), neglect of duty, (for failing to protect you ad your rights), negligence (for failing to call for a supervising officer to attend to clarify any doubt), and you should insist on a full and detailed investigation into the Clamping company for offence(s) of Fraud (see Fraud Act 2006 secs 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and Fraud Act 2006 sec 9 or 10 as appropriate) Hope this helps, and on behalf of all the 'decent' coppers left (there are still some!)..I apologise. As always Dougal

Morning all, I just have this funny feeling..(it must be my age!..) that the use of ANPR vehicles by Civilian organisations (..in other words not the police/customs/Income tax/Army - Authorised and uniformed by Act of Parliament for Law enforcement) is unlawful. I must read up on this...if nothing else I see a breach of the Human Rights Act...any thoughts anyone...or am I still crazy..(answers on a postcard). Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed..... Best wishes as always Dougal

Good morning, I would send Kensington a Subject Access Request (if you have not already done so). This will do 2 things: 1. Show them that you are looking into the case further, 2. Show them that you might know your rights (I am sure you do - but at present they don't know that) and that you intend to pursue matters further. You could always add a line to your letter which says : "Your attention is drawn to the following: In order to safeguard the position of both parties : All correspondence in this case both incoming and outgoing is being copied to the FSA." I know it is a bit like rubbing salt in the wound, but it should make them take notice that you are not going to take any 'shenanigans' from them! Kind regards Dougal

Good morning, My apologies for the delay - now then, let us turn the spotlight firmly on GE Money: Firstly I am puzzled by these questions: 1. Have you sent a Subject Access Request under the Data Protection Act to GE Money yet? If not do so NOW. All correspondence MUST go First Class Recorded delivery, the you will have hard evidence that they have received your letter. 2. Have you written to GE Money and provided them with FULL details of your health problems yet? If not do so NOW. All correspondence MUST go First Class Recorded delivery, the you will have hard evidence that they have received your letter. 3. Do you have any written evidence that the person who arranged your loan considered your DLA as income? If not contact the Broker and send them a Subject Access Request too. Ask specifically for FULL details of the income that they have taken into account when determining your loan and your suitability for it. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. All correspondence MUST go First Class Recorded delivery, the you will have hard evidence that they have received your letter. 4. I see you had a 3 year 'fixed rate' with GE - that is I think unusual for them, but I may be wrong. Can you confirm that you still have the same account number, now that the payments have changed? THIS IS IMPORTANT. In the posts on your thread 'cher69cher69' has been successful - BUT it took a long time - 12 months I think -GE will cave in, but only if you persisit and do not take 'No' for an answer! Do not go to the Ombudsman - no teeth! (In my opinion!) This is 2nd letter I had to send to GE Money to get my SAR request details from them, you are welcome to copy and amend it if you wish - note: I had to send a further letter to them (this means it took them almost three months to respond - BUT this is good evidence for any Court hearing!!, which I discovered when the DJ found in my favour against GE!) GE Money Servicing Ltd Customer Service Department Croxley Green Business Park WATFORD Hertfordshire WD18 8YF For the attention of Karen Blundell 1st class recorded delivery 30/4/2009 Dear Miss Blundell Re : ACCOUNT NUMBER XXXXXXX/KG Data Protection Act 1998 Subject Access Request In my letter dated 20th April 2009 I enclosed the fee by way of Postal Order made payable to GE Money, the PO number is 1039214220, and is for the sum of £10. This is an extract from my earlier letter dated 20/4/2009: ‘I enclose the statutory maximum fee of £10. You have 40 days in which to comply. Furthermore, if I discover that you have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them, and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 DPA subject access request fee.’ I know you have received the Postal order as it was in with my letter which you have responded to, and I must remind you that the ‘clock is now running’, on my request, that is to say you have 30 days left from the original 40 days which you are allowed in which to respond to my request fully under the Act. I am sure you will deal with my request promptly. Yours sincerely, I hope this all helps, look forward to hearing your progress - remember they are bound by the Law - they think they are not.....but I know differently! Best wishes to all Dougal

Good evening, Basically I think it is time to send GE Money full and frank details of your situation together with insistence that they must follow the Mortgage Arrears Protocol. More in the morning...in full! As always best wishes to all Dougal

Good morning all, Just poking my nose in again.... GE are notorious for not complying with the Mortgage Arrears Protocol. This is a procedure under Civil Procedure Rules which MUST be adhered to by the Legal Department of lenders. These are extracts from the Protocol: The aims of this Protocol are to – (1) ensure that a lender or home purchase plan provider (in this Protocol collectively referred to as ‘the lender’) and a borrower or home purchase plan customer (in this Protocol collectively referred to as ‘the borrower’) act fairly and reasonably with each other in resolving any matter concerning mortgage or home purchase plan arrears; and (2) encourage more pre-action contact between the lender and the borrower in an effort to seek agreement between the parties, and where this cannot be reached, to enable efficient use of the court's time and resources. 2.2 Where either party is required to communicate and provide information to the other, reasonable steps should be taken to do so in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. If the lender is aware that the borrower may have difficulties in reading or understanding the information provided, the lender should take reasonable steps to ensure that information is communicated in a way that the borrower can understand. 3 Scope 3.1 This Protocol applies to arrears on – (1) first charge residential mortgages and home purchase plans regulated by the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; (2) second charge mortgages over residential property and other secured loans regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on residential property; and (3) unregulated residential mortgages. 3.2 Where a potential claim includes a money claim and a claim for possession this protocol applies to both. Initial contact and provision of information 5.1 Where the borrower falls into arrears the lender should provide the borrower with – (1) where appropriate, the required regulatory information sheet or the National Homelessness Advice Service booklet on mortgage arrears; and (2) information concerning the amount of arrears which should include – (a) the total amount of the arrears; (b) the total outstanding of the mortgage or the home purchase plan; and © whether interest or charges will be added, and if so and where appropriate, details or an estimate of the interest or charges that may be payable. 5.2 The parties should take all reasonable steps to discuss with each other, or their representatives, the cause of the arrears, the borrower's financial circumstances and proposals for repayment of the arrears (see 7.1). For example, parties should consider whether the causes of the arrears are temporary or long term and whether the borrower may be able to pay the arrears in a reasonable time. 5.3 The lender should advise the borrower to make early contact with the housing department of the borrower's Local Authority and, should, where necessary, refer the borrower to appropriate sources of independent debt advice. 5.4 The lender should consider a reasonable request from the borrower to change the date of regular payment (within the same payment period) or the method by which payment is made. The lender should either agree to such a request or, where it refuses such a request, it should, within a reasonable period of time, give the borrower a written explanation of its reasons for the refusal. 5.5 The lender should respond promptly to any proposal for payment made by the borrower. If the lender does not agree to such a proposal it should give reasons in writing to the borrower within 10 business days of the proposal. 5.6 If the lender submits a proposal for payment, the borrower should be given a reasonable period of time in which to consider such proposals. The lender should set out the proposal in sufficient detail to enable the borrower to understand the implications of the proposal. 5.7 If the borrower fails to comply with an agreement, the lender should warn the borrower, by giving the borrower 15 business days notice in writing, of its intention to start a possession claim unless the borrower remedies the breach in the agreement. A lender should consider not starting a possession claim for mortgage arrears where the borrower can demonstrate to the lender that the borrower has – (1) submitted a claim to – (a) the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) for Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI); or (b) an insurer under a mortgage payment protection policy; or © a participating local authority for support under a Mortgage Rescue Scheme, and has provided all the evidence required to process a claim; (2) a reasonable expectation of eligibility for payment from the DWP or from the insurer or support from the local authority; and (3) an ability to pay a mortgage instalment not covered by a claim to the DWP or the insurer in relation to a claim under paragraph 6.1(1)(a) or (b). 7 Alternative dispute resolution 7.1 The court takes the view that starting a possession claim is usually a last resort and that such a claim should not normally be started when a settlement is still actively being explored. Discussion between the parties may include options such as: (1) extending the term of the mortgage; (2) changing the type of a mortgage; (3) deferring payment of interest due under the mortgage; or (4) capitalising the arrears. I know it is dull and boring - BUT it is very important, because non-compliance by the Lender with any of this WILL go against the Lender in any Court proceedings I have personally suceeded in stopping GE in its tracks on: (a) Their first application for possession b) Their second application for possession and when they were finally granted a possession order following my divorce (the best thing that ever happened to me!!) then I also managed to get the Bailiff appointment application dismissed, and following their second aplication for a Bailiff appointment, which was successful I also managed to get that appointment stayed and finally dismissed by the Court. What I do know is this: You will either need a good solicitor, and it sounds as if you will qualify for help under the Legal Aid scheme, or if you are going to do the paperwork (and legwork) yourself then it will be very stressful and time consuming....BUT the Courts are very much on the side of the Borrower in Mortgage possession cases. There are lots of people on this site who will be pleased to help - I know because they helped me! Best wishes to all - apologies for a lengthy post...... Dougal

Good morning, Apologies for the delay. It is NEVER too late to take action! You need a hearing to have the Judgement which imposed the Charging Order set aside, as the evidence was (a) flawed and (b) false and untrue. You will need to find a good solicitor who will take this case on, most solicitors offer a 30 minute appointment FOC - they should if they are able to help,check to see if you are entitled to Legal Aid. First thing to do : check the Legal Aid website yourself here is a link to the page: Community Legal Advice - free legal advice for residents of England and Wales, paid for by legal aid Click on this and you will be there! There is a legal aid calculator there and a link to solicitors near you. The calculator takes a few minutes to complete but will help I am sure. Post again when you have done that and we'll look at the next step. As always best wishes to everyone Dougal