Could the rider not park his motorcycle in a side street and then walk to the car?

But more importantly, has anybody found provision in any of the Acts that govern civil parking enforcement that allows wardens to park on yellow lines?

An article in Birmingham's Sunday Mercury newspaper showed a photograph of a warden getting off his motorcycle in order to place a ticket on a car parked a few feet away.

Birmingham City Council was quoted as saying that the law allowed their wardens to do this 'in the course of their duties'.

Comments?

Give clampers a break?

Why?

Nobody asked you to take this disgusting and corruptive job.

What a reply. This comes less than two years after I stood up in Warwickshire (Justice?) Centre in Nuneaton and made sure in a long and very uncompromising speech armed with supporting documentation and evidence that every embarrassed stoney faced council representative who attended that day was left in no illusion as what bailiffs do in their name.

They acted cringingly similar to the dog that has just been found to have stolen the meat, with not word of dissent or denial from any of them. They were also told in no uncertain terms that this has being going on for over 25 years and if they were unaware that this was happening before my lecture, they sure as hell had no excuse to allow it to continue afterwards.

In other words Nuneaton and Bedworth Council know damn well that bailiffs lie, cheat, defraud, intimidate and bully in their names. They just delude themselves into believing otherwise. Write back and tell them that they were made aware of lying, cheating bailiffs in a stern lecture delivered directly to their enforcement officers in the Warwickshire Justice Centre in June 2007.

I bet that they will countermand from the safety of their office that 'this is the first we have heard about it'.

So you know the letter you published here is not worth the paper it is written on

GSM. Bailiffs thinking that they are a law to themselves? Not round here, they don't. They do as they are told, if I bother with them at all.

Would you mind advising just who these morons are, as I am currently in correspondence with TfL.

I doubt that any bailiffs fees are enforcible for the reasons given by Happy Contrails. Legislation allows for bailiffs to ask for fees on a set scale, but that falls way short of being able to enforce them by law.

I agree that once a bailiff is in your property it is difficult to correct his misinformed mind. That's why you should never let them in and never sign anything.

Bailiff firms have to resort to lying, bullying and intimidation, because that's all there is left for them as the law does not assist them in any way.

Expect nothing less from a bull(y) in a china shop.

If there is a bankruptcy hearing on Friday, then they really shouldn't be turning up unannounced a few days before. No point.

Could be 1) Right hand not knowing what left hand is doing.

2) Private bailiffs.

Either way tell HMRC about the hearing and ask why this happened.

You now know exactly how to deal with this less than forthright bailiff who incidently works for a less than forthright firm.

Hold on here. Did you say that an employee had signed a walking possesion document? As you are a sole trader, only you are responsible for the debts and unless you have given specific authority for this person to make legal decisions on your behalf, the bailiff has overstepped the mark.

It's a bit like a shared office building where I once worked - the cleaner bless her, was taking it upon herself to sign for recorded delivery letters. Same principle in that only an authorised person of the company, partnership, or sole trader should sign for the other side to say that their delivery - or in your case, the walking possession document had been correctly and lawfully discharged.

Which in this case it doesn't appear to have been. I daren't ask if the bailiff explained to your employee the full consequences of a walking possession agreement, let alone for items she didn't own or had any personal custody or control over

The man just likes to argue even when every avenue is closed to him.

Now is that lack of understanding or just plain obtuse?

Nobody has said that London councils do anything with the information. London councils are breaking the law by stating on their PCNs that they have the authority to pass on people's private details when they have no such authority at all. Such misleading information is there for a purpose. It isn't just a mistake. Nobody from 10 London boroughs or TfL has said sorry when the 'mistake' has been placed in front of their faces and more importantly not one has been able to justify their actions.

Eyes, ball, ball, eyes. Keep your mind on the purpose of this thread for which the title is 'Congestion Charge PCN - A fraudulent document'.

That has been shown to be true.

Because it isn't a court warrant!

It's been typed and issued by a private company acting as bailiffs. It has no legal standing. There are no court warrants in decriminalised parking. It's a sham.

It's purpose is to get your hopping about and panicking, so that you will have doubts about your legal position and to pay bailiff fees they have NO rights to. That's how this whole rotten decriminalised system works and why JBW are past masters of defrauding people.

See post on 'Bailiffs and Sheriffs Officers' - 'FYI court fees....' It's currently on page 2, but you can't miss it as it has five stars. The only difference between this and your case is that no court is even involved in yours.

Read the thread 'FYI Court fees.......' It's currently on page two and easily spotted as it has five stars attached.

At best I'm not very good at figuring how to pass on links. Far too old. However the information was passed on to me by another forum member and I'm not so sure whether it was in confidence.

Let me find out.

Indeed - and that makes it a blanket attempt to extract money by the use of illegal and fraudulent words on PCNs and not whatever G & M thought might make yet another facetious argument by pretending that he had read 'blanket' was being applied to the passing on of information by London Councils.

Who knows what they pass on, or who to - and whether it is correct. Whatever it is, it's unlawful if it contains private details. These councils are supposed to be representing ordinary people, not some imagined secret service.

It isn't the warrant that you need to worry about, typed as it is in the bailiffs office, but the lies, fraudulent behaviour, deceit and intimidation that the bailffs add to it

Well actually...... there are around 220 county courts in England and Wales. Not one is listed as being 'THE' county court.

I could put my pin in the list if it would help................

As for the continually muddled argument about the TEC being a part of the county court system, it was HMCS itself in censuring JBW in a document prepared in February 2008 that spelt out that the TEC was NOT part of the county court system.

I see that green & mean once again feels that the purpose of the forum is to promote his fatuous arguments rather than providing a platform for sharing information and helping people, but for the benefit of others,

The standard London Borough's Data Protection Statement is 'London Borough of ....... will use information, including personal information, collected through the issuing of this PCN for the enforcement of traffic contraventions and it may also be used for compatible purposes. The information may be disclosed to London Councils, other enforcement agencies and third parties where it is necessary and lawful to do so e.g. for the prevention and detection of crime. All information will be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998'.

It's quite clearly written on all their PCNs.

Quite by co-incidence, I have today received a reply to very important question I put to Graham Marsh head of Manchester City Council parking in relation to it's arrangement with Marstons. It takes us a step further in this matter, but I don't wish to make this public at this point as Mr Marsh's answer led the way to more questions.

I'll let the forum know when the matter becomes clearer.

Some of you may remember that this thread started with the revellation that I believed that Transport For London's Congestion Charge PCN was a fraudulent document along with other documentation used in their chain of enforcement.

I can tell you that our 3 emails and three letters to TfL questioning the validity, integrity and honesty of their documentation have all gone unanswered despite the passage of 11 weeks. The enforcement procedure that our client was originally subjected to has also gone stone cold.

We have also noticed that every London borough that issued it's own PCN's also used the same Data Protection Statement in that they all said that the London boroughs could exchange a PCN recipient's private details between them. Some justified this with the addendum that it could be used to combat crime (how easily the whole concept of decriminalised parking escapes them, let alone the reprehensible concept of assuming ordinary folk who have broken no laws can be assumed to be criminals) and that a person's private details could also be passed on to 'other law enforcement agencies', whosoever these shadowy and undisclosed bodies may be.

In view of the fact that all this goes against the principles set in the Data Protection Act 1998, I did wonder why this 'Data Protection Statement' seemed to be restricted to London boroughs only. Had the London boroughs and TfL gained exclusive legal rights under the Data Protection Act 1998? It didn't read like that to me so I contacted TfL and 10 London boroughs for which I have PCNs and other documents to ask them to explain why they all felt that they were exempt from the restrictions of the Data Protection Act which applied to everybody else.

The ten were Brent, Camden, Ealing, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, Lewisham, Merton, Waltham Forest, Westminster of which only Haringey, Hounslow, Lewisham and Merton provided any replies. Contemptuous definitely but the six others plus TfL have not offered any justification on an issue on which they are obliged to act legally.

All those that did answer all felt that were acting legally. Their condensed answers were as follows;- Haringey said they only passed on information when it was legal to do so, Hounslow sent a leaflet explaining why the DVLA was entitled to pass on information with the proviso that the same rules applied to them, Lewisham felt they were acting legally under section 29 (taxation) and Merton bless 'em, did admit that there was no provision in the Data Protection Act for any London borough to pass on private information, but seemed to confuse this with their rights under section 7 - the right to collect, collate, process and store information.

So not one London borough has been able to justify why they are acting outside of the Data Protection Act and of those who did trouble themselves to answer, they all gave different reasons, when there really could only be one if any of the 10 boroughs plus TfL were acting both legally and in unison under the same rules.

It also transpired that the reason that all these boroughs used the same wording in their separate Data Protection Statements, is that somebody within the London Councils drew up a template which they all copied, presumably without much thought.

Three councils - Ealing, Islington and Westminster were asked why they made reference to Northampton County Court enforcement in their documents, whilst Islington told it's PCN recipients they were legally obliged to complete a Statement Of Truth. Westminister also called in the police on February 6 to illegally stop and detain motorists for outstanding civil PCNs. Only Hounslow said that it acknowledged that I may have made some valid points which it intended to put to it's legal advisors.

And there fellow CAG contributers is the disjointed and flimsy excuse for the methods of parking enforcement in London. Please draw your own conclusions.

Mine? The whole sham stands exposed and that not one PCN in London is legally valid due to a blanket attempt to extract money by the illegal and fraudulent wording of crucial documentation.

And they wonder why our scheme is required!

I'd still be interested to know whether JBW have claimed to be 'court bailiffs' or had 'court warrants' as they were severely censured by HMCS last February for doing just.

Now if they have performed a repeat act.......

Personally I wouldn't complete and sign anybody's self imposed declaration form. It rather suggests that you recognise their right to demand it.

I note what everybody has said on this and whilst there are already grounds for appeal, I note that the letter dated 22 February from Westminster tries to drag 'the' county court into this, 'the' being the operative word here. 'The' county court? Have we only got one in this country?

City of Westminster more than most councils in this country knows that the whole civil parking enforcement by passes the county court system, thus its pointless and vague reference to 'the' county court rather than a specific court, like the Central London County Court situated on it's own doorstep in Park Crescent, Westminster.

City of Westminster knows that it should have said the TEC at Northampton County Court, but then City Of Westminster also knowingly employs fraudulent bailiffs such as JBW or the recent bunch who co-ersed the rather stupid Metropolitan Police force into illegally stopping and detaining motorists for the benefit of private bailiffs on Friday February 6 over civil parking issues.

The letter of 22 February is notable in that it attempts to seek pecuniary advantage by the fraudulent claim that the recipient will suffer county court enforcement if he does not pay. That is an offence under Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006.

You could report it to the police, if only you had the confidence in same irresponsible idiots who were party to the illegal act of February 6.

I've just come across this thread and having read what the OP said, the next contribution appears to have come from Pat Davies. Then there are references to a Travis Martin who does not appear to have made any contribution at all.

I'm going to make a guess here, but it appears that various posts have been edited out leaving the impression that the OP is a troll. How clever of the censor to alter the whole meaning of the thread, presumably on the basis that he felt that we are unable to deal with miscreants ourselves.

Sorry censor but we don't need you, least of all when your unwarranted interference makes the thread disjointed and misleading. I'm sure that Pat Davies did not imply that the OP was a troll - which is what your illthought intervention left us with.

It also implied that none of us have the intelligence or ability to post suitable replies ourselves.

Most of us would disagree with that.

JBW - those well known bailiffs to the land of make believe.

They told you that they had a warrant? Really! And did they mention whether it was from a court and did they add that they were court bailiffs?