Further to my post of 7 July, I am now pleased to advise the forum of the outcome of what a number of us thought was an officially sanctioned abuse of citizens rights Graham Marsh, head of parking at Manchester City Council did indeed look into this complaint. MCC had been instructing Marstons bailiffs and was aware that firm was instructing the police with the result that people were wrongly being stopped by the police on the matter of alleged decriminalised contraventions. After consulting with the council's legal advisors Mr Marsh put his hand up and admitted that the council had got this one wrong and that until Fair Parking had brought this to his attention, he did not realise the full implications of this policy. The result is that this practice has ceased forthwith and I have a copy of the email sent by MCC to Marstons ordering that firm to stop this practice by no later than 5pm 25 July. That only leaves three issues 1) Concern that once again private bailiffs knew that their premeditated actions were beyond the law, but were content to mislead both the council and police. 2) Of more concern is that the police did not know that the practice of stopping motorists over alleged deciminalised matters was outside of their terms of authority 3) That should anybody else be stopped by Greater Manchester Police over parking issues in the future then quite clearly there would be grounds for a serious complaint against both the police and Marstons. My last wish is that people should understand that our parking protection scheme is both valid and solid and that we do indeed insulate our members from those who would misuse the law either knowingly or otherwise.

There is nothing in the legislation that allows the council to only release information subject to production of driving licence/passport etc. My wife has neither but she is not excluded from her rights under the Freedom Of Information Act simply because of that. The Data Protection Act is quite specific in that the data protection controllers must act promptly regarding obtaining identity if they feel they require more information. In this case your identity may well have been clarified by the name on your cheque/credit card and your whereabouts by any letter that you sent to the council. Further data protection controllers are not only governed by the law, but in this case equally by the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. It is not for them to stall, prevaricate or otherwise make nuisance of themselves. Whilst the council is bound to provide information requested within 40 days it should do so quickly. It is not allowed to make you wait 40 days for that information or to use up most of that time before making any further requests from you, let alone ones for driving licences/passports which clearly fall well outside of the spirit of this law which they are bound by. Advance this argument to the council with the added notice that if they do not comply with your request you will apply for to the Information Commisioner for an Enforcement Notice. A custodial sentance can be applied to those who still refuse to comply. The Freedom Of Information Act was designed to allow individuals access to councils and others and not for them to design yet more obtuse methods of becoming evasive and unaccountable.

To Beau 'I'm a Birmingham City fan'. Prepare yourself for a lifetime of ever increasing disappointment - without relief.

Ted - Have you done what I asked? If you do not then I don't think that I can be of any more assistance to you.

WWOW - Aye, but only when decriminalised parking becomes a criminal offence and the DVLA require a home address and not a contactable one:o and the Data Protection Act is withdrawn:p and bailiffs act within the law:p and TEC authorisation is made into a real warrant of execution:grin: and the TEC really is the County Court:wink: and local authorities stop deceiving those they are meant to serve:rolleyes: etc, etc, etc. You could fall asleep reading this or waiting for the pigs to fly past. In the meantime I'll take comfort in the fact the honest service belongs to us and that those who have absolutely no respect for either the public or the law have hit an impassable legal and moral barrier to the lies, deceit, fraud, and theft that they consider to be normal. Our strength lies in obeying the law. Ted. But did they confirm that the amount on the liability order had been paid in full? And did they try to produce a copy of a stamped court order that allowed for further charges? If the answer is yes and no in that order, I wouldn't do anything.

Ted - I wouldn't pay them anything. Yes they are entitled to ask for the fees you have listed - but they cannot enforce them. The fees are not part of the liability order or any separate court order relating to you. Of course, you could send half to my beer fund, or £10 to join my parking protection scheme

I've no doubt that a bailiff clamped a car after a debt had been paid but that doesn't make it either legal or correct. I've also no doubt that the police misread the law on this matter - which as they keep telling us is a civil one. The police should only be concerned with a breach of the peace and nothing else. Unfortunately officers too often become convinced that the bailiff is correctly enforcing a law when he has no court authority at all. Ted, ask the council to confirm in writing that their debt is paid in full and is therefore discharged and then ask that they provide any evidence of a stamped court order that allows the baliffs to collect a penny.

Ted - Simple. In answering this I have to presume that you have actually paid the council all that you owe them. If so then that is the liability order taken care of. It is discharged. If you have only paid a proportion of the debt, then that has given the bailiff an excuse to put (undue) pressure on you. If you have paid the whole amount owing to the council, then ask the bailiff company to provide a copy of the stamped court order that states that they are entitled to whatever fees they are claiming on top of that written into the liability order. They won't be able to as such an order doesn't exist and if there is no court order outstanding against you, the bailiffs can't take anything.

Ellie May Can you send a copy of this and any other correspondence received from Manchester City Council to my private email address

Still struggling on this. I cannot find anything that appertains to Order 48b Rule 5. If this is a reference to the Civil Proceedure Rules, then the key word here is rules - not 'order'.

Here is am interim report on allegations that Marstons/Drakes bailiffs are in collusion with Greater Manchester Police to stop motorists via police ANPR in order to pursue parking ticket enforcement. It appears that there may be some substance in the allegations I can say that the incident that OP Ellie May referred to on this forum did happen. The local police inspector has confirmed that. What he is unable to confirm at this moment is why it happened. I have also spoken to a senior official at Manchester City Council who is adamant that the City Council are not involved in debt collecting and thus would not have been involved in approving the flagging down of motorists for unpaid PCN's via ANPR. However he suspected that there was some working relationship between Marstons/Drakes and the police. A frank and direct conversation took place particularly in relation to the 'warrants' being used by bailiffs acting as authorised agents of the council. Warrants which I believe have not been court stamped but which are being used as a form of authority, wherein the official did appear to understand the seriousness of the situation and confirmed that he would be contacting Marstons/Drakes to find out more. He also promised that if anybody has broken the law on the matter 'they would never work for Manchester City Council again'. I have not contacted the bailiff firm. It would not be right for me to comment further at this point or to speculate as to the possible outcome. I will post again at the appropriate time.

The case in question is Khazanchi v. Faircharm Investments (1998 wherein it was held that neither police nor bailiff had any right of entry even when the owner had consented but had left their home locked, being unaware of the time the police/bailiff had intended to visit. A county warrant of eviction states a time and date, but I understand that this particular bailiff has merely indicated a day on which he intends to return. Thus the above applies.

Fran. One thing you shouldn't worry about is bailiffs entering your house whilst you are not there. Case law prevents them doing that. I'll look up the case and post it. Nor can bailiffs levy with out entering your house. (Evans v South Ribble Council 1991). Nor does the law oblige you to stay in and deal with these people. As for Merton Bailiff Services. I can concour with Tomtubby on their highly questionable procedures. This is a pretty foul organisation that cares little or nothing for the law. Indeed one particular foot in the door bailiff there has worked out that as the police know very little about bailiff law, he can use them for assistance on decriminalised matters. On their arrival he lies to them about his 'right of entry' for which he does not have any court warrant. MBS is welcome to read this and to challenge the validity of the above.

To the best of my knowledge form N323 is county court warrant of execution that is obtained after a county court judgment has been granted. This warrant is exercised by county court bailiffs and thus it isn't part of the civil parking enforcement regulations and their associated private bailiffs. Can you explain where PE9 came from and under what regulations Order 46b rule 5 falls under as I cannot find this under Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations 1993, which appears to have just 17 rules?

Lamma. I have heard that, but I have never seen any authentication to substantiate this. Can you or anybody else provide such confirmation? FP

I was under the impression that this was your application to have a bailiff removed from the list of certification. Are you now saying that without an application for fees from the defendant (not his firm) and despite not asking for the firm's fees in court the the judge has issued an order stating that you have to pay £73.50 to the bailiff firm rather than to the defendant in person? If he did - pay it. If he didn't - don't. But it's your choice. I really don't think I can give any more advice on this thread

You don't owe £49. If the council wants to send money for council tax to the bailiffs that's their affair, but it's nothing to do with you. Play this out in your mind. If you don't pay this extra money, the bailiffs will eventually stop contacting you and send a report to the council. With the ball back in their court and no bailiffs to turn to and with the liability order paid in full, the council has effectively driven itself into a cul de sac.

No I haven't but I do know of many instances where bailiffs ceased to pursue the amount, including two of the more well known firms that are consistently mentioned on this forum. I'm sure that if they thought that there was any chance of being paid they would continue to harass and bully. May I suggest you pay the council and then see what happens.

Paras 33, 34 35 and 36 are more relevant with 33 (1) being specific on the fact that the authority must account for 'every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application'. Para 45 refers to charges and levy fees being made after goods have been sold with no reference to visits that never led to a levy. More importantly none of the paragraphs make any provision to private bailiffs (Rossendales) or appointed agents. Indeed para 45 2-3 refers to the authority taking walking possession. The reality of this being that once the amount on the liability order is paid, there's nowhere for bailiffs to go.

Su0906 - I keep saying this on posts, but whatever is written on your liability order is ALL what you owe. No more. There is no provision for bailiffs fees of any description. Pay off the the amount on the liability order (If you don't have it the amount will be written in a letter from the council, advising you of their intention to apply for a liability order) and that is it. Job done, Rossendales are history. Don't bother with them

Clearly Bernie, the motor insurance industry has acted inappropriately for at least four decades and should approach you for advice. Maybe the first question that should be asked is 'What is the point of a letter of indemnity if it has no validity?' closely followed by 'When was the last time you heard of somebody being successfully prosecuted after a letter of indemnity has been produced? The third might ask you if you have ever worked in the industry.

We could all cite insurance curiosities that have no practical value at all and which divert the thread from it's original intent. This thread commenced with a person wondering whether he was insured having been faxed a letter of indemnity because he had not received a cover note. I gave my advice through many years experience and knowledge of the insurance industry. Having sent a few letters of indemnity in my time, I was satisfied that the OP was as fully insured as if he had received a cover note/certificate. I can also state that nobody who ever received a letter of indemnity from me was ever prosecuted. No myth.

What myth is being perpetuated? I started in motor insurance in 1966. I've known many a conviction for 'driving without insurance' but never one for being insured and not having a valid certificate of insurance.

This person doesn't seem to have been stopped for not having a Certificate Of Motor Insurance on their person, but for appearing to be driving whilst uninsured. Many's the time someone will phone their insurers for cover on a new car. The cover note or new certificate is usually posted the same night. The car is insured and the policyholder is not breaking the law by driving off in his new vehicle before he receives his cover note/certificate.

This takes me to my early days of motor insurance in the late '60's. Officers very often don't know the law. I once remember a police sergeant phoning me and asking for confirmation that somebody one of his officer's had stopped had no insurance because he 'only had a cover note'. I asked him what what he thought a cover note was if it wasn't proof of insurance. He didn't know so I asked him to look at the bottom of the cover note and to read out the words 'Certificate Of Insurance'. Similarly here we have a police station who do not seem to understand that being insured isn't about having a certificate/cover note or being on the insurance register, it's about being indemnified. Thus the letter of indemnity is sufficient and if they had any doubts, then they could at least match my old sergeant by phoning the insurers for advice and quoting whatever reference is written on the fax. After the 40 years the question still begs - if the police don't think the document in front of them confirms that you are insured, what do they think it means?