Pat. You've hit the nail on the head. It is simple. So simple that many people wrongly think that there must be catch they cannot see. There really are no complications. Like most government legislation the RTA 1991 and it's later amendments were designed with goals in mind, but never thought through in the detail required. In this instance there are two main problems the government did not address. First, there is no requirement for anybody to give their own address to the DVLA and secondly to in order to keep decriminalised parking administratively simple, it needed a system that was quick, effective and capable of handling volume. It could never be weighed down by the slow court procedure which in itself could not cope with the overwhelming volume of parking tickets issued. Thus the courts were bypassed. Our members keep their V5. We simply pass them on along with DVLA reminders. The address we send them to remains confidential.

Pat. Not sure of the exact nature of your question. If you asking if it applies in Europe, then I must respond by stating that our scheme doesn't cover Europe. It was designed mainly to curb the excesses of council administered parking schemes. However, it is quite acceptable for you to take your car abroad with our address on the V5. Indeed I travelled to Germany in one such vehicle last year.

The TEC does not issue warrants of execution, nor do they say that they do. The 'warrant' referred to is an Order for Recovery and not a warrant of execution in the county court sense. It is effectively an internal document issued to the local authority allowing them to take further action for recovery. This warrant or Order For Recovery is not presented to the owner/keeper unlike a warrant of execution, which is authorised by the county court and is the public document presented to a county court defendant showing that the holder has court authority. This important difference is why the TEC specifies that you should contact your local authority, which would be unnecessary if such a document was to be presented to an owner/keeper as matter of course like a genuine warrant of execution should be. We have yet to come across a private bailiff producing a genuine warrant of execution in a civil parking case. As we said in an earlier posting on this thread, if this Order For Recovery was a county court judgment, then it would be enforced by county court bailiffs and not private individuals motivated by earning commission Once again we must stress that nobody has the right to seize your car without written court authority to do so. To PPC Buster. ANPR really doesn't effect our scheme as apart from the police those using it will not have any more authority than you or I. What is contained in their data base has no relevance. Such data base hasn't been authorised. It precisely these pretend 'police' that the scheme was intended to protect people from. Indeed why would anybody accept that such a data base is even accurate? To g & m. This scheme wasn't drawn up on the back of a fag packet at 2 in the morning and you really don't help yourself by trying to ridicule and without any substance or evidence, the one scheme that actually does prevent people from being bullied at home. None of your postings carry the slightest concern for these people and thus you are in danger of placing yourself in the position of being thought of as somebody who feels that such behaviour is acceptable and that anybody who comes out with a practical solution to prevent this should be thought of as an idiot. The fact that the police can demand to see your V5 again has no relevance to the scheme and to our knowledge councils will issue parking permits on proof of residence. One method open to a council is contained in their own records via council tax. If you have an alternative to our way of curbing bullying private bailiffs then please let the world know. If not, then our scheme remains the best option.

G & M. Councils cannot apply for 'warrants of execution' via the TEC, just an Order For Recovery It isn't compulsory to join our scheme and clearly as you do not believe in it, it is not for you.

G & M - We are perfectly clear on the law which is why none of our members have ever been troubled. Had they been I'm sure that the forums would have be informed. May we once again state that we stand for those who would otherwise be bullied by liars pretending they have authority. Further, bailiffs are not 'certified', but certificated by their local county court. Even that doesn't make them court bailiffs. The 'warrant of execution' you refer to will not be issued by the county court as they need to have the security of a court judgment for that. Like most 'warrants of execution' that are touted by private bailiffs, these are likely to be typed up in the bailiff or council office and will not be court stamped. Further, entry to a property can only take place after a county court judge has signed a order to that effect and it has been stamped by the court. The bailiffs you refer to have none of this. That's why they lie. On the issue of private citizens being allowed access to ANPR, that would indeed be an unlawful erosion of our civil liberties. Only the police have full access, unless the assistant police commissioner I spoke to had got it wrong.

No Steve. We do not condone any law breaking. As we keep saying, the plain fact is it is the people who cheat within the system you need to be on your guard against. These bailiffs are not santioned by law any more than you or I are. They are private citizens working for private companies and operating without court sanction or court orders. So no, they cannot take any property at will. Yes of course we would pass on legal notices as it is not illegal to do so. Why shouldn't our members be given every chance to do the honest thing and respond? Members of our scheme are not dishonest, just sick of being cheated and lied to. If they do not act then the police usually follow their enquiry up and our members know that we will assist the police, but also offer them advice.

Green & Mean. We don't 'slag off' anybody, we merely answer the questions put to us. However you would be quite correct in thinking that I do not have much respect for the current system that allows for excess intimidation, very often of completely innocent people who just happen to be the ones who open the door to the liars and bullies. Others who call the current system 'an indefensible parking racket' include Mail on Sunday with several other newspapers echoing the same thought. 'Parking rules are designed to force drivers into expensive cars parks, or to catch then for minior infringements or ungenerous time limits' There's nothing wrong with councils expecting to be paid for parking, but bullying in any form is abhorrent to me, more so when it happens to people in their own homes and is encouraged by councils turning blind eyes. If you feel that bullying in people in their homes is fair and just then I suspect that the scheme isn't for you. People in their own homes isn't just restricted to the registered keeper, it often places undue stress on wives, parents, in laws, children and other relatives who are often exposed to the deceit and intimidation when the rk is at work. This forum constantly reveals the horror of such exposure. People do not lose their cars without court judgments granting confiscation unless they have broken a law, such as having no tax, but do remember that parking for the main part is now civil (or decriminalised if you prefer), thus there are no laws to be broken. There's absolutely no confusion over that. Though some rogue firms of bailiffs claim to have ANPR (notably JBW 'stars' of Cops, Cars and Bailiffs who openly lied on most programs with the less than intelligent 'I am a court bailiff' and 'I have a court order'), ANPR is only used by the police for the purpose of tracking offenders. Some bailiff companies have a data base linked to their vans, but it is not ANPR, even if like JBW they deceitfully claim on national tv that they are linked to ANPR. If you find it difficult to believe that county judgments are not part of the civil parking system then again I don't think the scheme is for you. As far as tracing owners who register with us, then I have to advise you that all enforcers have so far batted zero. The benefits of our scheme are fully explained on the web site.

Pat. The TEC is only situated within Northampton County Court. It isn't part of the county court administrative system. It does not issue county court judgments even though the local authorities try very hard to be hazy on this issue. The TEC or Traffic Enforcement Centre merely issue Orders For Recovery, not on the merits of any case but purely because a council has asked for one. Any allegation against someone about parking contraventions remains unproven. Thus enforcement does not have county court authority for if it did, then enforcement would be by county court bailiffs and not private citizens pretending to be county court bailiffs. County court bailiffs act far more responsibly and are not motivated by commission money. An Order For Recovery is not a county court judgment and does not allow bailiffs to enter property.

Steve. M. The whole madness of council administered civil parking most certainly does bypass the county court system. There are no county court judgments and no court orders allowing bailiffs to collect outstanding 'fines', let alone granting them forcible entry into property, or adding their own fees on top. However with regard to speeding, tax evasion and MOT offences as opposed to parking contraventions, we do not condone any of these and make no provision for any such protection. We will not assist anybody to break the law. We are simply standing up to the bullies who would happily arrive at private property and lie to and intimidate the occupants into parting with their hard earned money despite having no legal authority to do so whatsoever. Thats not so bad is it?

G & M. I think you are missing the point. This whole [problem] bypasses the county court system and therefore there can never be any court order to seize a vehicle, or any judge's authority being given to a bailiff to enter private property. Besides if a vehicle is registered with us, it is highly unlikely that any enforcer will be able to trace it's owner's whereabouts, let alone the vehicle itself.

Hi Pat. I haven't ignored g & m's point about identity theft nor the fact that he was writing a little tongue in cheek, but I can only speak for us. We are not party to such shenanigans and we have set out our address and contact details for all to see. However, I'm sorry to disagree with you about councils. Councils are party to some of the worst examples of bullying and intimidation by their appointment of these thieves, liars and rogues in the first place - and then sitting back and ignoring legitimate complaints about not only private bailiffs acting in the name of the Council, but even their own employees acting as bailiffs and stating that they are 'court bailiffs' when they must know that they work for the council. The deception is often taken further when said council employees than produce 'warrants of execution' that are no more than documents the council has produced itself. It is precisely our trust in councils that is systematically abused by some of the more delinquent authorities. And yes we do have examples on file.

In reply to the last two postings by green and mean, may I just say that the villains out there are the enforcers and not those who have a method of protecting the public from them. And there's nothing to stop you from offering a free scheme

Hi, this is Fair-Parking. First we must say that it can sometimes be difficult for us to satisfy the requirements of posting on this or any other forum, due to the commercial nature of our service. However when somebody does pose an important question, we guess that nobody will take offence when we attempt to answer it quickly and as objectively as possible. Therefore may we ask mfpa for the grounds on which he feels that our service is 'inappropriate in respect of local authority tickets' ?. We can say that our members have enjoyed full protection from them. As an individual I should state that I am absolutely appalled at the bullying nature of parking enforcement procedure that Councils and their cohort private bailiff firms apply as a matter of course to the collection of unilaterially imposed fines that bypass the county court system. To harass and intimidate ordinary individuals in their own homes over what can never be anything other than alleged contraventions will never be anything other than totally unacceptable to me. The forum is full of horror stories of how people are systematically abused, ignored and treated with utter disdain in their own property as if they were of no importance at all. This contempt for people in their private property has no place in our society. Worse, all this is fuelled by the disgraceful nature of the law that allows the DVLA to willingly sell your private details on to those who use such information to extract money from you. Cut off that supply and the whole nature of the bullying beast is tamed.