I see the ANPR bureau is also implicated. Some here have been invited to attend ameeting in late July. Should make an interesting meeting. I can hear HHJ Cryan's wording echoing in the background. 'Had it occured to you at any stage that what was happening could be of doubtful legality?' and the classic 'Some people might be skeptical that what you are describing to me is the real world or not?' I can see this becoming a widespread scandal where heads will roll, possibly to cheering crowds.

The law prevents them being there, so they are indeed inviting themselves by breaking the law to do it. Nobody asks them to do that

It should also cease in relation to the police being called to people's homes. What on earth does the police think the word 'decrimininalised' means apart from 'Stay away, it's got nothing to do with thee' What was the point of freeing up police time from administering parking, if they continue to invite themselves back - presumably at the expense of some poor boogar who desperately needs their assistance in relation to a criminal matter?

Sorry but the police should not be involved with any PCN. The police don't stop anybody as PCNs and authorised warrants do not appear on any police database. The information to stop comes from the computer in the bailiff's ANPR van and the the police's. The bailiff then passes on the registration number to the congregation of police a few hundred yards down the road. Only then do the police act. Already we have a problem, as the passing on of personal information even to the police for a civil matter is against the primary principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 - which is that all personal data should be safely stored and not made available except under the following sections -28 National Security, section 29 Crime and Taxation, section 35 Legal proceedings - none of which apply to parking. Indeed the pursuance of alleged civil debts is expressely forbidden by the ICO who wrote a directive to this effect on 23rd April 2009 This is why I was able to persuade Manchester City Council back in 2008 to discontinue their bailiffs (marstons) joint police operations. MCC recognised that not even the council, let alone its bailiffs, could pass on personal information on to a third party - which is all the police are in a civil matter

Mikey Mac - There ain't no warrant of control and there ain't any debts in parking - only allegations

Its probably worse than that. The police believe that these self employed bounty hunters are 'court officers' enforcing 'court warrants' and that they have duty to ensure that such enforcements should not be interfered with. If it is then the description 'breach of the peace' is brought into play despite this being legally defined as violence or the imminent threat of violence. Arrests have been made for sitting in one's own vehicle. Then the police have a thing called a 'Civilian Court Enforcement Officer' or 'CEO' as they describe it. The only CEOs are those who dispatch tickets and they must be in uniform. The rest are not even 'officers', they are agents or EAs. Anything with a 'C' in it in relation to a parking or minor traffic enforcement is the result of somebody's imagination. Sorry for missing out 'enforce' in my previous email

BN - you would be right to believe that parking enforcement exists in its own bubble. That is because unlike judicial courts, parking is enforced on a presumption of guilt. This is why joint operations are so repulsive as we should not be asking the police to on what will never be any more than an allegation. The legislators recognised this when drafting section 6. The MET, LAs and bailiffs thought they all knew better and are now in deep trouble.

Section 99 refers to High Court writs and not parking

The answer is simple. Parking enforcement does not go through the county courts and thus sections 85 and 86 of the County Courts Act does not apply which is what Setion 6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 confirms

Not in parking. No judicial courts involved. Refer to Section 6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 which in itself replaces sections 85 and 86 of the County Court Acts 1984.

Sadly I think that the reality is that it has no effect at all. Newlyn has been in denial about this for five years. The director concerned was active on Newlyn's stand at the recent ParkEx exhibition. However it is nice to know that Newlyn and its legal representative seriously feel the need to keep abreast of the forum and that any reference to this judgment still touches a raw nerve.

I notice that the letter is dated 6th June. There is evidence that joint operations were still being held close to Tower Bridge on Monday 9th June. Not only does it seem that somebody lost his car after the police took his keys from the ignition, but his partner was threatened by the police that if she did not vacate the car, social services would be called to take her 3 month baby who was travelling with them. If true it would appear that these operations are not only unlawful, but that insanity may be contagious

All we need now is the input of the famous one thread, one criticism 'Panaka' (fictious protector of a fictious queen) or 'Petamaine' (professional music hall farter) to come back under yet another diversionary banal name in order to try and insult and score brownie points.

Yes the IPCC and others are viewing it right now

My local council begs to differ.

Council tax is not my forte, but I'm pretty sure that your account is now statute barred. Before you pay anybody anything, get some legal advice for if I am right you don't owe anybody anything. Don't waste time asking the bailiff or the council. They just want your money.

In reply HHJ Cryan also observed in his cross examination of a Marstons bailiff ‘You see, what I am partly finding difficult envisaging is the idea of a motorist waiting around in an entirely voluntary basis whilst forms are filled in and you make computer checks on people and go back to them’. ‘One view of what is happening here, as a matter of reality, is that when someone is pulled over by a police officer in uniform, who asks official questions, and then says ‘Here is a bailiff who is going to ask you more official questions’, the overall impression of the whole of this is that the engagement of the bailiff is no less involuntary – in other words, the obligation on the motorist to remain is no less present when the bailiff takes over as when the police officer was there’. ‘Do you not accept that that is an impression which may well be in the mind of the average motorist when stopped in these circumstances…?’ At which the bailiff's (sorry Marstons) barrister intervened.

No it isn't legal. It's worth remembering what His Honour Judge Cryan said whilst cross examining a Marstons bailiff engaged on joint operations ‘Had it occurred to you at any stage that what might be happening could be of doubtful legality?’ ‘Some people might be sceptical about whether what you are describing to me is the real world, or not.

It is rather typical of those enforcing to not know or to confuse the description 'guide' with 'guide'. To an enforcement agent it is to easy to presume that 'guide' means what they want it to mean which is usually something 'optional' that can be ignored in pursuit of excessive fees. No real point in writing a the guide if it can be torn up and tossed aside. Even HHJ Holman who admitted that he was 'wholly unfamiliar with the structure of law regarding traffic penalty enforcement' erroneously felt obliged to dismiss the TEC Applicant's User Guide and DoT Operational Guidance for Local Authorities (Parking Policy and Enforcement) as being 'optional' when in fact both were working documents for the implementation of CPR 75 and the Traffic Management Act 2004 respectively. Pity, for as a confessed novice, he had never actually read them beforehand or sought to obtain advice from either agency before jumping to the wrong conclusion. Had he done so he would have quickly learned that made them guides not in the 'optional' sense, but in the sense that if an EA wants to arrive at the goal, then the EA is duty bound to follow these guides or otherwise fall by the wayside or get hopelessly lost on the way. If only easy assumptions in pursuit of commission were intelligence..........

What would have been very revealing is whether the copies of the 'warrants' which readily appear on smart phones from the respective bailiff offices would have contained the same information, times, dates and fonts had they been copied from what should have been the original and only source ie the local authority's prepared copy. If that was the case then they would have been identical. If that happened I'll give the money mesself.

The responses from the police that can be viewed by the link provided underline the relevance of HHJ Cryan's remark to a bailiff he was cross examining over such joint operations - 'Some people might be sceptical about whether what you are describing to me is the real world or not'. It really was trite and utterly unconvincing reaction from an organisation which clearly has no idea about the fact that it is illegal for the police to be anywhere near a civil matter. Section 163 only allows a police officer to stop a car. It does not allow him to detain the occupants for any civil reason.

Perhaps it might help if I added that this is the continuation of postings originally on the thread about Panorama which for the second time was in great danger of being diverted well away from its original theme concerning the contents of the programme. One bailiff HCEO and one local authority employee thought that personal attacks were fair game. Rather than pollute the original thread, I simply started a new one. What we have here is a local authority employee quite literally boasting about how his council goes about enforcing parking tickets via bailiff and in doing so graphically exposes all the wrong doing that his council thinks are 'normal'.

Is there supposed to be an upshot? This is a forum. If I have said anything factually incorrect the you are invited to criticise it. If you have nothing better to say then please exit stage right

bazm Most bailiffs carry blank warrants that they can quite lawfully fill in if sight of one is requested. If a bailiff does over 40 visits a day (and more if debts are multiples) then thats a lot of wasted trees printed as warrants over a period of time. Fair-Parking Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'. Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really? And did you see any of them doing that? · Today, 11:51 bazm Of course they can fill one out! What do you think a printed one is? Its printed from a computer file at the bailiff's office. All this is doing is showing the warrant details in a readable format provided they have the correct information to copy from. Do you honestly belief that TEC issue warrants in paper format? Fair-Parking Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors. You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant. You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form? And again did you see any bailiff prepare a warrant on the programme? bazm Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion Ha Ha!! Rather new to this!! If only you knew.....! Ok, last time to make it easy for you to understand. The file from TEC is in an electronic format and is received by the local authority. The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant in a readable format for interested parties. This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information. I hope this helps if not I give up. · Today, 12:49 Well actually I do know you work for a local authority hence the self indulgent sneer. But as this post rambled on further into its haughty delusion, it not only unravels but from the horse's mouth it exposes why local authorities get parking enforcement completely wrong and why the statutory procedure they are meant to follow breaks down and becomes guesswork, speculation before metamorphosing into an established maladministration where abnormal becomes normal in the eyes of those who are charged with the duty of administering civil parking enforcement. The file from TEC is in an electronic format.... Yes the file from the TEC is sent electronically as indeed is the file sent to the TEC asking for warrant authorisations. It’s called a 'batch' and it is given a batch reference number. It consists of names, addresses and registration details and could list up to 2000 people. and is received by the local authority. Well it should be but in most cases ie ALL London boroughs, it is not - the actual form received is a TE8a/b complete with the same names, addresses and registration numbers and is received by the local authority's outsourced company who almost certainly asked the TEC for the authorisations in the first place. However what is missing is any sign of a warrant. The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. I've no doubt about that but from the outsourced company and not the local authority This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. I'm ahead of you actually, The outsourced company and not the local authority charged with preparing warrants under CPR 75 (7) (3) has sent people's personal data (without either their knowledge or consent) to a third party for enforcement of a civil debt allegation. This is a violation of the Data Protection Act 1998. The sharing of personal data for the purposes of debt collection is specifically prohibited by the Information Commissioner’s Office. If you wish to argue differently please quote which section of the DPA exempts your council. This personal information is then uploaded into bailiff ANPR vehicles without one warrant ever having been prepared. That means that no ANPR operative will ever have one. At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. No and nor should they a) due to the DPA and b) because it is obvious that the local authority is not involved in the process. It is the local authority and local authority only which is authorised to prepare a warrant. Nobody else – not their outsourced company, their bailiffs or anybody else. And yet the local authorities excuse themselves from their statutory duty to do so. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. Format? The word you require here is FORM and not format - CPR 75 (7) (3) reads as follows ‘Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form’. No mention of format at all. This where it all goes wrong - confusing a ‘format’ whose Oxford English Dictionary definition states ‘the style and manner of an arrangement or procedure’ with a ‘form’ ‘a printed document with blank spaces for information to be inserted’. CPR 75 (7) (3) is quite explicit. It requires the local authority to fill the boxes IN a form, to be precise an Annex 9 template warrant provided in the Applicant User Guide supplied by the TEC. TEC Rule 10.3 cements this by adding ‘see Annex 9’. You must know the procedure if you are not new to all this. Defining whatever passes for the appropriate ‘format’ which is never disclosed by the CPR or TEC is quite impossible and the only way any local authority believing that this is the way forward is to make it up as they go along. The key word in CPR 75 (7) (3) here is must– as in ‘the local authority must’ – and not the bailiffs. Game, set and match. No bailiff filling in of forms at the roadside is permitted. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC Without substituting the word ‘form’ for ‘format’, this sentence makes no sense at all. What format? How can anything be entered into a ‘format’ which defines a procedure and not a document? It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant. Not sure how the local authority can because it forfeited its rights to prepare warrants once it let more that seven days slip by after TEC authorisation, but I have dozens of examples of the bailiff companies doing this in order to fool people that they have some power to do so when they have none. To do it at the roadside also means backdating the times and dates on a legal document and pretending that this remains legal. in a readable format for interested parties. The infamous misreading of CPR 75 (4) (3) which in referring how a local authority can send documentation to the TEC in an acceptable manner or arrangement states ‘Where a document is required to be produced, that requirement will be satisfied if a copy of the document is produced from computer records’. In short the TEC is authorising the electronic transfer of documentary information from the local authority to itself. The TEC confirmed this in an email dated 9th January 2013. As Lord McNally stated – ‘bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings’. This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information. No comment required except to say that adopting and implementing and unlawful procedure over a long period does not make it any more lawful if the same mistake is endlessly repeated. Even the bailiffs on Panorama weren’t so stupid as to fill in ‘warrant’ forms I hope this helps if not I give up. Perhaps it might be best for everybody if you did, because clearly you advocate an unlawful procedure that extracts money from people who should never have been treated this way. As I say abnormal has become ‘normal’. It is a short step from local authorities then convincing themselves that if they have always done it this way, it must be right.

As once again this thread started to drift from its original theme i have started a new thread to deal with basm's last post