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 wararnt on the programme?

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?

One final observation on the Panorama. Whilst the words 'fines' and 'debtors' were used liberally throughout the programme, there are no fines or debtors in civil parking enforcement. There are however 'charges' and 'contraventions'. Even the latter is merely an allegation.

You could clearly see that the bailiffs felt as if those who property they invaded could be contemptuously treated as second class criminals when they had committed no offence at all.

An alleged contravention is no more than an unproven civil accusation.

You seem to be exhibiting a great deal of reliance on rumours and wishful thinking as many people are grateful to Fair Parking for getting their money and vehicles back through taking on local authorities.

If I agree about one thing this is taking the thread away from the programme so if you wish to continue with your incorrect accusations including anything about judges then please start a new thread and do try to put some facts before the rest of us and I'll deal with them and indeed any more bile you would like to spit out.

Back on thread - you have given no good reason why the baliffs had no warrants with them or why they were not even mentioned in the programme. Although one bailiff was moved to say that he was certificated court officer (rather than certificated BY a court) not one bailiff said he had a court warrant.

There can be no greater issues to discuss than baliffs who have no warrants although you can lump in violations of the Data Protection Act ie discussing the matter with any third party who answers the door and then threatening them. Or you could ask why admitted self employed bailiffs were passed personal information from JBW and Newlyn also in violation of the DPA

You did notice these didn't you HCEO? You must also know that the Data Proetction Act prevents such information being shared for any reason that involves the collection of an alleged civil debt. If you didn't then maybe you are not a fit and proper person to hold the office of HCEO.

HCEO - Now there's a typical bailiff reaction. As an HCEO you are not involved in parking to be in any position to comment on how it is abused on a daily basis.

'You have argued the legitimacy of such a warrant previously and lost so as such your comments are irrelevant'.

Lost to who and when? Certainly not to the 65 different local authorities I have written to and who cannot supply any proof at all that they complied with CPR 75 (7) (3). Certainly not to the Local Government Ombudsman who accepted my observations on more than one occasion and certainly not to more than one county court.

Now all you have to do is explain why not one of the baliffs on the programme had a warrant with him as per County Court Rule 26 (7)?

Why would a bailiff leave the one document at home that would legitimise their actions beyond question if he had one?

One vital word was missing from last night's Panorama - 'warrant'.

Nothing any of these bailiffs did could possibly be legal without one. Not one bailiff appeared to have one.

Without a warrant it really doesn't matter who owns the goods taken and thus using an interpleader for their return is a 'red herring' based on an acceptance that a warrant exists, even though in the tradition of the best smoke and mirrors tricks - you never actually saw one.

When is this forum going to return the simple 'edit' button so that embarrassing typos can be corrected simply and quietly

One vital word was missing from last night's Panorama - 'warrant'.

Nothing any of these bailiffs did could possibly be legal without one. Not one bailiff apeared to have one.

Without a warrant it really doesn't matter who owns the goods taken and thus using an interpleader for their return is a 'red herring' based on a ind acceptance that a warrant exists, even though in the tradition of the best smoke and mirrors tricks - you never actually saw one.

Just to let everybody know. I've have literally just received an email form the MoJ congratulating themselves on a job well done for introducing this new invitation for bailiffs to make more unlawful money.

The amount demanded was paid. We await to see if they wish to fight to get back what was unlawfully taken

We seem to be drifting away from the introduction of the Act and the reality of its consequences. This morning's enforcement based on the new Act is a new direction we should all remain focused on.

The bailiffs did not invent this scenario themselves as it was far too complex for a pair of 2 dimensional objects to have dreamt up on their own. Nor does it really serve any purpose to suggest what now exists as the new form 4 complaint. Even these rather slow bounty hunters would argue that they were merely following their 'training' and that in any event they could hardly be expected to know everything about a new law that was just 24 hours old. Thus any complaint about them is unlikely to be viewed by a judge as being entirely justified. This is much deeper.

The audacity of today's action isn't something that was the result of a few drinks in Marstons Valentines Day. This was a planned strategy and a very callous one. The interpleader was meant to be a way of balancing and then rectifying the misdemeanour of wrongful seizure. Bailiffs wouldn't see it that way - this was an opening to take more that they are entitled to and then let those afflicted fight you later. Possession is 9/10ths of the law and if you have got it by fair means or foul then it is you that dictates and not those deprived. Take the car or the money and worry about the consequences later. Let them storm your castle.

First the fact that the court fee for an interpleader rose overnight from £80 to £155 is hardly an incentive for anybody to gamble, even on an decent bet. Marstons and others know that and will make as hard as possible to for a litigant in person to get justice. Barristers and solicitors threatening thousands of pounds of costs will be waiting for the inexperienced and claimants who still naively believe that law and justice are one and the same thing. Bailiff legal teams will soon take advantage of that

It may therefore be wise to look upon this morning's enforcement as an opening gambit in a less than honest scheme of warfare to secure more profits. However I should also thank Marstons for playing their rather dangerous hand on the first day and alerting us.

I would like to think that the MoJ would reconsider what they have created but then it wouldn't matter that much as the MoJ never thought to introduce a governing or disciplinary body to oversee their quest to make bailiff enforcement 'fairer'. I'm not sure that the fees charged today were in line with the new regulations but again it doesn't matter as there is nobody to complain to.

We must be the only country in the world that can introduce rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty and still imagine that we have acheived something worthwhile. In the meantime the MoJ would be last organisation to wake up and realise that their pally bailiff allies that they work so hard to protect are just taking the ..... out of them.

Its been a very long time since I posted but the incident this morning highlighted by Tom Tubby is already in grave danger of developing a new identity of wrongful assumptions.

First I should correct TT on one small aspect - although the police were mentioned they did not attend. Secondly the person who was hijacked by the pair of 2 dimensional Marstons bailiffs/enforcement officers/self employed bounty hunters did not get it wrong. Nor was it a broken agreement. It was the first visit for an alleged parking ticket. I know because I was part of the conversation and spoke to both them.They both confirmed to me that they they been recently taught by Marstons that the house and not a person was was the subject of the 'warrant' (which they never had)

Nor was either the house owner or car owner a 'debtor' as the latter remains the subject of allegations written on a PCN ('the officer who issued this tickets BELIEVES etc...') and never proven in court.

What we have is Marstons pre planned way of sidestepping the new regulations and using them to their advantage.

The MOJ has been hoodwinked because it listens to too many bailiff companies and not enough from those who know exactly how the bailiff deceit has evolved intro strategy.

So once again the 'moderators' decided to censor my post - again without any notification or the courtesy of an explanation. A lot of hard work went into getting the LGO to side with the ordinary person in what was monumental breakthrough achieved not only by hard work but extensive knowledge. Despite my severe reservation on CAG philosophy on censorship, it was given the opportunity to carry this extremely important report

Despite my misgivings about the philopshy of this site, I decided that in such exceptional circumstances when a genuine breakthrough has been achieved through this forum was given the chance to appreciate this accomplish which cannot be explained in a few paragraphs thus the link to my site which explains offers a detailed overview.

Somebody has wrongly and self righteously convinced themselves that this was commecial instead of being helpful. Fair Parking does not need CGA to promote its service and has never attempted to do so.

As dogma has once again been placed in front of knoweldge, there will definitely be no more posts.

That edit button is missing again. One word missing 'it' and one too many words later 'which' and one ketter 'i'.

Put it back please administrators.

I think I need to make it clear that there was no genuine warrant in this case. The 'warrant' sent by the complainant to Fair Parking was also printed on the the old style template withdrawn by the MoJ in April 2011 and which contained the following gems - 'Authorised by the Traffic Enforcement Centre 23/04/12' - that's six months months after it was enforced and 'Issued to the Enforcement Officer 14/09/11'. That's nearly seven months before it was authorised. It was sent to the new address without any name on the envelope and despite the name and old address still being written on the enclosed 'warrant'.

This joke of a document was never prepared by the local authority - in this case LB Redbridge - and that only leaves one other source.

I should also add that the Revocation Order was dated 13th January 2012, three months before this joke 'warrant' was issued. Thus either LB Redbridge was so inept that it prepares warrants after it has received a Revocation Order or by a another party who knew nothing about the Revocation Order and ignorantly printed with realising that the gun was pointed at the feet of LB Redbridge and itself. Newlyn has the software. All you have to do is to work out the most likely scenario.

The Revocation Order granted by the judge cancelled the Notice to Owner and Charge Certificate and revoked the Order for Recovery. It did NOT cancel the warrant which as it did not need to to. The Revocation Order renders any genuine warrant null and void and therefore it does not need to be cancelled.

I should add that the complaint was about the failure of LB Redbridge to refund following the Revocation Order. The 'warrant' wasn't commented on as there was no complaint made about it as it first appeared four months after the complaint was made.

If ever a case highlighted the murky 'smoke and mirrors' procedures adopted as normal 'practice' by local authorities and their bailiff companies, this would be it.

If I could offer one final comment, whenever anybody mentions 'warrants' on a forum, it may be better if scepticism is applied rather than the unversal acceptance that they exist.

For my 1000th post. This was Fair Parking's role in this and the implication of Redbridge (and others) making up legislation. For the rest you will have to visit the website and look up 'Comment'.

On 12th March the Local Government Ombudsman released a report concerning a compliant made by a client of ours. Fair Parking recommended the use of the Local Government Ombudsman's office rather than the county court, as its recommendations have a far greater impact on local authorities as they set precedents that directly concern local authorities.

In the end the LGO report was scathing about the London Borough of Redbridge and recommended that the client be refunded £569 being the full amount of bailiff fees taken, £80 court fees, £224 professional fees (only £99 applied to Fair Parking) plus compensation of £150. LB Redbridge accepted the criticism and agreed to pay £1023. The LGO understands that a cheque was sent a week later.

Following a Revocation Order issued by the Traffic Enforcement Centre, LB Redbridge had previously refunded the ticket value of £172, (£130 + 50% £65 and £7 registration fee) but had refused to refund the bailiff’s fees, somehow believing that the Revocation Order did not cover this and as such the matter of a further refund was nothing to do with them. LB Redbridge had quite lazily and wrongly argued that it was not legally bound to refund bailiff fees. In common with several other London boroughs, LB Redbridge even quoted Section 8 (5a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 as its reason.

Crucial to the LGO decision was the input from Fair Parking which brought to the attention of LB Redbridge and subsequently the LGO that a Revocation Order required the local authority to refund all fees in full. Fair Parking also respectfully pointed out that Section 8 (5a) never existed. LB Redbridge failed to respond and its subsequent apathy over this point of law was also criticised by the LGO.

This case is covered in more depth in our ‘Comment’ section, though it may come as no surprise to learn that despite assurances to the LGO from LB Redbridge that it would change it s practice, nothing has changed at all. It is still apathetic to addressing legal obligations brought to its notice as our last emails of 19th & 20th March to LB Redbridge in two other cases have shown.

One thing that has changed is the fact whilst several other councils have stood by the belief that they need not refund money unlawfully taken from innocent people whom they immorally imagine should stand such an unlawful loss for no explained reason, the Local Government Ombudsman has made it plain that a Revocation Order requires all local authorities to refund not just bailiff fees, but court fees and professional fees also.

As Fair Parking has been advising local authorities for years and contributing to several positive county court judgments in this area, ignoring the lawful obligations of a Revocation Order is not an option. That position has now been officially sanctioned by the Local Government Ombudsman.

PT - 13,

The bailiff is only licensed under the Distress For Rent Rules Act 1988, but does not operate under it when attempting to seize following a PCN - that comes under the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993, whilst the fees should be (but never are) subject to the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certificated Bailiffs) Regulations 1993 which also requires that a Notice of Seizure of Goods and Inventory be left (sometimes - but very often not by ANPR bailffs due to the unlawful nature of their activity).

It is actually part of a long letter which came as an attachment from a client, but I have copied and pasted the part that is relevent.

'I have attached a copy of this document for your perusal (should you have any concerns over the legitimacy of the Warrant, you can contact the Northampton County Court who will clarify this). The enforcement process allows for a vehicle to be seized in the absence of the registered keeper. The vehicle was bound to the Authority once the warrant had been issued on 24 April 2012; the Council were not privy to, nor can it be held responsible for the fact that the vehicle was sold to you with a Warrant impending. The bailiff therefore had every right to levy on the vehicle once initial attempts to recover the amount owed had failed'.

Not only do these fools think that Northampton County Court isses warrants, but clearly this means LB Barking & Dagenham did not which CPR 75 (7) (3) demands it does. Thus although somebody has printed one (last month and not before 1st May as per the time limit set by CPR 75 (7) (3)) no legitimate warrant was printed by LB Barking & Dagenham (better nor use the word 'fake' as it upsets the moderators). Just an everyday occurance in parking enforcement.

They have also managed to confuse the fact that it is people who are responsible to pay tickets and not cars.

Good and chattels are allowed to be seized and that is written on a warrant, but the question was whether there is a rule somewhere that allows a bailiff to clamp for an unpaid PCN. There is no such rule, not even for LB Barking & Dagenham, who this week announced in an email that as soon as a warrant is issued a car becomes their property.

When did Count Arthur move to Essex?

PT - There isn't one.

Lamma makes a good point in that the rules of the judicial courts are printed and are available for all to see whilst the TEC follows no such procedure and their rules are kept from the public. However the TEC is a court but because it is an administrative one it's rules are diected at only one form of party - its members and subscribers, the local authorities. They all receive copies of the rules which the TEC presumably believes is nothng to do with the rest of us. Far better of course to be more transparent and let everybody see them.

Nevertheless as no other rules exist, these must be the rules of the court if only by default and that is an important point because without them there would be no rules at all. LAs must abide by these rules. It is not when LAs stick to these rules that problems arise, it is when they are abused under the guise the TEC Code of Practice is merely a 'guide' and can be ignored by LAs and bailiffs who then of course implement their own 'rules' and make them up as they go along - always of course to suit themsleves and very often so as to act unlawfully and contemptously towards the public.

Thus the TEC rules are by best option by far, for the alternative is chaos and abuse bringing about the failure of LAs to print warrants, for baliffs to not carry them with them and for bailiff to print them theirselves in order to backdate them. The most obvious product of the failure to abide by TEC rules comes in the form of ANPR bailiffs, who exist purely because LAs and Bailiff completely ignore the TEC's rules.

I'm sorry but I cannot direct the OP on his plight. The problem is the Data Protection Act 1998 is there and almost universally ignored by all those who feel that it should have no effect on them. The courts certainly do not understand the Act and I have no confidence in the ICO to take effective action.

With regard to Old Snowy. We both share the same reservations. With regard to information being made to available to police, customs and councils S29 (Crime & Taxation) already covers those exemptions but not when councils look for information to chase allegations of civil debts (ie parking).

I deviate from OS when it comes to finding a shortcut for those who cars have been damaged etc to establish identity. The DPA was not written to suit to traffic accidents and it isn't there to equalise human rights. It is there to protect personal records and identity and if it falls short in the matters of road accidents then that is a fact of life. The law stands as it is and should not be manipulated by anybody looking for exceptions and then inventing them by saying 'the DPA doesn't go far enough'.

If that is the case then the law needs to changed or new ones introduced and by the European Commission rather than by a back room committee in this country writing about motor cars and seemingly in ignorance of the implications of their failure to obey a far reaching European law not based on vehicles.

Those who drafted S27 have made no attempt top explain why they feel it can be push aside the DPA or made any mention of the fact that the DPA exists at all. ALL new statute which replaces or modifies previous statutes are required to explain and make clear just which parts of the previous law are being modified or deleted. S27 fails completely in this respect and that makes it indefensibly unique.

With regard to the point Old Snowy was making in paragraph 3. The whole purposes of the DVLA supplying this personal information is for enable another to pursue that person without either his knowledge or permission and with a view to doing him some harm.

Those who drafted trhe DPA surely meant to achieve the opposite.

I have just come across this thread and I am rather interested in its comments. First the Traffic Enforcement Centre.org was my website. It is currently down pending an update that requires the assistance of the webhosts - BT whose contact I understand is off work at the moment, but it will be back shortly. In the meantime I would like to confirm that the TEC IS a court but only an administrative one and not a judicial one. There are no judges, solicitors, barristers, hearings or public access, it exists purely to serve what it describes as its 'members' - the local authorities who all pay a subscription that ultimately will allow them to ask for authority to issue warrants. Incidently the TEC never challenged the comments on that website

The TEC does not have the power of decision and it upholds the one aspect that binds the whole parking enforcement - a presumption of guilt - a description I had formulated myself before having it independantly confirmed by a senior representative of the MoJ in a face to face conversation in March 2011. Our judicial courts do not have that luxury.

The last post quoted two long paragraphs which I had written a couple of years back. I have no reason to alter any of the words. In short nothing has happened since I composed them to show they were incorrect. I did carry a rye grin for another thread directed at NMAG carried the warning that Green & Mean was never gong to post again because he didn't see why commercial sites could copy what he said. If he is still reading this forum, may I be permmitted the opposite observation that in this case it is a quotation from my words on a commercial site that were quoted on a free forum, but then I take the view that if you write anything for public consumption then don't be surprised if the public requotes what you said. Your're welcome.

I not surprised that both Jamberson & Green Mean have taken the views of people who have or are serving in local authorities with one confirming that he worked in the bailiff departement. Nor am I surprised that the OP and others took great umbrage at what they saw as instructions to pay up.

However despite the implications that refusal to pay and bow to the system which Jamberson and G & M were preaching, a presumption of guilt is no way to impose dictatorial system that is NEVER backed by a judical court. Even Tom Tubby was not spared their wrath despite the fact that everything she posted was entirely correct. Nor is the sentiment that this thread was encouraging people to ignore the law a fair comment.

I have found that the problem with people who work in Councils is that they whilst they are extremely clued up on how parking tickets are administered up to when the TEC authorises a warrant, then have no idea of what happens afterwards and how from this point the system is completely abused by councils and bailiffs, that is because with few exceptions they have (unlawfully) passed the case on to third party bailiffs whilst council officials seem to believe that everything is hunky dory. By constantly trying to assert that the TEC issues warrants when it does not, it is fairly obvious that the one who worked in the Council bailiff department is admitting that his local authority have never issued warrants for parking. That makes all their actions unlawful from that point, thus anybody refusing to co-operate is not disobeying the laws and should be encouraged rather than condemned for standing firm against what Mr Justice Owen described in the High Court of Justice on 17th July as a council 'reign of terror against its own citizens'.

What this boils down to is that councils universally believe that the vailidity of the PCN is all that matters and it is this sentiment which comes over most strongly in Jamberson's and Green & Mean's comments. The validity or otherwise of the PCN is not enough. When Fair Parking challenges councils it never challenges the validity or otherwise of the PCN, it is always about bailiffs trying to enforce them unlawfully. The problem is ALL councils I have dealt with appear completely unable to differentiate between a valid PCN and the unlawful methods used to enforce them.

The last words go the HHJ Platt speaking Romford County Court on 20th June 2011 where i was in attendance. 'Whether or not a PCN is valid, the local authiority and its agfents must act within the law at all times'.

For the DVLA to break the DPA it would have to think of excuses, however there is little point in this country signing up to the DPA and then inventing other laws to get round it. Personally I don't think that is the case and that it is the DVLA which is hanging on to a very thin straw that has yet to challeneged in court.

S35 is about legal proceedings. Handing out people's private data to those who chase imagined parking charges is not only nothing to do with legal proceedings but a primary 2009 directive from the ICO has specifically said that the handing out of such data for civil debt is not covered by exemptions to the DPA

The RVLA 2002 has nothing to do with human rights and DVLA reliance on it to circumvent such important issues is likely to fall at the first hurdle if and when somebody does take it to court.

How exactly does 27 (e) RVRL 2002 - a little known technical English law designed to tidy up a 40 year old vehicle registration - overrule a mighty European directive and later European law on human rights through DPA protection?

This the only excuse the DVLA has for collecting lots of £2.50's from anybody and everybody whilst pretending to pay lip service to the DPA. What on earth does the DVLA think the DPA is for if not to protect people's private data and identity?

Quoting RVRL 27 as a legitimate 'reason' is a bit like having a pair of 2's in a poker game when your opponent has 4 aces.