Baliffs - Ticket Not Wearing Seat Belt

[droddis]

First of all this is not my ticket, i am looking for advice for a friend.

 

Today baliffs came from drakes on behalf of manchester magistrates court to collect an unpaid ticket issued by Greater Manchester Police.

 

The ticket is was issued to my girlfriends mum for a passenger under the age of 14 not wearing a seatbelt. My girlfriends mum was only a passenger in the car at the time and NOT the driver. It is my understanding that the driver is responsible for the passengers in the car.

 

This offence was also incorrect as all passengers in the car were wearing seatbelts the actual offence was carrying 6 passengers in a car designed to carry 5.

 

The reason the ticket was issued to my girlfriends mum is the fact that she got out of the vehicle and disputed with the police officer.

 

I had to pay the baliffs £270 as they were insistant they were going to seize goods (including mine).

 

I have spoke to the courts on the phone and they said all correspondance needs to be in writing. So i need i am going to write to them and explain. I am also going to phone the police station regarding the matter and have the officer issuing the ticket disciplined.

 

Surely a ticket cannot be enforced if it is illegally issued.

 

Could anyone help or give advice.

 

Regards

David

[Conniff]

Why didn't you go to the court and dispute the issue there ?

 

As the courts has found against you, that makes this not an illegally issued ticket and you will not be able to get anyone disciplined over it.

 

If, at this late stage, you think you have enough evidence to get this overturned, then go ahead and do it. If you win, then you will be able to claim it was illegally issued and ask for the officer to be disciplined.

 

However, as there were six people in the car, then obviously there must have been at least one that was not belted in so I don't think you have any chance of getting this overturned.

[droddis]

No Court papers were ever issued, therefore we never got a chance to defend the issue.

 

The ticket was issued to the wrong person, surely this cannot be acceptable, my girlfriends mum was a passenger and NOT the driver who is responisble for all passengers upto 135cm in height or there 12 birthday (which ever they reach first).

 

As neither of these are the case and the she was not the driver, no law has been broken by her, surely.

 

Thanks

David

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I am also going to phone the police station regarding the matter and have the officer issuing the ticket disciplined.

 

I think that this attitude is unlikely to help your case.

 

As I understand it seatbelts have to be worn if fitted and available. I don't see how the alleged offence has been committed. You need to get this judgment set aside for lack of service of papers and then defend it if re-filed on the basis of no offence and no responsibility for the offence.

[Conniff]

You are right in that it is the driver who is responsible for all passengers under 14 years.

 

This is a fixed penalty offence but you did not receive the fixed penalty notice or the court papers but the baliffs knew where you lived?

[Conniff]

10. Who is responsible for children using child restraints, and what are the penalties?

• Drivers are legally responsible for making sure that children under 14 years use seat belts or child restraints in cars, minibuses, vans and other goods vehicles.

• Those 14 years and above are responsible for themselves.

• The penalty for non-compliance is a £30 fixed penalty notice.

• If a case goes to court, the maximum fine is £500.

• Penalty points are not applicable.

UK Department for Transport | THINK! Road Safety - Welcome to the THINK! web site

[droddis]

So how do i get a judgement set aside???

 

in regards to the police officer, it just angers me that becuase he was challenged he issued a ticket incorrectly. It just doesnt seem fair.

 

It should also be noted this is not a county court claim. It is issued through the magistrates court. Does the procedure change.

 

Thanks

David

[duntaxi2]

You do not have to let a bailiff into your home.

Bailiffs cannot use force to gain initial entry to a property; they can only use 'peaceable means'. Walking in through an unlocked door or climbing in through a window, in such a way as long as they cause no damage, is acceptable. Forcing their way past someone at the door is not. (The only exception being that bailiffs acting for the inspector of taxes can apply for a warrant to force entry on a first visit, but this is very rare).

A bailiff who has gained peaceful entry can use force to open internal doors and cupboards, and will be able to return to the property in the future and if peaceful entry is denied they have the power to break in.

Bailiffs seizing goods

Once the bailiff has gained access they can seize any goods which belong to the debtor although there are some general exceptions: tools, goods, vehicles and other items of equipment as are necessary to that person for use personally by him in his self-employment, business or vocation' and 'such clothing, bedding, furniture, household equipment and provisions as are necessary for satisfying the basic domestic needs of that person and his family'.

What goods can Bailiffs take from my home?

The bailiff is not allowed to take goods that do not belong to the debtor or are subject to hire purchase or conditional sale agreements. The bailiff can also take goods which are jointly owned by the debtor and another person, but if they are eventually sold they must pay the other person their share of the money.

If the bailiff gains peaceful entry they will make a list of all the goods that have been seized. The bailiff can remove goods immediately, and will usually do so where the goods in questions are vehicles. More commonly however, they will leave them on the premises and ask you sign a 'walking possession agreement'. A walking possession agreement means that the bailiff is now in control of the listed goods but is leaving them on the premises for you to look after and continue using. If you sign the walking possession the bailiff can usually charge an additional fee. You will have a short period of time to come to an agreement to pay the arrears (usually 5 days) before the bailiff can return with the intention of removing the goods to sell at public auction.

Complaints about bailiffs

 

Occasionally, the bailiff may do something wrong or act beyond their powers. When this happens there are various avenues for making a complaint. In the first instance, you should try complaining to the bailiff's firm. If this does not remedy the matter you can take the complaint to the creditor as the bailiff is acting as the creditors' agent. Check to see if the creditor has a formal complaints procedure and any codes of practice.

Bailiff organisations

 

If the complaint is still not resolved you can take the matter to the bailiffs' professional or trade organisation. All have the power to discipline the bailiff including exclusion from membership and they can award compensation. If this is a route you want to pursue it may be advisable to contact your local free advice centre for assistance. You may consider taking action against the bailiff in the county court. Sometimes the issue of a Claim can prompt the bailiff into settling without the need and expense of actually having to attend court.

[revolting peasant]

Bailiffs cannot use force to gain initial entry to a property; they can only use 'peaceable means'. Walking in through an unlocked door or climbing in through a window, in such a way as long as they cause no damage, is acceptable. Forcing their way past someone at the door is not. (The only exception being that bailiffs acting for the inspector of taxes can apply for a warrant to force entry on a first visit, but this is very rare).

A bailiff who has gained peaceful entry can use force to open internal doors and cupboards, and will be able to return to the property in the future and if peaceful entry is denied they have the power to break in.

 

Can I ask a question here. If a bailiff walks through my door and gets mugged by my very large and very obvious dogs, am I liable?

[Conniff]

Don't know the answer to that one rp but if it does, will you take some pictures and post them on here

 

Wasn't a woman done some time ago because her dogs attacked a burglar who broke in while she wasn't there.

[revolting peasant]

If my pair get their paws on an intruder the results would probably be governed by the Obscene Publications Act:o

 

I'm not expecting bailiffs but I just wondered if a bailiff was stupid enough to walk through my unlocked door, hear the dogs bark and snarl (as they do) and not walk out again, is he not negligent in not considering the outcome.

 

Don't get me wrong. My dogs are not aggressive but they are terratorial. I took them both to school today to pick up my 3 year old son. I wouldn't do that if I was concerned about them being around other people.

 

I just wondered what would happen to me if a bailiff coming through my unlocked back door got himself had over by 14 stone of canine:rolleyes:

[green_and_mean]

Can I ask a question here. If a bailiff walks through my door and gets mugged by my very large and very obvious dogs, am I liable?

 

 

Yes the dogs are liable to be put down and you would be charged.

[duntaxi2]

droddis

each magistrates court will have a office and if they get complaints about a bailiff as they did where I live they remove the bailiff firm from their list.

You should complain

I fit happens again do not deal with the bailiff at all ,after 3 months but i thinkit either is or has changed to 6 months and the bailiff has not collected the fine it will go back to the magistrates court who will send you a date to appear in court for not paying the fine ,THIS is now the time to run down and pay it will be the original fine with no bailiff costs , so as I did last month you make them run around for nothing.If everyone did this we would close them down as they only get paid if they collect.

[revolting peasant]

Yes the dogs are liable to be put down and you would be charged.

Can you qualify that? My dogs are on their own territory and are trained to defend it. They are not naturally aggressive but will defend my wife and son against intruders when I am not here.

 

If my wife is happy with whoever is at the door, she can back the dogs down no problem. Trust me, the dogs are trained to do a job and they will do it. A one word command when she is satisfied that the caller is legit and they will disappear. Any sign of aggression they will come back and will deal with it by means of "non invasive aggression".

[green_and_mean]

If its trained to defend then its a guard dog

 

Guard Dogs Act 1975 Section 1, which is in force, relates to the control of guard dogs.

Section 1 states:

(1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person ('the handler') who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a guard dog at any premises except:

(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or

(b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.

 

A baliff is not an intruder by law so is legally entering the property so you are liable for any harm coming to them.

[revolting peasant]

They are not trained as guard dogs, they are trained to defend my wife and son if I am not here. I did say that a singal word command will stand them off. They are pet dogs that just happen to be big and well trained. They are normally kept in a run outside the house but if I am on nights the stay in.

 

They are trained to be noisy and intimidating. They would only attack if my wife or son were attacked. We have signs up that caution unwary strangers about the dogs. The postman and the milkman love them because they know them. The soppy buggers kiss the milkman everytime he calls for the bill to be paid but recognize his van and don't stir when he comes to deliver the milk at 5 in the morning.

 

I have my dogs well trained and have no problems with them. It's people who don't have a relaionship with their dogs that are the problem but we are getting away a bit from the OP

[Conniff]

But will they help the op mother get off not wearing a seat belt ?

[revolting peasant]

Sorry - gone off subject

[duntaxi2]

put up a sign BEWARE OF DOG I doubt if they would come in, if he does you have done what you can to warn him ,if he then goes in he is negligent in not looking after himself and I bet his employers insurance would have something to say about it

[droddis]

Bit late. but i did get a result with this one. The court agreed they acted inapropriately with this case and refunded all the cost excluding the origional £30 fine. Result. The driver agreed to pay half towards the fine so we will let it be at that. The baliffs didnt win.

[Mossycat]

put up a sign BEWARE OF DOG I doubt if they would come in, if he does you have done what you can to warn him ,if he then goes in he is negligent in not looking after himself and I bet his employers insurance would have something to say about it

 

Whoa, off topic i know but...........

 

Do not ever put a sign up saying BEWARE OF DOG, if you do you are admitting that you own a dog that people should beware of (ie you accept it is dangerous). Should your dog attack someone who enters your premises either legally or illegally then they are entitled to claim off you and displaying a sign like that makes it easier for them to win their case.

 

Now can we return to the OP's topic?

 

Mossy

[Yellow160]

Whoa, off topic i know but...........

 

Do not ever put a sign up saying BEWARE OF DOG, if you do you are admitting that you own a dog that people should beware of (ie you accept it is dangerous). Should your dog attack someone who enters your premises either legally or illegally then they are entitled to claim off you and displaying a sign like that makes it easier for them to win their case.

 

Now can we return to the OP's topic?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Yellow160
.

[lamma]

huh ?

[Zamzara]

Suppose you have two burglers, and each get shot by their victims. Victim A has a sign that says "Beware of owner with gun, if you're not supposed to be here, you'll be shot"; Victim B has no sign. But both shot their respective burglers. Does Victim A declaring the fact he'll shoot you make him more liable than Victim B, who was also packing, but didn't broadcast it? Only difference is Burgler B didn't KNOW his victim was armed and was gonna shoot him, but same result, but he wouldn't of had to worry about it if he hadn't been doing what he shouldn't have been in the first place, which is the main point.

 

This is totally irrelevant as we're talking about negligence, not deliberate shooting. A dog owner who should have realised his dog is dangerous is more likely to be found negligent than one who couldn't have known.

[crem]

This thread appears to have gone so far off topic I intend suing the FORUM BOARD SATNAV manufacturer for getting me so lost!!