Fair Parking?

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[patdavies]

The Police can also request you produce the V5 for inspection if you fail to do so you can be fined.

I don't think so - for what purpose; what would it prove?

 

A 'producer' is driving licence, MoT certificate and insurance.

 

Nobody with a company car can produce a V5

 

 

However, a question for Fair-parking. It is a legal requirement to have the V5 to take the vehicle to Europe - how is this overcome in your scheme?

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[patdavies]

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.

 

So who holds the V5?

 

And is it only your address that is on it - the RK's name remains the same?

 

Please don't think that I am trying to be awkward - I am simply trying understand how your (seemingly simple but effective) system gels with the requirements the law places on an RK.

[Fair-Parking]

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.

[PPC Buster]

What happens when a bailiff like Drakes, Waller etc using ANPR collar your car parked up in a street? They are not going to care where the V5 is addresses to. They will clamp and levy distress on the car.

[emsgeorge]

So, Fair-parking, having had a look at your site, I think you are right, and it is so simple, to be effective !.

 

Can you explain what you do when you get correspondance from:

 

PPC's - do you simply ignore, or tell them 'not known at this address' ?.

 

Council tickets - again, do you simply ignore it, or write back to them. What do you say ?

 

I agree that this sytem will work for as long as you dont park your vehicle where a ANPR system operated by baliffs will be able to read your plate. Then again, what are the chances of that baliff's company spotting your vehicle, as the recovery order / warrant information will only be available to that baliff company.

 

Unless the police all over the country start 'helping' baliff companies, then the chance of your vehicle being taken is slim to very slim - and I have only even seen the police working on a 'multi agency' road block style in London (in fact, on Cars Cops and Baliffs - which is also on tonight, BBC1, 7.30pm !!!).

[PPC Buster]

Apparently Drakes have some deal with GMP.

[Fair-Parking]

I have absolutely no doubt that some private bailiffs will clamp your car. However they have no lawful base to do so. Nor can any bailiff levy distress on a car or anything else without a court order that entitles him to do so.

 

Bailiffs may be as ignorant about the law as their victim on clamping but they have two advantages. First they are cock sure in their misbegotten belief and secondly they have your car. Possession as they say is 9/10ths of the law

 

Before he us joined one of our members took an angle grinder and cut off a clamp on his car. He then took the pieces of clamp to the local police station who refused to become involved pleading that this was 'a civil matter'. As far as I know he still has the clamp. Our member regained possession of his car. The clampers never showed their face again.

 

No grounds for them to do so.

[lamma]

they probably pay towards costs. ( hiring a private police force it seems to me..) but if these drivers are stopped by the police but the bailiffs are not Court Bailiffs with Court papers why don't the drivers just drive away ? there would be no law broken would there ?

[Fair-Parking]

emsgeorge. Our standard letter to any civil enforcer be they councils or PPC's is to say 'Thank you for your correspondence which we have passed on to our clients'.

 

I don't know whether what PPC Buster said is true about Drakes and what I presume is Greater Manchester Police and given the little story I told in my last post it may not be, but the idea that the police should become involved in unproven civil parking matters isn't something any of us should treat as being right or normal. There is no point to decriminalised parking if the police become involved. If there is any evidence of this I would be glad to gather it and to write to the Chief Constable.

 

And lamma you are absolutely right, no law would be broken for the police to become involved.

 

If anybody does watch Cars, Cops and Bailiffs, watch out for the bailiffs who state 'I am a court bailiff'. 'I have a court order'. You'll know then that these people lie without batting an eyelid. Then watch and see if they produce anything that is court stamped confirming what they have said, or whether they leave the victim to believe in the verbal deceit.

[lamma]

it would be interesting see the response of a Chief Constable to a well worded letter about this.

[PPC Buster]

ITV Nightwatch - FightBack Forums

There were a total of twelve tickets all of which were parking fines from London. The GMP ANPR unit showed a hit for the Drakes bailiff. They then held the man and spent wheat appeared to be a huge amount of police time and manpower (multiple officers/cars). It does appear they would not allow him to leave.

 

The Drakes enforcer who looked like a real nasty piece of work said he could drive to the bank and pay a grand immediately. He advised if he didn’t he would be stopped by the police again and/or his car would be taken away.

 

I find it very concerning that the police are wasting valuable police resources and time pursuing the work of Drakes bailiffs. I don’t think the police had any legal right to hold the man and I would also question the legality of Drakes uploading parking ticket fines onto the Police ANPR system

 

This is the second time I have seen this behaviour now. Previously there was a programme showing police in Westminster. Again police were performing sops on behalf on the bailiff company. I think this is unlawful use of police powers.

[Fair-Parking]

I was vaguely aware of the Manchester incident, but it could be a one off The whole incident could have been due to police ignorance of civil law as indeed the following incident from London was.

 

A council employed bailiff called to enforce a parking contravention on another person who later became a member. He first put his foot in the door (illegal), he said that he was a 'court bailiff' when he must have known that he worked for the council, he then produced what he said was a 'warrant of execution' (typed in his own office) and when the member still refused entry the bailiff called the police.

 

The council he represented having opted for decriminalised parking, must have decided that it either didn't like the rules it had freely chosen to collect loads of money under or it didn't understand them. Calling for the cavalry because you can't handle the situation you had created was not an option.

 

On arrival (2 police cars and 4 officers) the bailiff showed one policeman his 'warrant of execution' who in turn told our member that the bailiff had 'the right documentation'. Having already mistaken a council document for a court document, the unfortunate police officer then committed another error by assuming that a 'warrant of execution' was also a right of entry. He was wrong on both points, but the householder now had a policeman telling him that he had to allow the bailiff entry. He understandably but wrongly presumed that the policeman knew the law.

 

The bailiff then went on to say that the document affected everybody in the house even though his addled brain should have told him that the only person he should be pursuing was Mr. As a result he levied on the TV owned by Mrs who was not party to any of this.

 

This whole mess was brought about by sheer ignorance on the part of everybody involved, but more so because those in 'authority' and those who were in authority wrongly presumed that bailiff must be right. Most members of the public would have felt more than a bit unsure about their rights in such shocking circumstances.

 

The upshot of this is that after contacting us, the member lodged a statutory notice to the TEC and never paid anything. The bailiff never came back as he has entered illegally in the first place and the local DCI received a long email from us questioning why in these days of fraudulent entry into property, the police had actively and willingly assisted a private citizen to acheive just that. The DCI was also advised to contact the Devon and Cornwall Police website where he would find good solid advice available to all members of that constabulary in regard to bailiffs.

 

The council? They were also written to and after what they said was a 'thorough investigation' came to the conclusion that nobody in their employ had acted irresponsibly. They still type their own 'warrants of execution'.

 

This why we introduced our scheme, the police wont look after you and the councils will look after themselves without any consideration to you.

 

One thing is for certain, had that member been with us before the parking ticket had been written this whole alarming episode which drained both Mr & Mrs through weeks of stress, would never have happened.

 

However this was not a conspiracy between council and police which it could be viewed as - especially as nothing has changed in either police procedure or council mentaility. It was the blind leading the blind. We all have a right to more than that

 

That is why I would need more than one incident in Manchester before I could become confident in bringing this to the Chief Constable's attention.

 

But rest assured if the evidence is there I most certainly will.

[lamma]

holy smoke ! its worse than I imagined then (the Nightwatch link/text). How can we find out what fees these bailiffs pay to the police for their "assistance". Or maybe the pursuing council pays the police and the bailiffs just live off the take for the night. Is this police activity overtime - and fully funded by the Council/bailiff. Not just full salary costs, what about vehicle costs etc ? If it is not overtime then it is even worse I think. the police 'holding' someone for for a civil matter - for payment (probably). Isn't this totally and utterly wrong ? ? Interestingly enough IF the police have a sound reason it would be good to see it - as that coin should have two sides.... is this issue worth a thread of its own ?

[green_and_mean]

I don't think so - for what purpose; what would it prove?

 

A 'producer' is driving licence, MoT certificate and insurance.

 

Nobody with a company car can produce a V5

 

 

However, a question for Fair-parking. It is a legal requirement to have the V5 to take the vehicle to Europe - how is this overcome in your scheme?

 

The Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002

 

Production of registration document for inspection

12. The keeper of a vehicle in respect of which a registration document has been issued shall produce the document for inspection if he is required to do so at any reasonable time by a constable or by a person acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.

[mfpa]

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.

I was referring chiefly to the "owner liability" (which actually falls on the registered keeper rather than the owner) for local authority tickets, which gives rise to the private bailiffs' involvement and the councils' claimed ability to pursue the penalty as if it were a legitimate debt.

[buzby]

Grean and Mean - you are making heavy weather of something that is invariably never a problem. This rule is unchanged since the days of cardboard vehicle 'log books'. In this technical age a PNC check fufficies and is usually the preferred method - as paper documents supplied by the RK could be easily amended or altered.

 

As for the lack of a V5 for presentation - for those who do not have access to the standard V5C, you can on request issue a VE103 for which satisfies this usual requirements, and this is issued by AA/RAC, Green Flag, RHA/FTA on request. Normally used for leased, hired or rental vehicles, the fact the V5C is stored elsewhere - say by Fair Parking, is enough to provide a useful alternative document.

 

The scheme echoes a system I had in place for many years, using a Royal Mail PO Box, which achieved the same goal for minimal cost. The NEW regulations requiring vehicle owners to 'prove' their identity will be FP's main problem. To support a V5C address change, they want substantiation - this will notmally be a driving licence. Failing this, the usual 'money laundering' documents to prove the address supplied. FP's aims may well be laudible, but the identity checks will prevent this being a useful service in the future.

[Fair-Parking]

mfpa. I can see where you are coming from on this and yes you are quite right, councils were granted the right under the RTA 1991 to pursue debts in connection with alleged parking contraventions.

 

However the powers granted could be considered to be having a guard dog and having to restrain it with a muzzle. Councils were not given the right for either them or their agents to abuse or extend (sometimes unlawfully) their powers as is happening on a daily basis.

 

Unfortunately in such situations, the propaganda aspect (the art of telling a lie long enough and loud enough so people eventually believe it) has led to a public perception that the councils and their bailiffs must be right. Thus their abnormal behaviour is now generally accepted as being normal

[mfpa]

The NEW regulations requiring vehicle owners to 'prove' their identity will be FP's main problem. To support a V5C address change, they want substantiation - this will notmally be a driving licence. Failing this, the usual 'money laundering' documents to prove the address supplied. FP's aims may well be laudible, but the identity checks will prevent this being a useful service in the future.

 

Are these regs just proposed, or actually passed but not yet in force? I checked the DVLA website and it currently requires nothing to back up a notification of address change for a v5c.

[buzby]

In force - but NOT for an address 'change', it is required for any first registration (a new or imported vehicle) there's nothing that stipulates that a CofA notification has to provide supporting documentation, but watch this space, you can be sure this little anomaly hasn't gone unnoticed. As with SORN, the ability to but the mechanism in place is required, then the enforcement quickly follows.

[PPC Buster]

So if I buy a used car from Delboy I will need to supply proof of identity to get my name and address onto the V5?

[green_and_mean]

Why are links to commercial sites banned if businesses are allowed to advertise and promote the benefits of their site despite being against forum rules?

 

A topic/post will be edited or deleted if it contains:

 

 

* Xenophobia, racism or personal abuse.

 

 

* Pornography, links to Pornography or links to other inappropriate sites

 

 

* Sexually explicit content

 

 

* Touting for business in any way

 

 

* Any form of unauthorised advertising or Spam

 

 

* Advertising or sale of illegal bootleg material

 

 

* Any type of pyramid selling or referral schemes

 

 

* Anything invasive in to a persons privacy

 

 

* Any copyright-infringing content

 

 

* Obvious disregard for the interests of The Group

 

 

* Illegal/defamatory statements

[PPC Buster]

Report the post if you feel that way.

[lamma]

perhaps posts #1 and #2 should be re-read to give perspective.

 

from there it was just folks trying to figure it out.