Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[Fair-Parking]

Can't say for sure, but I would hope that he is, otherwise his illegal behaviour would extend into another dimension.

 

Tom Tubby would know.

[Ellie May]

Although I haven't commented for a while I am still watching this thread with interest. Its amazing what you find when you do a bit of digging isn't it? And thanks to all who have helped with this one. I will be very interested to see how it pans out.

 

Just for interest, the original parking ticket in question is now with NPAS, who have also been informed of GMP's involvement with decriminalised parking. Bet I'm top of MCC's christmas card list!!

 

As for the persistant offender bit how rude!!! Also can someone expalin 'self selection to me'?

 

Finally, I find it incredible and amusing in equal measure that GMP have no records of how many cars were stopped in relation to unpaid PCN's in the last three years, but yet they can spit out stats like 60% of those stopped (from Marston's info presumbably) required immediate police action. Selective record keeping perhaps?

[Fair-Parking]

Yes, this is still very active and information is still being gathered. Watching you and I spoke at some length a week or so ago.

 

Given the role of Marstons in this and in the tragic passing of Andy Miller, its important that we get our facts rights and beyond condemnation from those who would prefer that we be discredited.

[JonCris]

If we are to follow the GMP argument to it's obvious conclusion then we could all find ourselves being detained because of non-payment of a phone bill........or even bank charges

 

GMP are running amok & must be stopped.

 

Incidentally I wonder how they feel now about being associated with the likes of Marstons

[lamma]

they have linked up data so why can't they report on it ? see http://www.jdi.ucl.ac.uk/downloads/conferences/fourth_nat_map_conf/Slides%202006/4thNCMC%203A%20Gill%20Mamode.pdf

[lamma]

a bit more on Manchester's 'integrated approach' here http://www.civilenforcementnow.com/a/files/pdf/12_1.pdf

[JonCris]

a bit more on Manchester's 'integrated approach' here http://www.civilenforcementnow.com/a/files/pdf/12_1.pdf

 

I note all paid for by debt collection agencies

[lamma]

Exactly. one wonders if any fees were paid to GMP for the on-street detentions over civil debts.

[letshelp]

Exactly. one wonders if any fees were paid to GMP for the on-street detentions over civil debts.

 

Sounds like another FOI request to ask GMP that very question.

regards

[68904]

Normally the Police attend at the execution of a civil warrant, to ensure that no breach of the peace is occasioned.

That means the police do not batter down the door or enter a dwelling that is for the baliffs to do.

The BOP may be occasioned by the baliffs or the person who is named in the warrant, and feds are there to ensure there is no BOP on both side of the dispute.

[lamma]

agreed, anyone can ask them at attend when serving. doesn't mean no payment was made......

[JonCris]

Normally the Police attend at the execution of a civil warrant, to ensure that no breach of the peace is occasioned.

That means the police do not batter down the door or enter a dwelling that is for the baliffs to do.

The BOP may be occasioned by the baliffs or the person who is named in the warrant, and feds are there to ensure there is no BOP on both side of the dispute.

 

 

Now back to the REAL world

 

The police although not supposed to take part in the levy often threaten to arrest the debtor if they refuse the debt collector/bailiff access to their home. This is even though the bailiff has no valid warrant of execution or that such a warrant still does not give the bailiff a right to enter the debtors home without consent.

 

I'm afraid that most police forces & their officers have little or no understanding of the law governing the enforcement of debt. This has been amply demonstrated for all to see in the recent BBC program where we saw members of the firm JBW blatantly committing offenses against the debtor when demanding payment. Their appalling behaviour was compounded by the fact that the police assisted in this charade

 

Furthermore there have even been instants when the police have actually spent time lecturing debtors on the need to pay their debts

 

These scenarios have happened where the request for help has come from the debtor (in other words the victim) & the police have sided with the debt collector

[letshelp]

Now back to the REAL world

 

The police although not supposed to take part in the levy often threaten to arrest the debtor if they refuse the debt collector/bailiff access to their home. This is even though the bailiff has no valid warrant of execution or that such a warrant still does not give the bailiff a right to enter the debtors home without consent.

 

I'm afraid that most police forces & their officers have little or no understanding of the law governing the enforcement of debt. This has been amply demonstrated for all to see in the recent BBC program where we saw members of the firm JBW blatantly committing offenses against the debtor when demanding payment. Their appalling behaviour was compounded by the fact that the police assisted in this charade

 

Furthermore there have even been instants when the police have actually spent time lecturing debtors on the need to pay their debts

 

These scenarios have happened where the request for help has come from the debtor (in other words the victim) & the police have sided with the debt collector

 

Well said and spot on analysis.

regards

[watchingyou]

Here is the latest reply from the Information Commissioner:-

 

http://www.watchingyou.info/ico2.doc

[Ellie May]

To all of you avid readers of this thread I would be very grateful indeed if you could read the new thread I have just posted 'PCN on Council owned car park', as this is the PCN which led to this fiasco in the first place.

 

Your help would be greatly appreciated.

[JonCris]

Stopping on the basis of self selection may be their argument but why was the bailiff contacted whilst the driver was held at the scene...........Surely whilst using the info might just might be arguable once satisfied that NO criminal offence was or had been committed then surely the detained driver should have been allowed to leave & the bailiff never needed to be contacted at all

 

In other words even if all of what they claim is permissible why contact the bailiff if not to enforce a CIVIL debt. In other words they have been involved in enforcing the levy which is way outside their remit

 

This has to go further & I would suggest the media NOW

[1foxie]

Question for ellie may I Keep reading pcn this, and pcn that. Can your just clarify for me, was the original ticket/noticeA PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE.... OR A PARKING CHARGE NOTICE.......

[lamma]

Penalty Charge Notice

[1foxie]

So can any one,

tell me the differance between,

1/ penalty charge notice and

2/ parking charge notice please

[JonCris]

'Penalty, Fine' etc denotes a criminal offence which it isn't thereby making the ticket unlawful whereas 'Parking' does not & is therefore lawful

[patdavies]

'Penalty, Fine' etc denotes a criminal offence which it isn't thereby making the ticket unlawful whereas 'Parking' does not & is therefore lawful

 

 

Not quite.

 

Decriminalised parking uses Penalty Charge Notices.

 

Private parking [problem] companies use Parking Charge Notices, so that they may claim some semblance of legitimacy in using the acronym PCN

[crem]

As a general guide you can view it that "legal" recognised entities such as the police and councils can levy "penalties" because they are supported by the weight of the law. They are legally referred to as Penalty Charge Notices i.e. PCNs

 

Private bodies such as you and me and PPCs can only charge for a service. In this case a "Charge" to use the car park. These are often called Parking Charge Notices so that they can cheekily (sneakily) refer to them as PCNs so they look official.

[JonCris]

Not quite The terms penalty/fine for decriminalized parking have been challenged to the extent that councils are amending them

[Zamzara]

To be honest, I doubt the ICO complaint is going to be the clincher for the simple reason that they are correct when they say they have no answer to the question "under what authority can you detain". They might get a rap on the knuckles for not providing the figures, but it's not really the main issue.

 

The main issue should be a police misconduct complaint.

[watchingyou]

Apart from all the other things that GMP have done wrong they have quite clearly in my view committed an offense under the Data Protection Act by unlawfully processing data, this data being the data passed to them by Drakes and Marstons Bailiffs that they then used unlawfully I believe in their ANPR system.