Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[green_and_mean]

So, a PCN is issued for a decriminalised parking contravention and FPN's are issued for non recordable offences, often non endorseable. Where is the link to criminal behaviour?

 

There have been several studies on the subject which link the two such as Broughton, J. (2006). The Correlation Between Motoring Offences and Other types Of Offence.

[lamma]

it is assault.

 

do we have anyone here that this has happened to recently ? and who is prepared to stand up and complain ?

[crash3903]

I would think that such detention would amount to false imprisonment.

 

Lets encourage the OP to make an allegation of false imprisonment as a test case

it is assault.

 

do we have anyone here that this has happened to recently ? and who is prepared to stand up and complain ?

 

Same with this one for assault

 

Maybe FairParking can complain on their behalf as they offered above

[lamma]

I think also the Police (Conduct) regulations.

 

Sad to say but the IPCC is not the way to go on this...

[gwc1000]

There have been several studies on the subject which link the two such as Broughton, J. (2006). The Correlation Between Motoring Offences and Other types Of Offence.

 

Not as I understand that paper. It does not link PCNs and FPNs as you suggest. It links Non-motoring offences against Motoring offences. Not PCNs. In fact that study found that the number of speeding offences decreased with the number of non-motoring offences committed.

[green_and_mean]

Not as I understand that paper. It does not link PCNs and FPNs as you suggest. It links Non-motoring offences against Motoring offences. Not PCNs. In fact that study found that the number of speeding offences decreased with the number of non-motoring offences committed.

 

 

You could be correct, however its the Police who maintain there is a connection not me so its them you need to convince.

[gwc1000]

You could be correct, however its the Police who maintain there is a connection not me so its them you need to convince.

But thinking about it, this is all irellevant. The purpose of the stop was purely to force the OP to contact the bailiffs, not to check the condition of the car.

[green_and_mean]

But thinking about it, this is all irellevant. The purpose of the stop was purely to force the OP to contact the bailiffs, not to check the condition of the car.

 

I guess only the copper who stopped the driver knows the real reason. Even if it was to contact the balliffs an hour seems a long time to be standing at the roadside.

[gwc1000]

I guess only the copper who stopped the driver knows the real reason. Even if it was to contact the balliffs an hour seems a long time to be standing at the roadside.

Well this is what the OP said in the first post:

They told me this was becasue there was a warrant against my car for an unpaid PCn and forced my to call Drakes / Marsden Group before they would let me leave for work.

[green_and_mean]

Well this is what the OP said in the first post:

They told me this was becasue there was a warrant against my car for an unpaid PCn and forced my to call Drakes / Marsden Group before they would let me leave for work.

 

....and that took an hour?

[lamma]

and this bailiffs warrant is a CIVIL matter.

The police are not 'the authority' according to the Practice Directions.

 

As the TEC themselves publish on:-

Traffic Enforcement Centre

 

The legislation relating to TEC is:

 

 

The Road Traffic Act 1991 (schedule 6)

 

London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended)

The Road Traffic (Vehicle Emission) (Fixed Penalty) (England) Regulations 2002

 

The London Road User Charging Regulations 2001

 

The Civil Procedure Rules relating to the TEC is Part 75

 

 

Thems the rules folks.

 

 

CPR part 75 is here

PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT

 

Practice Direction supplement CPR 75 refers to is here

PRACTICE DIRECTION – TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT - This Practice Direction supplements CPR Part 75

 

 

For the avoidance of doubt here is the definition

" ‘authority’ means the authority entitled to recover amounts due under the enactments referred to in paragraph"

 

So where is their 'get out' that allows the police to do this legally ? i.e. for civil debts created by decriminalised parking tickets.

Edited May 26, 2008 by lamma

[PPC Buster]

This is a matter that should be taken up with the CC of GMP. He is the one with the answers.

[Rob S]

There have been several studies on the subject which link the two such as Broughton, J. (2006). The Correlation Between Motoring Offences and Other types Of Offence.

 

As usual G & M you are missing the point. The police should not be involved in proactively stopping vehicles which show up on ANPR for the sole reason of having an outstanding PCN. It is not within their remit. After all, if you went to the police to complain about the behaviour of a bailiff collecting a civil debt you can guarantee that 99.9 times out of a 100 they would say it's a civil matter. You only have to go to the debt section to see plenty of posts to show this. So why should they be getting involved with a private company and helping them collect civil debts?

[green_and_mean]

As usual G & M you are missing the point. The police should not be involved in proactively stopping vehicles which show up on ANPR for the sole reason of having an outstanding PCN. It is not within their remit. After all, if you went to the police to complain about the behaviour of a bailiff collecting a civil debt you can guarantee that 99.9 times out of a 100 they would say it's a civil matter. You only have to go to the debt section to see plenty of posts to show this. So why should they be getting involved with a private company and helping them collect civil debts?

 

Police should not shoot people because they have a nice tan and a rucksac but that doesn't seem to stop them! The Police will stop you on the grounds you are wearing a hoody, which is not an offence civil or criminal so if they can justify that why not outstanding parking tickets?

[Rob S]

Police should not shoot people because they have a nice tan and a rucksac but that doesn't seem to stop them!

 

What an absurd response. It shows you are totally bereft of logic if that is the best you can come up with to answer why the police should be getting involved in a partnership with a private company who are chasing civil debts.

 

The Police will stop you on the grounds you are wearing a hoody, which is not an offence civil or criminal so if they can justify that why not outstanding parking tickets?

 

But they don't have the bailiffs on stand-by once they have stopped the person with the hoody:rolleyes:

[green_and_mean]

What an absurd response. It shows you are totally bereft of logic if that is the best you can come up with to answer why the police should be getting involved in a partnership with a private company who are chasing civil debts.

 

 

 

But they don't have the bailiffs on stand-by once they have stopped the person with the hoody:rolleyes:

 

I don't recall the balliffs attending in the OPs scenario either, she just said the reason the Police stopped her was because she was showing as having an outstanding PCN at collection stage. It didn't sound like the car was seized or that the debt was settled.

I cannot see why this is such a problem, if you are not breaking the law what is the problem with being stopped. If the car is correctly registered the balliff can simply visit your address to collect the money anyway?

This site is not about advice on avoiding the law, if you parked in contravention you can appeal, if you lose you pay, thats the law.

[Rob S]

I don't recall the balliffs attending in the OPs scenario either, she just said the reason the Police stopped her was because she was showing as having an outstanding PCN at collection stage. It didn't sound like the car was seized or that the debt was settled.

 

Agreed that that is not 100% clear, but it seems a good possibility that Drakes did attend.

 

 

I cannot see why this is such a problem, if you are not breaking the law what is the problem with being stopped.

 

What law would the OP have been breaking in relation to a civil debt that would allow the police to get involved solely for this issue?

 

 

If the car is correctly registered the balliff can simply visit your address to collect the money anyway?

 

The car could be correctly registered but DVLA have made a cock up or the bailiffs have got it wrong.

 

 

This site is not about advice on avoiding the law, if you parked in contravention you can appeal, if you lose you pay, thats the law.

 

Where exactly is the OP avoiding the law?

[green_and_mean]

 

Where exactly is the OP avoiding the law?

 

I was not refering to the OP but in general. If stopping the odd innocent person means that those driving un registered, cloned or incorrectly plated vehicles get taken off the road then I'm not complaining.

[Rob S]

I was not refering to the OP but in general. If stopping the odd innocent person means that those driving un registered, cloned or incorrectly plated vehicles get taken off the road then I'm not complaining.

 

Those are all things for which the police could deal with on their own without the need to link up with private debt collection companies.

[crash3903]

I don't recall the balliffs attending in the OPs scenario either, she just said the reason the Police stopped her was because she was showing as having an outstanding PCN at collection stage.

 

No she didn't - Sorry - What she actually said was

 

They told me this was becasue there was a warrant against my car for an unpaid PCn and forced my to call Drakes / Marsden Group before they would let me leave for work.

 

Without knowing the facts we are taking stabs in the dark - There may actually be a possession order, court order etc etc for the car so the OP actually needs to make this clearer

[lamma]

more info:-

"If a warrant has been issued in relation to the PCN then the police are under a duty to assist in enforcing it - s. 85(4) of the County Courts Act 1984 - "It shall be the duty of every constable within his jurisdiction to assist in the execution of every such warrant."

 

"to assist in the execution of every such warrant"

'

the authority' to execute the warrant lies with the bailiff. The bailiff does not have powers to detain the person he is 'serving'.

If the police detain they doing something beyond the scope of the warrant i.e. they are not assisting in the execution of the warrant as it is defined, they are extending police powers to 'the authority'.

I still reckon that if a policeman detains someone without intending to or purporting to arrest them then they are technically guilty of assault (plus probably other stuff) a la Wood v DPP.

 

 

Pat ?

 

The converse is that if it does apply to Drakes serving warrants for TEC civil debts then anyone who gets a bailiff's warrant against a clamper, a council, a PPC or a bank should have the same ability to get the police to assist.

 

Pat ? (again).

[crash3903]

I still reckon that if a policeman detains someone without intending to or purporting to arrest them then they are technically guilty of assault (plus probably other stuff) a la Wood v DPP.(again).

 

 

In which case, if there was a warrant in existence to recover the car, they should have just assisted with the seizure of the car and left the OP with no transport, instead of dealing with it sensibly and having the OP deal with the ballifs (Drakes or otherwise)

[lamma]

Agreed. hence the "If the police detain they doing something beyond the scope of the warrant i.e. they are not assisting in the execution of the warrant as it is defined, they are extending police powers to 'the authority'."

[crash3903]

Agreed. hence the "If the police detain they doing something beyond the scope of the warrant i.e. they are not assisting in the execution of the warrant as it is defined, they are extending police powers to 'the authority'."

 

Let me get this straight, you are agreeing that the Police should have seized the car and allowed the OP to deal with the agent enforcing it directly?

[lamma]

No I am saying that the police extended their powers to the bailiff instead of assisting. as the bailiff has no right to detain the driver at the road side and as the police did not intent to or purport to arrest the driver then 1) the police are acting beyond their powers. 2) the driver could have just driven away.

re 2) police seizing the keys (illegally in my view) lends substance to the inference that they know the driver can legally just drive away.