Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[lamma]

I have just looked at copies of Warrants of Execution here in the office and they all have (Order 48B, rule 5)....not 46,B

I am also digging...

 

Assuming yours are TEC related do yours say state "location of offence"

or "location of contravention " as per TEC original (should).

I am leaning towards thinking that the "offence" variant is invalid as it misrepresents the legal position. what do you reckon ?

 

p.s.

wow are there a lot of S.I.'s covering this.

slow digging...

Edited July 8, 2008 by lamma

[Ellie May]

All, I forgot I had the letter from the Council in Electronic format. Here is what they say about me being stopped by the police. As you can see I was wrong before and they state that the police are working with the Bailiff company rather than themselves. Does this not make it worse?

'With regards to you being stopped by the police, Manchester City Council have registered 3 unpaid parking tickets issued to your vehicle as debts at the County Court. These debts have subsequently been passed to a bailiff company for recovery. The bailiff company works with Greater Manchester Police to identify vehicles being driven with outstanding warrants and it was on this basis you were stopped by the police on 22 May 2008.'

And here's what the TEC said about it.

'Any warrants issued by a local authority would be enforced by private certified bailiffs; the police would not have any involvement unless called out.'

[lamma]

one hand washes the other methinks...

[JonCris]

All, I forgot I had the letter from the Council in Electronic format. Here is what they say about me being stopped by the police. As you can see I was wrong before and they state that the police are working with the Bailiff company rather than themselves. Does this not make it worse?

 

'With regards to you being stopped by the police, Manchester City Council have registered 3 unpaid parking tickets issued to your vehicle as debts at the County Court. These debts have subsequently been passed to a bailiff company for recovery. The bailiff company works with Greater Manchester Police to identify vehicles being driven with outstanding warrants and it was on this basis you were stopped by the police on 22 May 2008.'

 

And here's what the TEC said about it.

 

'Any warrants issued by a local authority would be enforced by private certified bailiffs; the police would not have any involvement unless called out.'

 

I can understand this being the case for warrants involving criminal fines but not for parking which is civil

 

I should write back & ask them on who's authority a private bailiff can ask the police to work with them in what is a civil matter & when where the police empowered to detain a member of the public over a civil matter & in which no crime had been commited

[Fair-Parking]

Ellie May

 

Can you send a copy of this and any other correspondence received from Manchester City Council to my private email address

[Fair-Parking]

Further to my post of 7 July, I am now pleased to advise the forum of the outcome of what a number of us thought was an officially sanctioned abuse of citizens rights

 

Graham Marsh, head of parking at Manchester City Council did indeed look into this complaint. MCC had been instructing Marstons bailiffs and was aware that firm was instructing the police with the result that people were wrongly being stopped by the police on the matter of alleged decriminalised contraventions.

 

After consulting with the council's legal advisors Mr Marsh put his hand up and admitted that the council had got this one wrong and that until Fair Parking had brought this to his attention, he did not realise the full implications of this policy.

 

The result is that this practice has ceased forthwith and I have a copy of the email sent by MCC to Marstons ordering that firm to stop this practice by no later than 5pm 25 July.

 

That only leaves three issues

 

1) Concern that once again private bailiffs knew that their premeditated actions were beyond the law, but were content to mislead both the council and police.

 

2) Of more concern is that the police did not know that the practice of stopping motorists over alleged deciminalised matters was outside of their terms of authority

 

3) That should anybody else be stopped by Greater Manchester Police over parking issues in the future then quite clearly there would be grounds for a serious complaint against both the police and Marstons.

 

My last wish is that people should understand that our parking protection scheme is both valid and solid and that we do indeed insulate our members from those who would misuse the law either knowingly or otherwise.

[pin1onu]

That only leaves three issues

 

1) Concern that once again private bailiffs knew that their premeditated actions were beyond the law, but were content to mislead both the council and police.

 

2) Of more concern is that the police did not know that the practice of stopping motorists over alleged deciminalised matters was outside of their terms of authority

 

3) That should anybody else be stopped by Greater Manchester Police over parking issues in the future then quite clearly there would be grounds for a serious complaint against both the police and Marstons.

Are you intending to raise these issues with the Chief Constable of GMP and/or the Home Office? It might be worth a complaint to the IPCC as well.

 

They need to be sent a loud message that this short of thing will not be tolerated and they will be held accountable. IMV they should be given a formal slap on wrist over this.

[Fair-Parking]

At the moment, I'm mulling over another issue that stemmed from this. Manchester City Council felt that the weakness in their approach was a possible contravention of the Data Protection Act - and that got me thinking.

 

Given the restrictions of the Data Protection Act, it may well already be unlawful for a council to pass anyone's private details to private bailiff firms, let alone for these pretend police to gain the privilege of deliberately and all too often maliciously acting against the interests and wishes of those whose personal details have fortuitously dropped into their possession without that person's knowledge or consent.

 

Remembering the number of occasions that councils have appeared to brush off their responsibilities after appointing bailiffs, indicating that lazy and indifferent council staff do not feel that the private bailiff company they freely chose to use is now under their control, then the matter of passing on an individual's private details by that council under these circumstances to any private bailiff is further undermined by the terms of the Data Protection Act.

 

If the Data Protection Act isn't about preventing precisely this sort of behaviour, then it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

The thought persists is that if this is pursued to it's logical conclusion then private bailiffs will no longer be able to act for councils over either parking or outstanding council tax. If that happens then most of these obnoxious bailiff firms may suffer enough financial damage to put them out of business permanently.

[Ellie May]

Fairparking you are a legend!! Thank you so much. Could you possib;y send me a copy of that email as I may need to refer to it when I am dealing with MCC in the near future.

 

Also I agree with pin1onu that this should be raised with GMP. I am more than happy to do this as long as it a) doesn't tread on your toes and b) would not impact on your data protection idea. If therefore either of these do apply and you would rather I did nothing for now, please let me know.

 

Thanks ever so much once again for all of your hard work on this. Its so nice to see justice done!

[lamma]

Further to my post of 7 July, I am now pleased to advise the forum of the outcome of what a number of us thought was an officially sanctioned abuse of citizens rights

 

Graham Marsh, head of parking at Manchester City Council did indeed look into this complaint. MCC had been instructing Marstons bailiffs and was aware that firm was instructing the police with the result that people were wrongly being stopped by the police on the matter of alleged decriminalised contraventions.

 

After consulting with the council's legal advisors Mr Marsh put his hand up and admitted that the council had got this one wrong and that until Fair Parking had brought this to his attention, he did not realise the full implications of this policy.

 

The result is that this practice has ceased forthwith and I have a copy of the email sent by MCC to Marstons ordering that firm to stop this practice by no later than 5pm 25 July.

 

That only leaves three issues

 

1) Concern that once again private bailiffs knew that their premeditated actions were beyond the law, but were content to mislead both the council and police.

 

2) Of more concern is that the police did not know that the practice of stopping motorists over alleged deciminalised matters was outside of their terms of authority

 

3) That should anybody else be stopped by Greater Manchester Police over parking issues in the future then quite clearly there would be grounds for a serious complaint against both the police and Marstons.

 

My last wish is that people should understand that our parking protection scheme is both valid and solid and that we do indeed insulate our members from those who would misuse the law either knowingly or otherwise.

 

You are now officially a legend.

Excellent work and thanks to you on behalf of many.

 

have to disagree over point 3) - I believe there are grounds for a serious complaint by anyone who has been stopped like this in the past.

[Fair-Parking]

Thank you very much for your praise. Much appreciated.

 

I can't disagree with either Ellie May or Lamma that anybody who has been stopped on this basis in the past is equally entitled to make a serious complaint, whether in Greater Manchester or anywhere else. My point though not particularly clear, is that the bailiffs, council and police might have had some grounds to muddy the water and dismiss previously perfectly legitimate complaints. Now with documentary proof of Manchester City Council's realisation that they were wrong, there really is no dark recess for the police and the bailffs to hide in any longer. Perhaps it is best summed up by the fact that the practice of stopping innocent motorist has now been officialy condemned.

 

Pin1onu is also right and I'm pretty sure that a communique will find it's way to the Chief Constable's office asking why nobody of high rank acted on this. I also intend to send a press release out.

 

However, I wish to consider this whole question of whether supplying private information to private bailiff companies is already illegal. I'm pretty sure that it is - and if that is so it's a revolutionary concept of immense magnitude and consequences.

[postggj]

hi fair parking. seems you have become a star

 

you say councils giving peoples personel data to baliffs may be illegal, please give an insight in plain english please

in this i include liability orders ref council tax as well as pcn

[Fair-Parking]

Please, just an ordinary guy whose wife was once visited by a pair of lying, scheming bailiffs whose parting smarmy comment based on an ignorant bully's thinking that they had left an innocent lady snivelling was 'We hope that has spoiled your day'. They miscalulated, they never did get paid. I'm no star - just somebody who does not suffer lying fools easily.

 

And yes I do include liability orders. I feel that it may include any private information that the Data Protection Act considers to in the control of 'data processors' that should not be passed on to private citizens as most bailiff companies are.

 

I do realise that this may result in councils eventually employing their own bailiffs, but hey does anybody here feel sorry for Bristow & Sutor, JBW, Marstons, Rossendales and the rest of the thugs who have had their own way for too long?

 

Ellie May, yes I will send a copy of the email.

[JonCris]

Fair parking very well done. However may I just say that whilst I think your DPA argument has considerable merit I think you should proceed asap with your exposure of the police's collusion with bailiffs in their illegal behaviour

 

Then after hopefully a satisfactory conclusion to that you can then introduce your argument regarding the illegal transmission of data.

 

What I'm saying is don't let the kettle go off the boil especially with the police as why they unlike the council didn't take legal advice before becoming involved in these shenanigans beggars belief

[lamma]

Thank you very much for your praise. Much appreciated.

 

I can't disagree with either Ellie May or Lamma that anybody who has been stopped on this basis in the past is equally entitled to make a serious complaint, whether in Greater Manchester or anywhere else. My point though not particularly clear, is that the bailiffs, council and police might have had some grounds to muddy the water and dismiss previously perfectly legitimate complaints. Now with documentary proof of Manchester City Council's realisation that they were wrong, there really is no dark recess for the police and the bailffs to hide in any longer. Perhaps it is best summed up by the fact that the practice of stopping innocent motorist has now been officialy condemned.

 

Pin1onu is also right and I'm pretty sure that a communique will find it's way to the Chief Constable's office asking why nobody of high rank acted on this. I also intend to send a press release out.

 

However, I wish to consider this whole question of whether supplying private information to private bailiff companies is already illegal. I'm pretty sure that it is - and if that is so it's a revolutionary concept of immense magnitude and consequences.

 

Perhaps a notification to the production company behind Cops Cars and Bailiffs would be in order....and to test their uptake on it a request for a copy of their program(s) on DVD...

 

I would appreciate a copy of that mail if you would/could please.

 

And yes this needs maximum publicity - you know what councils are...

 

Lamma

[PPC Buster]

Well Done FP. Now go after GMP and the bailiffs.

[johno1066]

Chaps, I already have a complaint in with regards to the misrepresentation of offence on the Warrant of Executions, it has been 4 weeks now, no reply yet. Also, you might like to ponder the following:

 

 

 

CCR ORDER 48B

 

 

CCR 48b rule 5

When the court officer so orders and on receipt of the sealed request, the authority may draw up the order and shall annex to any such order a form of statutory declaration for the respondent's use.[note: this refers to the order for recovery, they've referred to the incorrect CCR, in fact they should be referring to CPR 75 as i see it]

 

 

 

CPR 75

 

In this Part –

(a)‘the Centre’ means the Traffic Enforcement Centre established under the direction of the Lord Chancellor;

 

©‘the 1993 Order’ means the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993;

 

 

The centre 75.2 (1)Proceedings to which this Part applies must be started in the Centre.

(2)For any purpose connected with the exercise of the Centre's functions –

(a)the Centre is deemed to be part of the office of the court whose name appears on the documents to which the functions relate or in whose name the documents are issued; and

(b)any officer of the Centre, in exercising its functions, is deemed to act as an officer of that court.

 

 

note: [in this case, the warrant and documents are authorised by TEC themselves, therefore they do not act on behalf of any Court, see PE9 which is authorised and prepared by TEC themselves. Notice also, that the TEC themselves authorise the Orders for recovery, this is a Court order and as such should be raised or approved by Northampton County Court, not TEC; Notice also, there is no Court Stamp.] As far as I can ascertain, for the documents to be valid, (TEC are a registration point for PCNs), the documents should state "prepared under the authority of Northampton County Court, not TEC

 

 

Edited July 29, 2008 by johno1066

[lamma]

I believe you may well be correct johno.

must admit I have not delved into the enabling documentation around the TEC but the paper I have seen just doesn't look right - as you have identified already.

It may well be another case like the mess that is TMA 2004 - all the effort went into the money collection aspects and not the legal issues.

Surprised ? Not in the least.

[johno1066]

In fact I believe that CCR 48b has actually been revoked, not good therefore, that they continue to refer to it.

 

I'm not surprised either, this should service as a lesson to the Government, that they can't meddle with our Justice system. I don't blame the Courts, they have been put in the unfortunate position by Parliament, of having to become tax collectors for Councils.

[Fair-Parking]

Thanks johno1066. I was hazy on CPR 75 and it's variants.

 

You all might like to know that against the better judgement of its staff, the TEC has been answering their phones by using the lead - 'Northampton County Court'.

 

Its like Watergate - just who is behind all this deliberate misinformation and how far do you have to dig to find out who is responsible? Who but the government would order the TEC to pretend they are something which they are not and which the staff know is wrong and are uncomfortable with?

[johno1066]

Exactly, Apparently, they found that Enforcement was an emotive term and so dropped it when answering the telephones You see, there you have it, caring, sharing people who like to show consideration for their ahemm, 'Customers'. I wonder whether the documents will now change

[lamma]

statutelaw shows it to still be active

The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (No. 3132 L.17)) - Statute Law Database

 

An interesting read, I agree that rule 5 seems to be important. Is the bailiff company considered to be part of the authority

 

(5) When the court officer so orders and on receipt of the sealed request, the authority may draw up the order and shall annex to any such order a form of statutory declaration for the respondent’s use.

(6) Within 14 days of receipt of the sealed request, the authority shall serve the order (and the form of statutory declaration) on the respondent by—

(a)

delivering the order to the respondent personally; or

(b)

sending it by first-class post to the respondent at the address given in the request.

 

 

Rule 2 also a good read, especially

(4) If satisfied that the request is in order, the court officer shall order that the increased charge (together with the court fee) may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order by sealing the request and returning it to the authority.

 

so they aren't really county court orders but are treated as though they are ?

 

Rule 5(4) does seem to allow the LA to produce paperwork

(4) The court shall seal the request and return it to the authority which shall, within 7 days of the sealing of the request, prepare the warrant in the appropriate form.

 

Now to find out what the appropriate form is/should look like.

[watchingyou]

I have been taking an interest in this thread and have asked GMP under the Freedom of Information Act to respond to some of my questions. Here is their reply what do you all think?

 

Information Governance Unit

Information Management Branch

 

email address given

 

Our ref: 001329/08/

Your ref:

 

When calling or telephoning

please ask for Corine Phipps

 

27 August 2008

 

Dear Mr

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 001329/08

 

I write in connection with your request for information dated 29/07/2008, which was received by Greater Manchester Police on 29/07/2008, for the following information:

 

1 How many vehicles have been stopped in the last 3 years as a result of an Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) operation in Greater

Manchester for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions?

 

2 Which Law or Act of Parliament permits GMP to stop vehicles and detain drivers for unpaid Parking Penalty Charge Notices or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions?

 

3 How many instances on the ANPR system has a Parking Penalty Charge Notice or matters of alleged decriminalised contraventions been recorded?

 

4 From where do GMP obtain their information regarding outstanding PCNs?

 

5 What is the name and job title of the person supplying GMP with the information about unpaid PCNs?

 

6 What is the name and rank of the Officer who sanctioned the stopping of vehicles in conjunction with the firm of Drakes and Marstons Bailiffs?

 

7 A PCN is a civil matter please say which part of the Data protection Act allows the passing of this kind of information.

 

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within Greater Manchester Police to locate information relevant to your request. I can confirm that some of the information you have requested is held by Greater Manchester Police.

 

 

Result Of Searches

 

Question 1. Information not held by Greater Manchester Police.

 

 

Question 2. Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 and section 49 of the Police Reform Act 2002 allows a constable in uniform to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle being driven on a road, however, this is not just specific to PCNs.

 

Question 3. Information not held by Greater Manchester Police.

 

Question 4. Information not held by Greater Manchester Police.

 

Question 5. Information not held by Greater Manchester Police.

 

Question 6. The name of the officer who authorises Marstons Group and Drakes Bailiffs is

Chief Inspector Haydn Roberts.

 

Question 7. Information not held by Greater Manchester Police.

Complaint Rights

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet, which details your right of complaint.

 

Should you have any further inquiries concerning this matter, please write or contact me, on telephone number 0161 856 2528quoting the reference number above.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Corine Phipps

Information Access Team

 

 

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

 

 

 

Are you unhappy with how your request has been handled or do you think the decision is incorrect?

 

You have the right to require Greater Manchester Police to review their decision.

 

Prior to lodging a formal complaint you are welcome and encouraged to discuss the decision with the case officer that dealt with your request.

 

Ask to have the decision looked at again –

The quickest and easiest way to have the decision looked at again is to telephone the case officer that is nominated at the end of your decision letter.

 

 

That person will be able to discuss the decision, explain any issues and assist with any problems.

 

 

Complaint

If you are dissatisfied with the handling procedures or the decision of Greater Manchester Police made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 regarding access to information, you can lodge a complaint with Greater Manchester Police to have the decision reviewed.

 

Complaints should be made in writing and addressed to:

 

Freedom of Information Officer

Greater Manchester Police

Police Headquarters

7th Floor

Chester House

Boyer Street

Manchester

M16 0RE

 

 

The Information Commissioner

After lodging a complaint with Greater Manchester Police if you are still dissatisfied with the decision you can make an application to the Information Commissioner for a decision on whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

 

For information on how to make an application to the Information Commissioner please visit their website at 'would not net me post the URL'. Alternatively, phone or write to:

 

Information Commissioner's Office

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Phone: 01625 545 700

[crem]

I have been taking an interest in this thread and have asked GMP under the Freedom of Information Act to respond to some of my questions. Here is their reply what do you all think?

 

What do I think? I think they didn't answer your questions with one jot of relevant information!!

[JonCris]

They did as apparently they think an officers powers to stop a vehicle, although not expressly stated, extends to 'assisting' bailiffs/debt collectors recover civil charges.

 

A claim which is of course is stretching our creditability just a little as IMHO it appears to have no regard for the DPA & in addition may also be illegal in the sense that they are detaining a motorist unlawfully