Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[alibobsy]

Subbing to this thread as interested in the subject. Never had to deal with baliffs in my life so far, but dealt with their obnoxious cousins "the debt collector".

I cannot believe under the data protection act that our information can be banded about so easily. Surely this is wrong.

 

I have also long wondered how the DVLA get away with selling your info as RK for a car to private companies such as baliffs, DCA's, private car parks and councils.

 

Surely the information should only be available to the police in pursuance of CRIMINAL activity.

 

I have also always wondered how the act is not breached when our info is passed willy nilly from OC to DCA to DCA.

 

It would appear in this country the government, all the big companies, the financial institutions, the dca's, the CRA's, and the whole of the so called collections industry see us all as bags of money to exploit with little or no regard for the law or our rights.

 

Ali x

[adampaddam]

And this shameless plug for your website has what to do with this thread?

G&M you should reserve your skits until you have seen watching you's website, his website is an excellent expose of everything we don't need from authorities and the like, it is funded entirely by himself and no one has to fork out a single penny and there are no adverts on. take a look Welcome to the Frontpage

[green_and_mean]

G&M you should reserve your skits until you have seen watching you's website, his website is an excellent expose of everything we don't need from authorities and the like, it is funded entirely by himself and no one has to fork out a single penny and there are no adverts on. take a look Welcome to the Frontpage

 

I just asked what it had to do with this thread a perfectly valid question, which was answered by the poster.

[WAVE_131]

Yes - good work G & M. As Claudius once said 'Let all the poisons that lurk in the woodwork, hatch out'.

 

However we still need to establish just how much of this is fact and just how much is swilling around in JBW's self important minds. Private citizens who parade about in bullet proof vests do tend have 'Walter Mitty' characteristics about them.

 

Having seen Waller himself lying on 'Cars, Cops and Bailiffs' by publicly stating on national TV that he was 'court bailiff' and that he possessed a 'court warrant' in the company of an simple minded cohort both heroically extorting money from a lone woman by fraud, its very possible that having deluded himself that this stupidly illegal approach works when putting on an act for TV, it will work forever.

 

Thus the JBW website may well be an elaborate fabrication based on the fantasy notion that if one or two lies work, many more will render the JBW house of cards invincible. Waller is too arrogant to realise that the evidence against him grows daily.

 

JBW is clearly trying to attract business via a website littered with claims that breach the Advertising and Trading Standards regulations.

 

The JBW website also makes a claim that there is a "JBW Charitable Foundation".

 

If there is, the Charity Commisssion Register has no record of it.

[adampaddam]

Hi watchingyou have you heard from the GMP regarding your second FOIR

[watchingyou]

No I have not heard anything since making the further request. As soon as I have a reply I will post it here.

[seylectric]

Thank you to everybody for this very interesting thread. On a slightly different note I do wonder where we are heading when the police are willingly becoming involved in civil issues, while the bailiffs are allowed to break every rule in the book with hardly any recourse.

 

Last year I had my car repossessed by two men claiming (to the police) to be bailiffs, who were in fact no more than collection agents hired by Welcome Finance. To cut a long story short they called the police, who subsequently told me to get out of my car and allow these two guys to take it. I told the police that these guys were not legally allowed to take my car without a court order (H.P. agreement, more than a third paid) which they did not have but the police insisted that if I did not get out of the car I would be arrested - and remember these guys weren't even bailiffs! I got compensation from Welcome Finance eventually, but although I reported the matter to the IPCC I was reluctant to take any further action against the police as the officers did not put in their report that they had threatened me with arrest, so it would have effectively been my word against theirs.

 

I've since had my front door damaged beyond repair by two bailiffs who tried to force their way in (cost me £675 to replace the door and frame + I was placed in a situation where I was forced to pay the bailiffs fees, around £350), and again the police ignored my request for action against them and instead gave me a lecture on not paying my dues. Where does it all end?

Edited October 1, 2008 by seylectric

[dinate]

I recall a documentary I watched where if I remember correctly a BBC jounrilist went on and joined a debt collectors agency and filmed undercover.

He knew the law and his filming brought some very alarming things to note, and inlcuded was the situation you find yourself in, were the police were called and the "bailiffs" knew they had no power but as they were there now went with it and thought they were going to get rumbled, they werent the police went with it and subsquently goods were taken or money was paid.

 

Blowing the whistle on the violent and corrupt world of bailiffs | Mail Online

[seylectric]

Shocked but sadly, not surprised. What does shock me is that the tactics are more or less becoming common knowledge but it's getting worse - where anything involves collecting money owed to the government, nobody in authority wants to know. That we have got into this state is bad enough, but where does it all end? Where do we go from here?

[JonCris]

A copy of these links should be sent to every Chief Constable in the country to show how their officers aid these thugs in intimidation & theft

[WebFerret]

A copy of these links should be sent to every Chief Constable in the country to show how their officers aid these thugs in intimidation & theft

 

Seconded

[seylectric]

That gets my vote, but hang on a minute - isn't there another issue here that, as far as I can see, hasn't been mentioned?

 

It's this:

 

Doesn't the law state that a warrant for a PCN has to be served at the address for which it is issued? If so then surely that means that the bailiffs can't seize the vehicle or otherwise enforce the warrant (not legally anyway), e.g. force you to pay up under threat of seizing the vehicle unless they are actually doing so at the address on the warrant? Doesn't it therefore follow that the vehicle cannot be taken if it is not at (or presumably very close to/adjacent to) that address?

[lamma]

they can take it from elsewhere (sorry I don't have the reference to hand). I believe they can also change the address on the warrant if you have moved,

[seylectric]

I believe they can also change the address on the warrant if you have moved

 

You sure about that one??? That's news to me!!!

[lamma]

have read it in the depths of the regs somewhere.

[JonCris]

I believe you may be correct that the vehicle cannot be clamped or seized when in use on a public highway. I sure Tomtubby or Fair Parking et'al will know the answer

[seylectric]

Not wishing to contradict anybody, but I have definately read somewhere that the warrant can only be served at the address for which it was issued, if so the rest would surely fall into place? I can't find anything for or against on the TEC of HMCS sites though.

 

I would imagine there must be some sort of ruling, otherwise there would be no need for an address on the warrant!

[lamma]

contradiction is good - it resolves issues (you are not a troll). will try to dig up the reference. CPR 75.7 covers the 12 months thing PART 75 - TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT still looking for the address thing. I do recall that it is 'buried'. Bingo. County Courts Act 1984 (S.85) County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28) - Statute Law Database

Edited October 2, 2008 by lamma

[Fair-Parking]

JohnCris - Not sure about that as there is a very grey area between use on a public highway and being parked outside your own house. One thing I do know, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the more neanderthal clamper. Why bother with laws when you can use force and intimidation?

 

Lamma - Don't forget that civil parking enforcement falls outside of the county court system. Your posted definitions apply only to CCJ's and other county court orders. You most certainly can enforce a CCJ at any address.

[lamma]

Cpr 75.2 ? ? ?

[seylectric]

Well this makes interesting reading from the HMCS site:

 

If a warrant is unsuccessful it is usually because:

 

* the defendant is not at the address you gave; or

* the defendant's goods are not worth enough to pay anything towards the amount you are owed and the cost of taking and selling them at auction.

 

If you are sure that the defendant lives at the address you gave or you have found another address, you can use Form N445 to ask the court to reissue the warrant.

 

Now that would appear to suggest that if the defendant is (found) at a different address then an application must be made to reissue the warrant, thus suggesting that the original warrant would NOT be valid at anything other than the original address. The way I read this, it also suggests that the warrant must be served at the address on it.

 

Warrant of Execution

 

Then click the "next" button on that link and you come to this little gem, which contradicts the above suggestion that a warrant cannot be reissued:

 

"How long does the warrant last?

 

The warrant lasts for one year.

 

If the warrant has not been paid or if the bailiff has not made a final report within this time, it is no longer valid. You can ask the court to 'extend the warrant's life'. You will have to pay a fee for asking the court to do this. You should try to do this before the year is up. You can also do this after the year is over, but you will have to give reasons why you did not do so sooner."

[Fair-Parking]

CPR 75 is like Catholicism in that nobody knows what is really all about. (Father Ted 1996)

[seylectric]

Here's another interesting "grey area" too, this time from form ex345 from HMCS:

 

Ex.345

 

"How can I complain about the conduct of the bailiff or enforcement officer?

You can complain if:

......

• the bailiff has levied excessively. This means that the value of the goods seized from you is more than the amount of the debt, or that you have paid an excessive amount to the bailiff."

 

So in otherwords a bailiff "would be wrong" to seize, say, a £10,000 car for a few hundred pounds debt!?

[watchingyou]

After receiving this response from GMP and giving it due consideration I have now decided to complain to the Information Commissioners Office about the undue time scale GMP envisage for the review.

 

After ringing up the Information Commissioners Office and asking them about this they have said that the time scale for a review should be no longer than the 20 working days allowed for with the initial Freedom of Information Act request.

 

A complaint has been sent today to the Information Commissioners Office.

 

********************************************

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 01329/2008

 

I refer to your telephone conversation today with my colleague Corine Phipps, requesting that Greater Manchester Police review the response to your request for information.

 

The review will be conducted in accordance to Greater Manchester Police review procedure and every effort will be made to have a response to you by 24 October 2008, however if it becomes clear that the review will not be completed by this date you will be contacted.

 

If you wish to discuss this matter prior to our response please contact Adrienne Walker on 0161-856-2510.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Rebecca Rice

Information Access Team Leader

Greater Manchester Police

Information Governance Unit

This e mail carries a disclaimer, a copy of which may be read at:

 

 

Copyright

Edited October 2, 2008 by watchingyou

[Fair-Parking]

This is becoming more intriguing as I suspected that it would. Either there is lack of confidence and leadership within GMP over this issue, or somebody is beginning to realise that the storm clouds are gathering.

 

Keep up the pressure watchingyou. When we receive the official explanation we may well be in a position to fully expose this disgraceful sham.