Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[watchingyou]

Well,

Here at last is the disappointing reply from the Information Commissioners caseworker to my complaint that Greater Manchester Police did not supply the information requested and did not do so within the appropriate timescale.

 

GMP must hold this information somewhere because otherwise without it they would not have been able to stop and detain a motorist for the non payment of an alleged penalty charge by using their ANPR system.

 

Perhaps we need to frame our Freedom of Information Act request in a different way; ideas please.

 

The reply can be downloaded here :- http://www.watchingyou.info/icoreply.doc

 

PS for some reason this site changes [i.c.o]- into its full title so the link didnt work. I changed the name on the link so it should be OK now.

Edited March 12, 2009 by watchingyou

[nigel_bytes]

Well,

Here at last is the disappointing reply from the Information Commissioners caseworker to my complaint that Greater Manchester Police did not supply the information requested and did not do so within the appropriate timescale.

 

GMP must hold this information somewhere because otherwise without it they would not have been able to stop and detain a motorist for the non payment of an alleged penalty charge by using their ANPR system.

 

Perhaps we need to frame our Freedom of Information Act request in a different way; ideas please.

 

The reply can be downloaded here :- http://www.watchingyou.info/ico-reply.doc

 

Link doesnt work

[JonCris]

This abuse has to be stopped so I think all that's left is to blitz the media............... perhaps Richard Littlejohn might be interested as well as Private Eye.

[watchingyou]

Sorry about the link not working; it should be OK now. We will now have to wait to see if my complaint about the unlawful processing of the data is upheld.

[Fair-Parking]

Having read the letter from the ICO, and having taken on board the importance of the office's reliance on it's terms of reference being limited (in the main) to recorded information, perhaps if these questions were asked GMP would have to reveal the relevant details. If I have read the ICO's intended censure correctly - a damn sight quicker than before.

 

1) When was this operation to stop and detain authorised?

2) Who in GMP authorised it?

3) Who in GMP contacted or was contacted by Marstons to set up the operation?

4) What was the official response from Marstons?

5) Is there any documentation which advised that such an operation was illegal?

6) Is there any record of other similar operations having taken place?

[JonCris]

I would add

 

Was any legal advice sort as to it's legality before, during or after the operation & if so what was the outcome??

 

Is the operation or anything similar involving debt collectors/bailiffs currently being undertaken

[lamma]

sort ? ? ?

[joe1965]

Sought

[Fair-Parking]

Quite by co-incidence, I have today received a reply to very important question I put to Graham Marsh head of Manchester City Council parking in relation to it's arrangement with Marstons. It takes us a step further in this matter, but I don't wish to make this public at this point as Mr Marsh's answer led the way to more questions.

 

I'll let the forum know when the matter becomes clearer.

[crem]

teazer!

[watchingyou]

Well it looks like we can expect more of the same from Browns Labour gestapo:- Motorists could be banned from leaving Britain over unpaid parking fines - Telegraph

[lamma]

for civil debts ? ? ? huh ? ? ? ECHR.

[JonCris]

Broon & his cronies are running amok. Don't they know that all to often CCJ are issued without the victim even knowing about it........ They HAVE got to be stopped

 

Also are they going to offer compensation when they get it wrong as they will as sure as night follows day

[JonCris]

Also what's next! Stopped going on your hols because your in dispute with BT or the council:mad:

[gwc1000]

Interesting when speaking of Northampton:

"The court, which is close to one of the main firms of debt collectors, is used by around 200 local authorities to pursue motorists who have not paid their parking fines."

A firm of debt collectors?

[crem]

I thought the TEC was a "CENTRE" not a court?

[lamma]

it is

[watchingyou]

Complaint regarding the way Greater Manchester Police, Drakes/Marstons Bailiffs and Greater Manchester City Council processed data unlawfully.

 

Despite making my request to the Information Commissioners Office in writing on 11th February 2009 together with several Email and telephone reminders and supplying all the information necessary for a review of my complaint to take place Helen Ward from the ICO has today sent me a letter asking for their form to be completed she says she has closed the complaint until such times as they receive it back again.

 

I believe there is nowhere in the rules that say a complaint made to the Information Commissioners Office in writing has to be on their forms using their pre printed form. So long as they have the complaint in writing as they have had, then that is sufficient for an investigation into a complaint so made.

 

She also asks for copies of correspondence I have had so if anyone has any extra correspondence about this matter they would like to add please send it to me.

 

The reticence shown by the ICO in asking at this late stage for a form to be filled in with information they already have is reprehensible. I can see the next move coming and she will say she can’t look into this because it’s not MY data. bah

 

This is a clear indication from the Information Commissioner’s Office which again shows their constant reluctance to investigate Government based entities.

This is the reply located on www.watchingyou.info reply_page_1.jpg

reply_page_2.jpg

Edited April 25, 2009 by watchingyou

[lamma]

If all the information the form requests has already been clearly supplied it does seem rather 'weird'.

 

To further the case I would fill in the form regardless.

 

Page 1 is 'weird' as well. As long as the alleged offence and the practice has ceased it is out of their remit ? ? ?

 

I must revisit the legislation. many obvious questions, e.g. halfway through an investigation and they find offences are being committed if the culprit stops is that it. case closed no action.

 

whaat ? ? ?

[bluesquare]

This is really interesting.

 

Any updates?

[Medusa]

lamma

and have a digital voice recorder in the car and running !!

You can go further...

 

Have a small vado camera fitted to the front windscreen on two velcro squares, as you travel. Always on. (£45 from argos) takes up to 2 hrs video of what is happening in front of you. If we move slowly towards despotism, as it looks, you may need these things the same as they do, that is called in law, equality of arms.

Just a comment.

 

Crem

I thought the TEC was a "CENTRE" not a court?

See CPR 75,

TEC is a DEEMED court, with officers ACTING as court officers, and, here's the smart bit, it is a registration POINT. Get the point?

A point in space time eh?

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.

 

 

 

ACTING is the polysemous word that can be interpreted in ANY sense you like. They have fun with words!

 

Functions of court officer

 

75.5

 

(1) The practice direction supplementing this Part sets out the circumstances in which a court officer may exercise the functions of the court.

 

Review of decision of court officer

 

75.5A

 

(1)Any party may request any decision of a court officer to be reviewed by a district judge.

 

(2) Such a request must be made within 14 days of service of the decision.

 

(3) Unless –

(a) the party requesting the review requests an oral hearing; or

 

(b) the court orders an oral hearing,

 

a request for a review under paragraph (2) will be dealt with without an oral hearing.

Edited July 24, 2009 by Medusa

[watchingyou]

I think I have given up; I didnt have the supporting documents such as the letter from Greater Manchester Council etc.

[bluesquare]

I did post up a reply to this earlier, but it took 4 days for it to appear:rolleyes: and when it did it found its way into the NHS forum! Lets hope this one gets posted more promptly.

 

It's necessary to seperate the initial actions of assisting the bailiffs (which has stopped)

 

Hi,

 

Can anyone tell me when the practice of police assisting bailiffs on roadside checks actually stopped

 

Thanks

[Fair-Parking]

This illegal practice ceased on 26 July 2008 but only in Greater Manchester and not due to any police action or any realistion on their part that they had acted illegally.

 

Manchester City Council were made to realise that passing on private information was contrary to the Data Protection Act 1998. Not that MCC themselves stopped passing on private information in their possession to bailiffs but because they were limited to the impression that the bailiffs could not pass on the same info to the police.

 

Since then the formerly helpful council has failed to answer the question as to why it feels that it is exempt from the Act.

 

On February 6 2009, Westminster Council and it's bailiffs used the Metropolitan Police to illegally stop and detain motorists.

 

If anybody knows of other instances please let us know

Edited July 27, 2009 by Fair-Parking

[TD27]

It may be worth asking forces when they conduct static multi agency road checks / anpr checks with people like VOSA, DWP & Drakes how they get the information. Particularly for Drakes.