Jump to content


Detained by police for unpaid PCN


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4717 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Sorry but you are making decisions about the lawfulness about what has happened without knowing the full facts. There may be a clause in the possession order, if there was one, where it says something similar to:

 

"May be assisted by a constable in the recovery of the property"

 

Unless the OP can clarify we need to accept the Police acted lawfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There is no need to accept that the Police acted lawfully at all !!

 

And about my 'decisions' - which are actually opinions - not quite. A warrant of execution gives court bailiffs the authority to take goods from the defendant’s home or business. Not to stop a vehicle in the street that may or may not be being driven by the RK (whose address(es) are listed in the warrant).

And no matter what the warrant may say or not about assistance it does not extend the powers of the police nor make them Certified Bailiffs.

 

have to ask - are you a bailiff ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the facts of Wodd v DPP are known - do you have an opinion ?

 

and an opinion on the warrant only authorising the bailiff to take goods from the defendant’s home or business ?

 

There is also the confidentiality aspect. As I understand the person being served has a right to confidentiality so the bailiff must not discuss your case with a third party unless authorised by the person being served.

 

the police are arguably a third party - unless and until proved to be otherwise.

 

These public 'scooping' events (sometimes with TV crews) seem to ignore all that. another usable tack.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of you might remember that I offered to take this matter up with the Greater Manchester Police if more detail was forthcoming. Sadly the original poster never did come back.

 

Nevertheless I did contact GMP and spoke to very helpful officer who was incredulous at the thought that the GMP could be used this way. He didn't try to cover anything or offer any excuses. He knew the law appertaining to bailiffs was simply astounded that the police would collude with a private firm or that such a firm could hoodwink them. He certainly had never heard of police ANPR being misused to help bailiffs.

 

There was no reason to disbelieve him so until the OP comes back with details such as date, time and place and an assurance that there were no legal matters outstanding at the time, I can do no more.

 

Now why do people who ask for help disappear when it is offered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

Now why do people who ask for help disappear when it is offered?

 

Because they move house and have to wait for a month (yes really) for BT to install a phone line. Only then can they order broadband which takes another 10 - 15 days!!

 

Fairparking, it is very late and I am just catching up on this after a long spell offline. I will come back tomorrow and fill in some of the gaps I have found i.e. about the warrant, drakes etc. I do very much appreciate your offer of assistance and will contact you tomorrow in relation to this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Presumably you know the commander in charge of the operation on that day and you are privy to the intelligence gained as a result of the national intelligence model, put in place, to deal with the way intelligence is gained and acted on in this country?

 

If you don't know them let me introduce you to them

 

Ridiculous comments made out of mis-informed media hype!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the introduction to the officer in charge of the totally botched operation that resulted in the death of an innocent man. Commander Dick, is typical of the senior officers that infest positions well beyond their capability. Whilst I'm sure she has done all the courses, I note she has held that vital crime fighting position as head of diversity. She may tick all the boxes to be a senior police officer, its just a shame there is not a couple of boxes for, experience of life and common sense.

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the introduction to the officer in charge of the totally botched operation that resulted in the death of an innocent man. Commander Dick, is typical of the senior officers that infest positions well beyond their capability. Whilst I'm sure she has done all the courses, I note she has held that vital crime fighting position as head of diversity. She may tick all the boxes to be a senior police officer, its just a shame there is not a couple of boxes for, experience of life and common sense.

 

This is taking the post off topic, but the above rant deserves a response. It is abundantly clear you know nothing about this officer. In such circumstances you would have done better to have said nothing rather than show yourself as a complete fool with your utterances. The jury in the health and safety trial would probably be the best placed members of the public in the UK to speak about her capabilities, and having heard all the evidence in the trial, and seen DAC Dick under intensive cross examination from the prosecutor, they made it abundantly clear that they did not regard DAC Dick as culpable in the operation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And you add nothing whatsoever to the point you are trying to make with personal insults, if responding to an forum in an adult manner is beyond you, perhaps you should reconsider responding.

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read the BBC article and also my comments about the jury. They were under no compulsion to say what they did about DAC Dick, but they did. They heard a lot of evidence in the case, much of which either you or I will ever be privy too, and they effectively exonerated her of blame.

 

I stand by my comments about your rant. It was ill informed and does nothing for your personal reputation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably you know the commander in charge of the operation on that day and you are privy to the intelligence gained as a result of the national intelligence model, put in place, to deal with the way intelligence is gained and acted on in this country?

 

If you don't know them let me introduce you to them

 

Ridiculous comments made out of mis-informed media hype!!

 

"While the jury found the Met as a whole guilty, they took the unusual step of further declaring they believed there was "no personal culpability for Commander Cressida Dick". "

 

I rest my case!

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote=Rob S;

I stand by my comments about your rant. It was ill informed and does nothing for your personal reputation.

 

................

Edited by letshelp
personal attack and heavy sarcasm

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt realise the cops were so sensitive these days, however you state it was ill informed, most of my information came from several front line officers in the Met, did you notice I said front line, not the desk jockey crowd that DAC Dick originates from, and were you probably work. I have no further wish to prolong an off topic argument. I hate to indulge in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

:lol::lol: and so says yet another ctw expert :lol::lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt realise the cops were so sensitive these days,

 

I didn't realise that people could be so ill informed and stupid as you have been these days:grin:

 

 

 

however you state it was ill informed, most of my information came from several front line officers in the Met,

 

So not first hand information through your own personal experiences then:rolleyes:

 

 

said front line, not the desk jockey crowd that DAC Dick originates from,

 

She would have been a frontline officer once as all police officers start off as such. Weren't you aware of that?:rolleyes:

 

 

and were you probably work.

 

Excellent grammar:grin: And another half baked assumption. You're very good at those.

 

 

I have no further wish to prolong an off topic argument. I hate to indulge in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

 

 

You have shown yourself to be the one armed man:-D:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally if you had the sense to follow the thread, you will have noticed that I edited out the original comments that you have reposted.

 

Yes I did notice but I thought I would post the obnoxious comments for all to see, as you clearly have no courage :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Courage had nothing to do with it, I didnt want to get to your level, so keep on drinking, have to go to work now, so will have to wait until tomorrow to see what jems you come up with next.

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok getting back to the actual topic now, just for info I have since taken this matter up with Manchester City Council and the TEC. TEC informs me that the police have nothing to do with the porcess of recovering unpaid PCNs but MCC's letter says that they work 'with' the police on this.

 

I am more confused than ever :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

check out the web - MCC have a dual scheme (forgotten its catchy name) but research will show it is for more serious stuff than PCNs. Undoubtedly it is being abused. MCC will give you the runaraound. Just ask them explicit single subject closed questions. Whne they fail to address them (which they will) then go to the chief constable - quoting relevant police rules.statute and case law. When the CC fails to satisfy your points (which will also happen) go the IPCC.

IPCC will probably still mess you around but if you have raised the proper questions correctly you have a much better chance.

then MP, press, civil liberties etc.

Don't expect them to fold real easy - they make TV programs about this and have documented what goes on.

Why not drop a line to the producers of Cops cars and bailiffs ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm. Does this mean they were in their rights to do what they did? Or does it depend on what the PCN in question said?

 

No it does not & their insistence that you contact Drakes to pay the PCN destroys completely any possible argument that they might have that you were stopped because of other possible criminal activities

 

You must complain to both the GMP the ICO. Also tell the Manchester Evening News whilst pointing out that Drakes have already been heavily criticised for their behaviour by a Judge who revoked the certificate of one of their bailiffs who acted illegally ably assisted by the police

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police should not be putting any information reports on the PNC relating to PCN's where charge certificates have been issued and bailiffs have been instructed for the recovery of the unpaid PCN. You should ne asking Greater Manchester Police to provide a record of any PNC transactions on your vehicle. They can check back 1 year and these will show who did the check, where it was done, who the operator was and the actual transaction that was carried out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
The police should not be putting any information reports on the PNC relating to PCN's where charge certificates have been issued and bailiffs have been instructed for the recovery of the unpaid PCN. You should ne asking Greater Manchester Police to provide a record of any PNC transactions on your vehicle. They can check back 1 year and these will show who did the check, where it was done, who the operator was and the actual transaction that was carried out.

Can they hide behind national security reasons not to disclose this data?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...