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 4725 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

They would find it very difficult in these circumstances to do so. If the OP does make a complaint about the alleged part of GMP in this issue then one of the first things they should do is to check the PNC and see how many times her vehicle has been checked and see if anything has been done by their staff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 353
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Whilst it could & will be argued that they had 'just' cause to stop a vehicle with outstanding fees as this implies other criminal activity they certainly don't have the right to detain the motorist insisting they contact the bailiffs & pay them before they release them.

 

Such conduct by the police amounts to wrongful arrest & detention & possibly much more seriously misfeasance whilst in public office if their behavoiur is deemed to be have been not only unlawful but also illegal. If the latter this would allow for the prosecution of the individual officers concerned

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Joncris this is wrongful detention and probably technically assault (See Wood v DPP).

But this "Whilst it could & will be argued that they had 'just' cause to stop a vehicle with outstanding fees as this implies other criminal activity" is just propagation of the spin. Council PCNs are civil matters not criminal which is why the police stop is wrong in the first place.

Not having a go at Joncris, just pointing out that we should not perpetuate the myths bandied around by the councils (and in this case the police).

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does need clarifying is whether or not Greater Manchester Police are being asked to put reports on vehicles where there are outstanding PCN's by local authorities or bailiffs so that they show up when officers carry out PNC checks or if they ping up on ANPR. They should not be placing reports on vehicles for something that is purely a civil matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Fairparking has kindly taken this up on my behalf so I will let you know what happens. In answer to your question though I have a letter from MCC stating that it is they that work with GMP on these matters so this suggests that this is down to the local authority. Time will tell I guess.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On "these matters" or on "this matter". working with GMP for things that are actually criminal is one thing but this whole police stop PCN is beyond that.

 

you have to watch for weasel words in council responses.

You have to give them short explicit closed questions

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

 

Fairparking has kindly taken this up on my behalf so I will let you know what happens. In answer to your question though I have a letter from MCC stating that it is they that work with GMP on these matters so this suggests that this is down to the local authority. Time will tell I guess.

 

Councils work with the police on a lot of things, but if the LA are asking the police to put reports on vehicle records on the PNC then the police should be telling them that it is a civil matter and the PNC should not be used for such purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not only that - and we probably need a live victim to make the inquiries about the PNC usage - the warrant the bailiff is executing will/should be against the home address. For this a live victim who has a copy of a warrant or had sight of it and remembers the details would be exceptionally useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

check out form N323

 

footnote:

the internet is a wonderful thing. Found one issued by Wandsworth (issued by the TEC).

It was issued under the "distress for rent rules".

it quotes

"Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiff) Regulations 1993"

 

At the bottom of the page it has the footer

 

PE9 Warrant of Execution - unpaid penalty charge (Order 46B,rule 5)

Edited by lamma
more information
Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge form N323 is county court warrant of execution that is obtained after a county court judgment has been granted. This warrant is exercised by county court bailiffs and thus it isn't part of the civil parking enforcement regulations and their associated private bailiffs.

 

Can you explain where PE9 came from and under what regulations Order 46b rule 5 falls under as I cannot find this under Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiffs) Regulations 1993, which appears to have just 17 rules?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is am interim report on allegations that Marstons/Drakes bailiffs are in collusion with Greater Manchester Police to stop motorists via police ANPR in order to pursue parking ticket enforcement. It appears that there may be some substance in the allegations

 

I can say that the incident that OP Ellie May referred to on this forum did happen. The local police inspector has confirmed that. What he is unable to confirm at this moment is why it happened.

 

I have also spoken to a senior official at Manchester City Council who is adamant that the City Council are not involved in debt collecting and thus would not have been involved in approving the flagging down of motorists for unpaid PCN's via ANPR. However he suspected that there was some working relationship between Marstons/Drakes and the police.

 

A frank and direct conversation took place particularly in relation to the 'warrants' being used by bailiffs acting as authorised agents of the council. Warrants which I believe have not been court stamped but which are being used as a form of authority, wherein the official did appear to understand the seriousness of the situation and confirmed that he would be contacting Marstons/Drakes to find out more. He also promised that if anybody has broken the law on the matter 'they would never work for Manchester City Council again'. I have not contacted the bailiff firm.

 

It would not be right for me to comment further at this point or to speculate as to the possible outcome.

 

I will post again at the appropriate time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

F-P I too suspect they have a 'working' relationship with the police, a relationship which is about to be exposed methinks as the national media are now aware of this behaviour by GM police.

 

Also I seem to recall a thread in which the OP had complained to the court about the behaviour of a bailiff in which the judge after removing their cert stated he wished he had been able to have is firm in court so he could punish them because it was obvious the bailiffs appalling conduct was expected by them. I think it was Drakes

 

lamma Cops cars & bailiffs was/is a travesty as it showed not only the bailiffs acting illegally but also their illegal activities actually being ably assisted by the police

Link to post
Share on other sites

"lamma Cops cars & bailiffs was/is a travesty as it showed not only the bailiffs acting illegally but also their illegal activities actually being ably assisted by the police"

 

exactly my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"lamma Cops cars & bailiffs was/is a travesty as it showed not only the bailiffs acting illegally but also their illegal activities actually being ably assisted by the police"

 

exactly my point.

 

The Cops & Bailiffs I watched on You Tube showed the police in Westminster working with JBW and stopping vehicles for them. I assume it was in repsonse to hits on the JBW ANPR system. The question that has to be asked is why police were apparantly stopping vehicles that were coming up on a private ANPR system? How could they be sure the info was up to date, especially given the number of hits the program showed where there had been a change of keeper since it was placed on the ANPR but JBW had failed to update it (the Ferrari springs to mind).

Link to post
Share on other sites

check out form N323

 

footnote:

the internet is a wonderful thing. Found one issued by Wandsworth (issued by the TEC).

It was issued under the "distress for rent rules".

it quotes

"Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts (Certified Bailiff) Regulations 1993"

 

At the bottom of the page it has the footer

 

PE9 Warrant of Execution - unpaid penalty charge (Order 46B,rule 5)

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cops & Bailiffs I watched on You Tube showed the police in Westminster working with JBW and stopping vehicles for them. I assume it was in repsonse to hits on the JBW ANPR system. The question that has to be asked is why police were apparantly stopping vehicles that were coming up on a private ANPR system? How could they be sure the info was up to date, especially given the number of hits the program showed where there had been a change of keeper since it was placed on the ANPR but JBW had failed to update it (the Ferrari springs to mind).

 

 

That's the one & apart from the bailiffs not only unlawful but also illegal behaviour the police acted unlawfully by detaining motorists who they knew had not committed an offence

 

The police as is so often the case recently are abusing their new found powers of arrest

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...