Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Doberman bites Bailiff on the arse! Police threaten arrest


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5664 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

When at work I leave my French doors open to let my two Dobermans into the back garden. It's surrounded by 6 foot fence with a locked gate. The lock to the gate can be picked with a screwdriver but not from the inside once the gate closes.

 

I came home a few weeks ago and found a chewed black size 11 industrial shoe in the garden. It is common for Dobies to steal things and chew them on the lawn, its thier nature but none of my family wears size 11's. I reported fence damage to police where vertical timbers snapped off the above the top Arris rail but they were uninterested suggesting somebody had thrown an old shoe into the garden to torment the dogs. I considered the matter closed because nothing was missing from the house.

 

Last week I am confronted by police officers and a dog catcher making threats of arrest under the Dangerous Dogs act. I quickly pointed out the DDA applies to dogs in public and mine are kept behind locked doors and only to breeds banned under the Act. The officer said a bailiff at A+E reported me for injuries to his legs and backside after entering my garden to collect a court fine. I think bailiffs had opened the gate to approach the house, my two Dobies came bouncing out and bit them on the arse while they climbed back over the fence after the gate slammed shut behind them. I also think this explains the shoe and the fence timbers being snapped off.

 

The court fine is registered at our address but the persons name is unknown to us. The local mags court is unwilling to help citing data protection act. We returned post for the addressee as gone away but items just kept coming and we just put them in the shredder.

 

Can a bailiff really have me charged for this?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Charged with what ?

 

Justice springs to mind.

 

Where can i send 2 HUGE doggy bones ?

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He can try - by laying a complaint with the police. Once the police are satisfied that nothing untoward has occurred (well, you know what I mean:)) they will tell the complainer to go away.

If you are being prosecuted I would worry but obviously the police aren't going to do that.

 

A couple more bones from here as well.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

At last !!!!

 

After hearing bailiff queries all day, I have sometheing to laugh about.

 

Sorry, I must be serious. The bailiff can try to gain "peaceful entry" into the property. Well clearly that didn't happen !!! ( Sorry I'm laughing as I type this).

 

Serious again. What you have is a chewed up shoe. It could be that the bailiff has the matching one which would prove that it was his. But, unless this incident was filmed or witnessed by a third party I cannot see how he could PROVE that either of your dogs had bitten him or chewed his shoe. It is simply hearsay evidence and would probably teach the bailiff to make sure that he knocks on the door next time.

 

Many times we have queries from the public where a bailiff has alledged he had applied a clamp to a vehicle and that "somehow" the clamp had been removed. The bailiff naturally reports the "crime" to the police but I have yet to see a case yet where a prosecution has been sucessful because there is no proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that if the charges go ahead, you charge the bailiff for tresspass and damage to your fence. If the court order is not in your name then then bailiff shouldn't have come into your garden.

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you obtain the bailiff's details?

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I so love this. It has really made my day.

 

How come when we have a problem with a bailiff and call the police, its a civil matter, yet when the bailiff calls them, they jump.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

And these are for my 2 new FRIENDS.

 

roastknucklebone.jpg

Edited by tonycee

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which magistrates court was it? I ask because if the data protection act protects the bailiffs then it should equally protect you. In other words why do they have your details in the first place?

 

Ask the magistrates court exactly setion of the data protection act allows the council to supply details of an innocent party to a private company. And which section prevents that innocent party from having recourse to correction.

 

Serves the buggers right for trying to sneak into the private property. Teach the word 'bailiff' to the dogs so that they will know that you when you say it in future they should snarl.

 

Then reward them with bigger bones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The courts said they could not disclose information about other people. Our house is on my husband’s farm and the front is hard to reach so post is delivered to the gate lodge. The Dobies were kept in the back garden because it is dangerous for them to ride the combine so we let them out at night to chase away [EDIT] people who try to bring caravans onto the farm. [EDIT] These people register their vehicles at our farm and we get their mail and DVLA tax renewals.

 

We had problems with bailiffs before. Two years ago police arrested my husband when farm hands prepping the potato harvester for the days work at 6.30am had trouble from bailiffs who turned up and levied on the harvester by blocking it with their van. My husband turned up in a JCB forklift and lifted their van by the chassis leaving it suspended 18 feet in the air and ordered the bailiffs off the farm. They called police, but my husband's tactless approach (he is a typical Norfolk f'ing & blinding type – really swears a lot) told the police to go away, arrested him for theft of their van and obstructing a bailiff in levying on his £160,000 Grimme potato picker for a car tax fine that had nothing to do with him or the farm.

 

I can see the funny side, but my husband seriously lacks a sense of humour when it comes to police and bailiffs. He was ready to JCB the police van up and put it up on the roof of a 40ft container. He is a real softie otherwise but this how farmers deal with caravans parked on their land. Police say it's a civil matter even when crop is damaged and livestock is stolen and accordingly my husband has no time for police and bailiffs.

Edited by Rooster-UK
Derogatory remarks removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time just park something big in the gate-way.

Then it's a civil matter if they want to retrieve their van.

 

Quote the man in the Hoover Free Flights offer case:

 

When he didn't get his free flight tickets he called out the Hoover man to fix his washer & then blocked his van in saying he could have the van when they spun for the flights.:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

These bailiffs think they are a law unto themselves, and can just bully people into submission.

 

Consider making a complaint against the bailiffs.

 

Or better still, dont feed the dogs if you know they are coming back.

I Wish you everything you wish yourself.

 

NatWest Claimed £1,639. Accepted £1,344.

Natwest Paid me again as GOGW £1,656. Yes they can have it back if they say please.

Barclays 1 Claimed £1,260. Won by default. Paid in full

Barclays 2 Claimed £2,378. Won by default. Paid in full

Birmingham Midshires. Claimed £2,122. Accepted £2,075.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't work. When police saw the bailiffs van perched up on the end of a forklift they told my husband he was holding the bailiffs hostage and threatened to charge him with kidnap.

 

That's different though.You can park where you like on your own land - they are free to leave when they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that these people register their vehicles at your address. That's very similar to our scheme, except that it appears that whilst we actively consent to giving our permission for others to use our address for registration, you don't and yet the DVLA still accept this misuse of your address as being right and proper and therefore fair game to pass on to others.

 

Have I got this right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a peril of living on a farm, [edited], or gypisies for another word, don't have social security numbers or a fixed address so they use other peoples wityhouit permission. We stick tax discs DVLA and insurance documents in the shredder because pikies dont want them, its just to appease the police databases and their laser vans. If a [e] car is lifted by police they just get another. Thats also how pikies dispose of unwanted goods, fill an old untaxed car or van with rubbish and park it out in a neighbourhood for the DVLA to find or drive it through a police checkpoint. Otherwise they flytip it on us. Not just a nuisance but dangerous using planting and harvesting equipment. We can escort a bailiff off the farm, not so easy to escort a five ton pile of rubbish.

 

[e]

Edited by jonni2bad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DobieGal. Your answer quite made my day. Reminds of the day Phil Silvers (Sgt Bilko) went to Lords to watch cricket. At first he was quite amazed to discover that the game lasted 5 days - but after reflection he went home happy in the knowledge that if the English could watch this for 5 days, he shouldn't have any problem attracting an audience to his show for just 25 minutes.

 

So it is with our situation. If the law and DVLA allows the blatant abuse of your address without your consent and then just shrugs its shoulders at all the problems that this is causing you, then I should not have any problems promoting the validity of our scheme which does invite people to register here with our consent.

 

I know that it doesn't help you and frankly the police need to take this far more seriously. Even the dimmest must now realise that the bailiffs have duff info and that you are entitled to your privacy along with their protection when it is violated by those who won't listen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, have you taken your dobies to the vets for a tetanus shot? They did bite a Bailiff remember. They could have caught anything from them!

Beating the DCA's day by day

 

My fight:

NDR - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Bank of Scotland - CCA'd 12+2 passed

CFS - Win by Technical Knock-out!:lol:

HFC Bank - CCA'd 12+2 passed

Chantry Collections - CCA sent

 

Time flies like an arrow

Fruit flies like a banana :D

 

<---------- Have I given you top advice, have I made you laugh, click on the scales, it won't hurt you! :grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a case of bailiffs genuinely not knowing their victim (for what better description) is a person of no fixed abode. We cannot lawfully allow anyone to use the farm for DVLA contact because its concealment of the true identity of a vehicles registered keeper and commits an offence of perverting the course of justice.

 

Farms usually have a policy of asking a bailiff to quietly leave the farm (for insurance purposes) and call for assistance if a bailiff causes trouble. We find lifting their vehicle with a JCB and leaving it 30ft in the air usually does the trick.

 

Bailiff visits to the farm usually go unnoticed by us, farmhands explain why they cant find their person or the vehicle and they leave under their own accord.

Edited by jonni2bad
Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you have signage clearly displayed stating that there are dogs on the premises? if so, job done, they were warned and didn't heed the warning

 

I was in this position before, my rotty, shepherd and little manchester terrier escorted a nuisance group of window cleaners back over the fence from whence they came, minus their bucket, clothes and the sleeve of one of their jackets. they called in the police and their legals

 

Their legals even tried to state that because the sign stated beware of the DOG (singular) we were liable by having more than one dog!!

 

They withdrew their case as the house was clearly signed front and back although the signs were replaced with Beware of the DOGS (plural) signs soon after

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember reading on here somewhere its not wise to have a sign saying "Beware" of the dog, as it implies that you know your dog might attack someone. Something like "Large dogs on the premises" might be safer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police criticised our dog signage. Our house is on a private cul-de-sac of properties on the farm and we own them all. Ours is the principle farm house and the cottages provide accommodation for farmhands. The public road entrance to the cul-de-sac is closed off with electronic gates. That’s why bailiffs cannot get access to the front of the properties and thus, no dog signage needed. The back of the properties each have access direct to the farm via a gate and our dog sign according to police does not comply with Beware of Dog. It is a picture of a Doberman Pinscher with a speech-bubble containing a caption I live here, I bite first and ask questions later!. Bailiffs still entered because the farm house is the address they were looking for, but we never lock the house with my dobies inside.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>But, unless this incident was filmed or witnessed by a third party I cannot see how he could PROVE that either of your dogs had bitten him or chewed his shoe.

 

Oh what a wonderful thread. I would suggest a bite on a bailiffs arse could be matched to the dog that did it by puncture marks but would require scene of crime officers plus all other manner of specialist resources to prove it. I very much doubt if they'd bother.

 

Di you feed the dogs ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...