Haringey Council employing illegal immigrants - invalidates PCNS?

[Fair-Parking]

Here's an idiot who doesn't know the difference between an 'offence' and 'fine' and contravention and charge vainly preaching to others about inaccuracy and who finally exposed his own uncouth mind by actually trying to belittle the act of preventing a lady having her car towed by bailiffs printing up 'warrants' in their own van.

 

Most people reading this could be forgiven for thinking that this forum was a platform for preventing people from losing their cars.

 

But not our friend G & M.

 

He must be the only person who could find fault with that.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Fair-Parking,

 

Could you please help me (and possibly others) understand why an alleged or actual breach of the Data Protection Act may invalidate a PCN when the ultimate remedy for an alleged breach of the DPA is a complaint to the ICO and for an allegedly defective PCN is appeal to the independent parking adjudicator?

 

I like the thought that a breach of the DPA may invalidate PCNs but I see no basis for it in law.

 

Could you also expand on why it is that you feel that you assistance to someone with a bailiff issue has any relevance to this issue at all?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Bernie_the_Bolt

[green_and_mean]

Here's an idiot who doesn't know the difference between an 'offence' and 'fine' and contravention and charge vainly preaching to others about inaccuracy and who finally exposed his own uncouth mind by actually trying to belittle the act of preventing a lady having her car towed by bailiffs printing up 'warrants' in their own van.

 

Most people reading this could be forgiven for thinking that this forum was a platform for preventing people from losing their cars.

 

But not our friend G & M.

 

He must be the only person who could find fault with that.

 

I'm sure many people will benefit to know that a PCN is not a 'fine' but is fact a 'financial penalty', you really deserve a medal for services to the community if only I could fathom out what differences it makes to anyone apart from you?

 

 

fine PUNISHMENT /f'aɪn/

• fines plural, 3rd person present; fining present participle; fined past tense, past participle
  

• A fine is a punishment in which a person is ordered to pay a sum of money because they have done something illegal or broken a rule.
  

Maybe you can take your argument to those that write dictionaries since they are also 'idiots'. If anyone is an 'idiot' its you for initially trying to change the argument away from your obviously incorrect and misleading quotes about DPA by waffling along about some reference I had previously made about 'fines' and then dragging some poor women into the whole scenario. If you cannot carry out an adult discussion without changing the subject then don't bother. I personally couldn't care if you carried out open heart surgery today you are still wrong on your original statement.

[Fair-Parking]

Bernie. The ultimate authority for law and order in this country is the courts.

 

And for that G & M who seems to have to refer to a book before supplying every answer

 

A fine is a criminal sanction. A charge is it's civil equivalent.

 

Simple

[green_and_mean]

Bernie. The ultimate authority for law and order in this country is the courts.

 

And for that G & M who seems to have to refer to a book before supplying every answer

 

A fine is a criminal sanction. A charge is it's civil equivalent.

 

Simple

 

I was only refering to the dictionary since you seem to need convincing, a fine is not a criminal sanction its a financial penalty. I take it the £115,000 west ham got fined by the FA for crowd trouble was in fact a penalty charge and not a fine at all? I suggest maybe you also contact the FSA since they last year 'fined' HSBC £2m for having poor data control systems and tell them they are breaking the law to.

I do not see how encouraging people with PCNs to contest on clearly 'uncontestable' grounds is to their benefit? Maybe thats why you have so much experience with ballifs, lol.

[Fair-Parking]

Last word....

 

"It doesn't matter what you say, it makes no difference anyway - I'm against it......"

 

Groucho Marx 1932.

[noomill060]

"A 'penalty' is a 'fine' the terms are interchangeable in the English language"

 

Codswallop.

 

A fine may only be imposed by a court as a criminal sanction, and only after due process.

 

The examples you give are financial penalties.

 

HMRC and other government debts may claim they may impose "fines" you. If they do, you can challenge these "fines" in court quoting the Bill of Rights.

 

They confuse "fine" and "penalty" through ignorance, arrogance and sloppy use of English.

 

You may quote a dictionary definition which obviously includes colloquial use, I quote the Bill of Rights.

 

It was very, very clear on the matter. Puts the rights of the citizen and limits the power of the State.

 

Issued by King William III as the conditions of his accepting the English Crown as constitutional sovereign.

 

(being aware of how (not long before) we disposed of a monarch who claimed unfettered authority)

 

Chop.

Edited January 19, 2010 by noomill060

[sailor sam]

"A 'penalty' is a 'fine' the terms are interchangeable in the English language"

 

Codswallop.

 

A fine may only be imposed by a court.

 

...or the Inland Revenue!

[green_and_mean]

"A 'penalty' is a 'fine' the terms are interchangeable in the English language"

 

Codswallop.

 

A fine may only be imposed by a court as a criminal sanction, and only after due process.

 

The examples you give are financial penalties.

 

Obviously you know more than the Oxford English Dictionary your talents are obviously wasted here!!

 

• noun a sum of money exacted as a penalty by a court of law or other authority.

[Michael Browne]

Personally I agree with G&M

 

 

and sorry Michael Browne, your opinion is not substantiated by any evidence to support it.

Absolutely. Mainly because, as far as I know, the issue of whether PCN's issued by illegal immigrants are valid or not has never been adjudicated at PATAS, let alone tested in court. Until that happens, everything is opinion, yours, mine and G&M's

[noomill060]

...or the Inland Revenue!

 

No.

 

As I state above. HMRC "fines" can be challenged in Court quoting the Bill of Rights.

 

They are penalties, not fines, because only a court can impose a fine.

 

Its like claiming that pandas can procreate and produce hamsters. It cant happen.

 

Pandas get together and make baby pandas - and only baby pandas.

 

Fines can only be imposed by the court and no one else.

 

 

Dictionary definitions of words are not necessarily the same as their legal meaning.

 

A fine can obviously be described as a financial penalty imposed by the court as a sanction against criminal action, but a penalty (applied by a council, bank, Football Association etc) can never be described as a lawfully applied fine. Its merely a penalty and you cant go to jail if you dont pay it.

 

(You can lose your shirt or get kicked out of the Brownies, but you cant go to jail, because you dont commit an offence in failing to pay it.)

Edited January 19, 2010 by noomill060

[green_and_mean]

No.

Dictionary definitions of words are not necessarily the same as their legal meaning.

 

I didn't realise this was a Court of law I thought it was a forum that used the English language? How does it benefit ANYONE to try and play with semantics, in plain English if you get a Penalty charge notice you have been fined this is not the High Court its a forum. Parking wardens, CEOs , parking attendants WHO CARES what you call them what difference does it make at the end of the day? Oooooh look at me I'm really clever, its not an offence to park on yellow lines it a contravention......who cares, you are still gonna get a PCN! Oh and by the way they are CUBS not baby pandas.

[noomill060]

green, mean and rather silly.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bernie. The ultimate authority for law and order in this country is the courts.

And for that G & M who seems to have to refer to a book before supplying every answer

 

A fine is a criminal sanction. A charge is it's civil equivalent.

 

Simple

 

Actually if you want to get pedantic it's the Queen in Parliament (unless you want to go all European).

 

In any event I was talking about remedy not authority.

 

Perhaps you could answer the questions in my post. They would help me understand a bit more?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

If a "fine" is a criminal sanction and a "penalty" a civil one does that mean that all those who have been subject to the death penalty in the past have been unlawfully sentenced?

 

Or does this illustrate the silliness of the debate?

[lamma]

only if they had the death charge "A fine is a criminal sanction. A charge is it's civil equivalent."

[tomtubby]

Purpose 7

 

Assessment and Collection of Taxes and Other Revenue

Purpose Description:

Assessment and collection of taxes, duties, levies and other revenue.

Data Controllers further description of Purpose:

CALCULATION AND ASSESSMENT OF RATES / TAX DUE

CONDUCT OF COUNCIL TAX CANVASSES

ISSUE OF NOTICES AND DEMANDS

COLLECTION AND PROCESSING OF PAYMENTS

DEBT TRACING AND COLLECTION OF COUNCIL TAX AND NNDR

DEBT TRACING AND COLLECTION OF MONIES OWED TO THE COUNCIL OTHER THAN NNDR AND

COUNCIL TAX

.

.

 

This is an interesting subject and if there is any wrongdoing with the Data Controller registration by local authorities in respect of their non registration for PCN enforcement in particular for CCTV, it is important to go back a LONG WAY to see how that has happened.

 

In 1998 all European Member States signed up for one data law which was the DPA 1998. All local authorities were of course required to register as Data Controllers with the Information Commissioners to allow them to process, share or pass on personal data etc.

 

By the year 2000, the vast majority of councils in England and Wales had registered and coincidentally many such applications are due to expire ( and in fact some have expired within the past week!!)Lazy councils..

 

When registering there are template categories that can be chosen ( these are called PURPOSES) and AT ANY TIME a local authority ( or anyone else for that matter) can contact the ICO to "add a purpose". This can be done in what is called "free speech" and means that you can say whatever you like.

 

As I mentioned earlier, the crucial time frame in which the initial application was made to the ICO (around 2000) and a "template " category was included by all local authorities for council tax. This DOES NOT include PCN;s!!! and neither was it intended to do so.

 

The reason for this is because in the year 2000 the VAST MAJORITY of councils DID NOT have decriminalised parking. Instead, PCN;s were Fixed Penalty Charges and these were issued by the POLICE and were therefore EXCLUDED.

 

Over time, a vast number of local authorities opted for decrim...but it is rare for the LA to update their Data Controller status.

 

Some London local authorities are better than others. Haringay has opted for a "free speech purpose" and is pretty descriptive and is fairly new. Croydon have done the same and so too has Ealing, Hillingdon and a few others.

 

Personally, it is sloppy administration by the vast majority of councils.

[Freedomboy]

Hi Tomtubby,

 

I've been following this data control thread on here and on other threads and have been fascinated by it. When you mention the "free speech" option could you clarify what that means for me with a little more detail.

And also, for example, if I was to persue a local authority for pcn's issued from 07-08 and they only opted for the free speech purpose in 09, would I still be able to sue on the fact that they weren't covered by this purpose at the time.

Be gentle with me........it's my 1st post!!

Many thanks.

[tomtubby]

Hi Tomtubby,

 

I've been following this data control thread on here and on other threads and have been fascinated by it. When you mention the "free speech" option could you clarify what that means for me with a little more detail.

And also, for example, if I was to persue a local authority for pcn's issued from 07-08 and they only opted for the free speech purpose in 09, would I still be able to sue on the fact that they weren't covered by this purpose at the time.

Be gentle with me........it's my 1st post!!

Many thanks.

 

When a local authority registers as Data Controllers they MUST apply for various Categories. These are called "Purposes" and there are a large number of "standard purposes".

 

Where none of these "Stanadard Purposes" apply, a local authority may instead use their own words to describe a new "purpose" that they wish to register for.

 

In this respect they are using "free speech" to describe a category that is not a a Standard one.

[Freedomboy]

Ah ok I see. So they could for example add the collection of pcn fines to their list of information that could be passed on to a 3rd party. Although would this go against what FP was quoting from Lord Falconer.

[green_and_mean]

Ah ok I see. So they could for example add the collection of pcn fines to their list of information that could be passed on to a 3rd party. Although would this go against what FP was quoting from Lord Falconer.

 

Which was incorrectly quoted. Lord Falconer said the Council tax legislation made sharing (council tax) data for any purpose other than Council tax collection was unlawful and NOT sharing data was unlawful.

[Freedomboy]

I copied the below from my local council. To me it looks like they've covered themselves. Any thoughts

 

Purpose 15

 

Method 2

Data Controllers further description of Purpose:

ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC REGULATIONS INCLUDING PARKING

Data subjects are:

Staff including volunteers, agents, temporary and casual workers

Customers and clients

Suppliers

Offenders and suspected offenders

Data classes are:

Personal Details

Financial Details

Goods or Services Provided

OFFENCE DETAILS INCLUDING CCTV DETAILS

Sources (S) and Disclosures (D)(1984 Act). Recipients (1998 Act):

Data subjects themselves

Employees and agents of the data controller

Suppliers, providers of goods or services

Persons making an enquiry or complaint

Debt collection and tracing agencies

Police forces

Local Government

Central Government

Data processors

Transfers:

None outside the European Economic Area

[Freedomboy]

If they only updated or added this purpose a couple of months ago would it be logged anywhere? And if so, would it mean that any charges issued to me not covered by this purpose at the time of offence could be challenged?

[green_and_mean]

If they only updated or added this purpose a couple of months ago would it be logged anywhere? And if so, would it mean that any charges issued to me not covered by this purpose at the time of offence could be challenged?

 

You are being taken on a wild goose chase breach of data protection does not invalidate a PCN. If you felt that the DPA was being breached then that is a seperate issue/complaint. If Haringey had a policy of only employing 'white' CEOs it would be a breach of the Race Relations Act but still not void the PCN. If the Council made the CEOs wear flip flops as part of their uniform it would breach Health and Safety at Work regs but still not the PCN. Can you see where this is going?

[Freedomboy]

I understand what you're saying although I don't need it spelling out quite so literally. That comment was meant with the best intentions by the way. I can understand why you thought I was coming in from that angle though.

I was merely trying to see if there was a possibility that LA's could be taken to court for being in breach of their own Data Protection Policy.........NOT as a means to avoid paying a penalty charge.

My understanding is that the majority of complaints within this particular topic are to do with council contracted bailiff companies that charge extorsionate/illegal amounts of money for penalty charges and the recovery thereof. I'm new here so may be a bit green, but if LA's were in breach of their own Data Protection Policy, by passing personal data to debt collection agencies which as a result meant that all bailiff fees were revoked and the offender just had to pay the original fine..........well.......that's a good thing isn't it?