Finders Keepers

[buzby]

There can also be situations where an office believes that behaviour 'may lead to.....', you are then arrested, trucked away in a van, only to be released without formal charge, the situation being neatly defused in the process.

[mightymouse_69]

Indeed.

 

Case law suggests that for an officer to be able to arrest for "Breach of the Peace" there must be:

 

(1) a real threat to the peace, and

 

(2) unreasonable conduct on the part of the individual to be arrested, the natural consequence of which was violence, which was not entirely unreasonable, from a third party.

 

Best example of this is Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex (2000) which happens to be a bailiff case... just that in this case it was the bailiff that got arrested.

[Conniff]

Indeed.

 

Case law suggests that for an officer to be able to arrest for "Breach of the Peace" there must be:

 

(1) a real threat to the peace, and

 

(2) unreasonable conduct on the part of the individual to be arrested, the natural consequence of which was violence, which was not entirely unreasonable, from a third party.

 

Best example of this is Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex (2000) which happens to be a bailiff case... just that in this case it was the bailiff that got arrested.

 

Oh yes - will they be making a film about it - oh please make a film about it.

[mightymouse_69]

It wouldn't have had a good ending... the bailiff gets compensation

[lamma]

bailiffs have been know to claim they felt threatened and that you were about to attack or even that you did attack them them even when the reverse is true. not angels or fair minded. personal video is a must - concealed in a pen or similar.

[Fair-Parking]

Bailiffs using ANPR to collect outstanding parking allegations everywhere except the warrant address? Happens evey day.

 

Think about it - why would bailiffs need ANPR if they had the address? The whole point of ANPR is cruise around in order to fish for random numbers supplied to them. They don't know the address.

 

Further the Met Police happily assist bailiffs by stopping the cars for them as Greater Manchester Police was doing in 2008 and then telling the motorist that he/she will be arrested for theft if they try to drive away in their own cars after being illegallly detained and for no good reason

 

As for arresting people for breach of the peace. It really doesn't matter whether that is civil or unenforceable, it's a real policeman threatening a member of the public in order to allow the bailiff to have his way.

[letsmakeamark]

Now here is one you can debate. Bailiffs (Bless 'em) often quote the indeterminate ownership of a vehicle as an excuse for towing it.

 

However the local authority which instructs them do so after contacting the DVLA for details of the registered keeper. The DVLA cannot send any other details such as ownership as it doesn't have them.

 

The local authority then sends out a Notice To Owner and any subsequent enforcement is then based on that notice.

 

Over to you for comments as to you whether you see an irony and lack of clear thinking by the legislators when local authorities are invited to treat keepers and owners as being the same and bailiffs (bless 'em) then further blur the line between ownership and registered keeper to their advantage when there is a dispute about ownership.

 

 

That is a scene i have seen over and over again.

[buzby]

Heck, it is clear as day! They came up with the system, so it is the system they actually wanted. They're not having to 'make do' as the best of a bad job. By makining a link between the RK to the Owner, they bridge the gap required, and benefit accordingly.

[Fair-Parking]

Yes, but that isn't the law is it? Councils and bailiffs are always making 'connections' for their own benefit without ever bothering to find out whether they are lawful.

 

An opinion/belief/convenience/method/aspiration/strategy/wish etc are not laws and cannot replace the law which in this case is a more longstanding one that the registered keeper of the vehicle and the owner cannot be deemed to be the same just because it is convenient for you to wish to believe that.

 

You don't actually think that the decriminalised parking system was thought through do you?

Edited May 25, 2010 by Fair-Parking

[buzby]

You get the law you can afford! If a law is ignored/misused/misrepresented aby a bailiff. What are you going to do? Take it to Trading Standards? Complain at the Court? Unless you can prove sustained and repeated breaches, what action do you raise? With police (usually) backing bailiffs as officers of the court, there is a tendancy to accept 'they know what they are doing' and will be reluctant to enter into the dispute.

 

THis may not be 'the law' as wrote - but it might was well be unless you have the money to enforce your point. Far better to stay under the radar and not end up in that situation.

[Fair-Parking]

That isn't the point that you made before. What I do about bailiff corruption is to use the law against them when assisting those who do take the matters to court.

 

Courts react to evidence and when you can show a judge just exactly how councils/bailiffs and bailiff companies abuse the law, then my experience is that the courts are likely to act very strongly against the corruption.

 

We now have the Attorney General intervening in a case, so clearly the judge who referred the matter to that office was not best amused or taken in by the bailiff or his employers.

 

As Judge Advent alluded in 1998, the only reason that they have got away with this for so long is because nobody ever challenged them before.

[buzby]

How many complaints have there been? And you can poit to one intervention? Sure, it is a step in the right direction, but lewts not fool ourselves that naything measurable will have been changed. The others will simply be more careful, or craftier.

[Fair-Parking]

The Attorney General intervenes and nothing has changed....?

 

The bailiff companies can be crafty as they like,their problem is that they are just plain guilty and no amount of bluster can change that. It only requires solid proof.

 

As for an example, it was Fair Parking's intervention in 2008 that shut down Marstons cosy arrangement with Greater Manchester Police on joint operations

[buzby]

Everything changes. The punter is skinned in a different way. I'm not daft enought to believe that once the AG is involved, that's a problem solved.

[letsmakeamark]

[Fair-Parking]

That's a very negative attiutude for a Royalties Account Holder.

 

What's the point of supporting the CAG if you don't believe people can make things better?

[buzby]

I have no control over what management put in the box adjacent. I have no idea what a 'Royalties Account Holder' actually is. The only RAC I know offers roadside assistance.

 

As to your last paragraph. You are making a misleading assumption. It is every person's right to believe what they feel is right. But I come from a place that thought Labour were doing a wonderful job, and voted them all back as MP's but not into government. That shows you something about either the Scots don't care about what has happened in the past, just that they need to tick the same box because their folks did.

 

'Making Things Better' also covers not making yourself a basket case by believing you are being singled out for unfair treatment, you're not. youy are simply a commodity to be embraced at election times then ignored intil that comes round again. Cynical. perhaps - but you pick the battles you will win, not beat yturself up about the ones that you won't. To make things bettrer, CAG allows shared experiences, so when you know you;re time is going to be royally wasted, you can save yourself the bother by avoiding the well-trodden path, and finding another route.

[Fair-Parking]

I learned all that over 30 years ago. At my age I've probably experienced everything - twice.

[buzby]

No argument from me 8) As a club, there'd be lots of us in it!