For discussion thread only! PCN's etc

[Fair-Parking]

*******EDIT********

 

 

This is a discussion thread continued from here;

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?350867-Car-clamped-on-public-road-by-JBW-for-old-pcn

 

 

 

I have every way of knowing that as I have seen plenty of TE8a forms. I also know that the stock argument that local authorities put up is that they are allowed to pass on details electronically to bailiffs under CPR 75 4 even though they don't seem to know that this applies to Orders for Recovery and not warrants and that bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings (House of Lords 19 July 2011)

 

I also know that the only 'warrant' that B & D have ever issued (in desperation after legal proceedings had commenced) came several months after their bailiffs Newlyn produced a 'warrant' for a court case under CPR 75 4. Not only did we have the farcical situation of two 'warrants' from two different sources being presented to the court as being the 'original', but two parties who have acted in contradiction of each other. Newlyn clearly arguing that CPR 75 allowed the electronic transfer of authority and LB Barking and Dagenham torpedoing it. To cut a long story short Newlyn's solicitor (CAG member 'fatty felton') was only too pleased to settle out of court seven days before the court hearing for a sum of £7000.

 

Now what do think LB Barking and Dagenham have learned from this?

 

And the bailiff had a warrant in you case? Start a thread and we'll discuss this. have you got a copy of the 'warrant'.

[Fair-Parking]

Jamberson - the whole purpose of arguing that CPR 75 4 has any validity is that those who do use the argument are trying to say that it allows the bailiff to issue the warrant after receiving details electronically. The only way a local authority can argue that is to admit that it never issued the warrant. When bailiffs and local authorities try to argue that both parties can issue a warrant, it ends in the Whitehall Theatre scenario and is very expensive.

[Jamberson]

Jamberson, how do you know it's irrelevant why the correspondence was not received? If that's the case they would have to accept my declaration. I have also e-mailed to TEC copy of Council Tax (it is dated March this year though), and a copy of an invoice that is dated December 2011. All show my current address.

 

Because I know how the syetem works. If you look at the forms you filed, for example, you will see that the applicable grounds in your case are "I did not receive the Notice to Owner". If you meet that criterion, and tick the box, then you have met the necessary grounds. Note there is nothing about blame in meeting that criterion - it does not say, for example, I did not receive the Notice to Owner, and it wasn;t my fault' - it is sufficient to show that you did not receive it. Blame doesn't enter the equation.

[Fair-Parking]

Oh they or their bailiffs will probably print one and backdate it as they did last summer. Its standard practice.

 

But to be valid it had to be printed by the local authority within seven days of its authorisation by the TEC. (CPR 75 7 3)

 

If that happened I'll give you the money mesself...........

[Fair-Parking]

You must be adopting the SEP approach to this.

 

In short because it ain't anywhere to be seen.

 

Our court civil courts decide cases to a level of proof that is reliant on the 'balance of probabilties'. Applied to this case what do you think a court might decide on the existence of the 'warrant'?

 

If you want to believe the warrants exists then that is up to you, but at some stage you'll have to focus on why like a will o the wisp it remains elusive when every opportunity has existed to produce it.

 

Thers is nothing so elusive as things which do not exist.

[Fair-Parking]

Its because the bailiff hasn't produced it. B & D doesn't issue warrants except when trying to pervert the course of justice. If the stat dec is not succesful then the OP will have two main choices. a) Don't pay and lose the car b) Pay and get it back.

 

If either of those are exercised then she will have to take the matter to a county court to recover her financial losses, as she will if attempts an injunction.

 

The very use of ANPR is a substitute for a warrant. You don't need ANPR if you have one because you drive to the address on the warrant. Why would you need ANPR to do that?

 

However the use of ANPR precludes warrants if only in terms of logistics. How much space and weight do you think 150,000 A4 warrants take up? And when Johnny Motorist's registration number flashes on your computer, just what selection system is being used to produce a warrant instantly? Now multiply this by the number of ANPR vans on the road and the fact that Section 20 of the Data Protection Act 1998 require the lists to be updated regularly, just who is the overworked printer producing over three million or more warrants a week. Who clears out the vans and loads the new warrants and where does the waste paper go?

 

How many suspensions a year does this artic get through?

[Tim Deegan]

Tim Deegan - I have every way of knowing that as I have seen plenty of TE8a forms. I also know that the stock argument that local authorities put up is that they are allowed to pass on details electronically to bailiffs under CPR 75 4 even though they don't seem to know that this applies to Orders for Recovery and not warrants and that bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings (House of Lords 19 July 2011)

 

I also know that the only 'warrant' that B & D have ever issued (in desperation after legal proceedings had commenced) came several months after their bailiffs Newlyn produced a 'warrant' for a court case under CPR 75 4. Not only did we have the farcical situation of two 'warrants' from two different sources being presented to the court as being the 'original', but two parties who have acted in contradiction of each other. Newlyn clearly arguing that CPR 75 allowed the electronic transfer of authority and LB Barking and Dagenham torpedoing it. To cut a long story short Newlyn's solicitor (CAG member 'fatty felton') was only too pleased to settle out of court seven days before the court hearing for a sum of £7000.

 

Now what do think LB Barking and Dagenham have learned from this?

 

And the bailiff had a warrant in you case? Start a thread and we'll discuss this. have you got a copy of the 'warrant'.

 

You are still making an assumption, as you don't know.

 

In my case the bailif did have a warrant, which I did have, but it was a few years ago.

[Tim Deegan]

Its because the bailiff hasn't produced it. B & D doesn't issue warrants except when trying to pervert the course of justice. If the stat dec is not succesful then the OP will have two main choices. a) Don't pay and lose the car b) Pay and get it back.

 

If either of those are exercised then she will have to take the matter to a county court to recover her financial losses, as she will if attempts an injunction.

 

The very use of ANPR is a substitute for a warrant. You don't need ANPR if you have one because you drive to the address on the warrant. Why would you need ANPR to do that?

 

However the use of ANPR precludes warrants if only in terms of logistics. How much space and weight do you think 150,000 A4 warrants take up? And when Johnny Motorist's registration number flashes on your computer, just what selection system is being used to produce a warrant instantly? Now multiply this by the number of ANPR vans on the road and the fact that Section 20 of the Data Protection Act 1998 require the lists to be updated regularly, just who is the overworked printer producing over three million or more warrants a week. Who clears out the vans and loads the new warrants and where does the waste paper go?

 

How many suspensions a year does this artic get through?

 

You are obviously on a crusade, which appears to be clouding your judgement. I think we need to concentrate on FACTS rather than your assumptions.

 

I was clobbered for £580, but I still keep an open mind, and take each case individually.

[Fair-Parking]

And which local authority issued it?

[Tim Deegan]

North Herts District Council

[Fair-Parking]

Thne start as new thread, but I should say that I am in no position to comment on anything that you may have received without seeing it.

[Tim Deegan]

Thne start as new thread, but I should say that I am in no position to comment on anything that you may have received without seeing it.

 

I wasn't about to start a new thread. My point is that you can't just assume that the bailif didn't have a warrant. AS you say you can't comment on anything you haven't seen. Yet you are commenting on this thread when you haven't seen anything.

[Fair-Parking]

Don't mix your metaphors young man. Your case is not this case and it is not a cas of one size fits all. With more information I might be in a position to comment further on your circumstances, and not commenting on your case that should tell you that I do not come to conclusions lightly.

 

You say there was a warrant. The OP says she never saw one. Its not the same by a long way. There was enough evidence in this case to arrive at a considered conclusion.

 

If you did not wish to accept it then fine. Take the word of baliffs and local authorities and not those who keep finding evidence to expose their shoddy and shameless tricks in court

 

I

[Tim Deegan]

Don't mix your metaphors young man. Your case is not this case and it is not a cas of one size fits all. With more information I might be in a position to comment further on your circumstances, and not commenting on your case that should tell you that I do not come to conclusions lightly.

 

You say there was a warrant. The OP says she never saw one. Its not the same by a long way. There was enough evidence in this case to arrive at a considered conclusion.

 

If you did not wish to accept it then fine. Take the word of baliffs and local authorities and not those who keep finding evidence to expose their shoddy and shameless tricks in court

 

I

 

There is no need to use that tone, although I don't object to being called young.

 

I haven't asked you to comment on my case, and I never would, as you are obviously on a crusade, and come to your own conclusions based on your own blinkered view.

 

As I said previously, it's only FACTS that matter. And you are using assumptions. You shouldn't give anyone legal advice based on assumptions, as you could set them up for a big fall.

[Jamberson]

Take the word of baliffs and local authorities and not those who keep finding evidence to expose their shoddy and shameless tricks in court

 

Those cases are not this case and it is not a case of one size fits all.

[Tim Deegan]

Those cases are not this case and it is not a case of one size fits all.

 

Absolutely!!!

[Fair-Parking]

Enough is enough. When you have been called an 'expert' in parking enforcement in a court of law by a judge and an opposing barrister then maybe you might be in better position to criticise and question everything that I have taken a a great deal of time to explain to you. Nothing I have said has come without a great deal of practical and hard earned experience in some tough arenas.

 

Have either of you taken the trouble to work out the volume and weight of 150,000 80 gm A4 'warrants' you must believe the bailiff had with him in his little ANPR van to give any crebility to your claims that he may have had one?

[Jamberson]

He may have a warrant. You don't know and neither do we.

 

The problem here isn't about credentials or compliments you've been paid - it's about facts. You should not tell people there's no warrant against them unless you know that, and you don't.

[Tim Deegan]

Enough is enough. When you have been called an 'expert' in parking enforcement in a court of law by a judge and an opposing barrister then maybe you might be in better position to criticise and question everything that I have taken a a great deal of time to explain to you. Nothing I have said has come without a great deal of practical and hard earned experience in some tough arenas.

 

Have either of you taken the trouble to work out the volume and weight of 150,000 80 gm A4 'warrants' you must believe the bailiff had with him in his little ANPR van to give any crebility to your claims that he may have had one?

 

Sounds like you have a self inflated ego. The fact is that if you went into court and claimed to be an expert, when all you are going by is assumptions, then a good lawyer would tear you apart.

 

So lets get back to the FACTS so that we can help the OP.

[Tim Deegan]

A number of things to consider -

 

• Barking Mad Council have a history of correspondence irregularities relating to PCNs
  
• There is a similar case on LB involving Newlyns
  
• There are, in all probability, data protection issues in this case
  
• The scrote, sorry, bailiff has, on the face of it, committed an offence of Blackmail (Section 21, Theft Act 1968)
  
• JBW are vicariously liable for his actions, as is Barking Mad Council
  
• There is a procedure under the Criminal Procedures Rules that can be used to deal with this scrote
  

Also, please bear in mind that as of 6 April 2010, the Information Commissioner has the power to impose a Financial Penalty of up to £500,000 on any person or organisation (including commercial entities) breaching the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

ANPR is notoriously unreliable. If the databases it relies upon are not up to date, innocent motorists/vehicle owners have their vehicles wrongly/unlawfully/illegally seized/clamped/crushed. The worst offenders are the Motor Insurers Database (MID) and DVLA.

 

Please remember that 9 times out of 10 bailiffs are just people doing their job. I know it may not feel like that when you are the one having your possesions taken. But most of them are just executing a warrant. I know that like this case (and my own) it may be that a warrant shouldn't have been issued. But that is not the bailiffs decision.

 

So how about acting like adults, rather than name calling, and childish comments. If errors are made, then they can usually be sorted out. After all, we don't even know if the bailiff was acting illegally or not.

[seanamarts]

Although that may seem like unfair treatment at the time, I think this is the normal way that they operate once it gets to this stage. They are basically there to seize the vehicle. And the only way to prevent that happening is to pay before the truck turns up. Otherwise they have to either hang around all day, or risk someone removing the clamp, and then hiding the vehicle.

 

You have to remember that once it gets to this stage the council will have sent correspondence (probably on more than one occasion). And the court will have also.

 

My personal view is that all PCN's and court letters should be registered. And then if they are returned, they should send someone to the registered address. If they then find that the registered keeper of the car doesn't live there, then they should start investigations into their current address. Once the current address is found, then the whole proceedure should start from the begining, with the initial PCN from the council.

 

They didn't use ANPR cameras when my car was clamped, they just saw it parked outside my address. But it appears in your case that they just pinged your car on the ANPR, and this happened to be at the school.

You make it sound so easy, however it dosnt work that way all the time. It may be wise for you to look around the bailiff forum and get a feel for what happens regularly, with bailiffs bending the rules some what

[old bill]

Please remember that 9 times out of 10 bailiffs are just people doing their job. I know it may not feel like that when you are the one having your possesions taken. But most of them are just executing a warrant. I know that like this case (and my own) it may be that a warrant shouldn't have been issued. But that is not the bailiffs decision.

 

So how about acting like adults, rather than name calling, and childish comments. If errors are made, then they can usually be sorted out. After all, we don't even know if the bailiff was acting illegally or not.

 

Tim... When you have had to deal with the fallout from certificated bailiffs' misconduct and the trauma it causes individuals, as I have, in a professional capacity, you will quickly learn that although they may be people "doing their job", the way they go about it is, 9 times out of 10, totally outside the bounds of the law. Even when it is shown these individuals have made glaring errors, they go into denial, insisting they have done nothing wrong. If the MoJ consultation recommends that all certificated bailiffs and HCEOs are subject to Enhanced CRB checks, I have no doubt that 99% of them would be out of a job overnight. Convictions for acts of violence are not uncommon. Another cagger has been seriously assaulted by one these thugs in suits.

 

When I was a serving police officer, locking up these individuals, even for a few hours, was very satisfying when you heard their bleating and belly-aching that they had done nothing wrong and then see their faces when they were told, in no uncertain terms, that they had broken the law and would be facing a court appearance. Sadly, these days, police officers do not receive the training they need to combat bailiff/HCEO misconduct with the result that certificated bailiffs and the less reputable HCEOs are allowed to run riot with little chance of them being brought to book. Calling them "scrotes" is being polite. I could think of more appropriate words to describe them, but they are not fit to be posted.

 

Please, Tim, when you have had first-hand experience of dealing with the misery and trauma these out-of-control individuals cause and the blatant and persistent law-breaking they engage in, then you can post the sort of comments you have made.

[old bill]

Councils very rarely know what bailiffs can and cannot do, they just pass the buck so to speak thinking the bailiffs know what they are doing, its not always about 'working out side the law' its how they bend it to suit them.

Bailiffs (not all) hope that the debtor does not know the law, they work on the assumption that the debtor is none the wiser and see the word 'bailiff' and hope that the debtor succumbs to what ever they say.

 

The number of bailiffs that bend the law are far outnumbered by those who break the law. One of the more common offences is threatening someone with a locksmith when there are no grounds in law to do so. It is an offence under Section 2, Criminal Damage Act 1971 (Threats to Cause Damage), is indictable and, so, is arrestable, also.

[seanamarts]

Please remember that 9 times out of 10 bailiffs are just people doing their job. I know it may not feel like that when you are the one having your possesions taken. But most of them are just executing a warrant. I know that like this case (and my own) it may be that a warrant shouldn't have been issued. But that is not the bailiffs decision.

 

So how about acting like adults, rather than name calling, and childish comments. If errors are made, then they can usually be sorted out. After all, we don't even know if the bailiff was acting illegally or not.

 

Tim, where to you get your figures from that 9 out of 10 bailiffs are just doing their job? Do you know this for sure? Please dont assume. You were obviously one of the lucky few that had a bailiff 'just doing his job'.

There are many many more who do not.

When you read the countless accounts of bailiffs assaulting women, the elderly and frail, cheating people out of their money, lying to debtors to get their money, threatening debtors to the point of depression and even worse.

When you have read up on how the bailiffs really work then come back and state 'they were just doing a job'.

[seanamarts]

The number of bailiffs that bend the law are far outnumbered by those who break the law. One of the more common offences is threatening someone with a locksmith when there are no grounds in law to do so. It is an offence under Section 2, Criminal Damage Act 1971 (Threats to Cause Damage), is indictable and, so, is arrestable, also.

Dont fancy writing a paper on this do you OB

Could be very interesting