Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 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
      • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4354 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

whats this that the baliffs of that fine org (sniggers).

..are now recording door step interviews with video cameras?

 

had one this morning, despite the fact i had to point out to him that i now have a payment plan direct with the council

(he was having none of it) which is paid every thursday at 7 am (the wake up coffee and smoke before i wake the kids) along with my other bills...

 

..he switched on this gizmo and said he was filming me.....there it was...me!

 

just before i go off on one with them again...

..is this legal as i personally find it an infringement..

 

...im just glad he got a screenful of what my t-shirt said

Link to post
Share on other sites

actualy thinks its a good idea

 

stops him from claiming things he should not

and levying fees he should not

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would repay the compliment by filming him with my mobile phone, and when he gets stroppy, tell him what's good for the goose.....

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I should think its illegal without permission if he is on your property. I would think if you demand its switched off he would have to.

 

I dare anyone to find legislation that actually allows a Bailiff to do this, since we do not have a contractual relationship with them.

 

At the very least I would think this could actually be a sneaky way of removing a Bailiff's right to visit, along the lines of refusal to be filmed.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the rule of thumb is, If you're standing in a place where you are legally allowed to be, then you can legally record what you can see from there.

 

You can request a copy of the recording and it should be freely given.

 

If the recording is done without you knowing then it cannot be used in a court, only a transcript of it.

 

So in hind sight a bailiff can record you on your property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the rule of thumb is, If you're standing in a place where you are legally allowed to be, then you can legally record what you can see from there.

 

You can request a copy of the recording and it should be freely given.

 

If the recording is done without you knowing then it cannot be used in a court, only a transcript of it.

 

So in hind sight a bailiff can record you on your property.

 

I think thats maybe an extremely generous view of the law - I am legally entitled to walk into my boots, they can legally ask me to stop filming. If Council employees, even when invited in to do work started filming, im sure that would breach.

 

Because remember, all the rules on public filming require it to be "general" ie, you cannot focus in on peoples faces/individuals without permission - its where Photographers go wrong when filming the Police imho - I fully support it, I believe its a right, but some do take the mick, focussing more on their faces.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think thats maybe an extremely generous view of the law - I am legally entitled to walk into my boots, they can legally ask me to stop filming. If Council employees, even when invited in to do work started filming, im sure that would breach.

 

Because remember, all the rules on public filming require it to be "general" ie, you cannot focus in on peoples faces/individuals without permission - its where Photographers go wrong when filming the Police imho - I fully support it, I believe its a right, but some do take the mick, focussing more on their faces.

You do not have a legal entitlement to walk into boots. You are a customer, they are allowing you to go onto their premises to purchase their items.

If Boots requested that you leave their store for what ever reason, you would have to leave, you would have no legal rights to stay.. A bailiff has a warrant to be at the property, he has a legal right to be there.

 

You can take photographs of people's faces without their permission, if in a public place, you would need to sign a release form for those pictures to be used if you were to make money from them. If you did the same on some one's private property it would be classed as harassment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not have a legal entitlement to walk into boots. You are a customer, they are allowing you to go onto their premises to purchase their items.

If Boots requested that you leave their store for what ever reason, you would have to leave, you would have no legal rights to stay.. A bailiff has a warrant to be at the property, he has a legal right to be there.

 

You can take photographs of people's faces without their permission, if in a public place, you would need to sign a release form for those pictures to be used if you were to make money from them. If you did the same on some one's private property it would be classed as harassment.

 

The Bailiff then is committing Harassment, no legislation specific to a bailiff allows them to film when on private property. If we refuse to be filmed, which must be a right, then surely the bailiff must either turn off or leave the property if its "company rules to film" we surely cannot be forced to be put on film except by the Police.

 

I am sure people have in fact been arrested for harassment for focussing on peoples faces in the street without permission.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these Bailiffs operating within the PACE rules? If so how? I made my feelings clear on here yesterday but the posts removed as they we're deemed unacceptable. There are strict rules governing video evidence, these bailiffs leave themselves wide open if they even think they can get away with using a video camera 'willy nilly' filming people on their property up close and personal.

 

I do not retract my posts yesterday, I don't think whoever removed my posts realised the seriousness of what this alleged Bailiff done. Broadcast companies get away with this if it's in the public interest, Bailiffs can't make this claim because they do it for their own interest. I work in broadcasting and have a pretty good idea what is legal and what is not when it comes to filming on both private and public property.

Oh! Let's have a snappy corporate strap line shall we.....

 

'Peeling the skin off the Banana Republic'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these Bailiffs operating within the PACE rules? If so how? I made my feelings clear on here yesterday but the posts removed as they we're deemed unacceptable. There are strict rules governing video evidence, these bailiffs leave themselves wide open if they even think they can get away with using a video camera 'willy nilly' filming people on their property up close and personal.

 

I do not retract my posts yesterday, I don't think whoever removed my posts realised the seriousness of what this alleged Bailiff done. Broadcast companies get away with this if it's in the public interest, Bailiffs can't make this claim because they do it for their own interest. I work in broadcasting and have a pretty good idea what is legal and what is not when it comes to filming on both private and public property.

I think if you objected and he was on YOUR property he would have to stop, but if he was filming in general from the pavement outside and wasn't filming the occupant "specifically" he may be OK, but if the occupant was the main subject of the filming even from outside the boundary of the premises it would be dodgy ground imho.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

He'd be in the poo if he was standing on the pavement and filming through the windows and zooming in. Even LA's have strict blackout zones on their CCTV systems to prevent snooping into peoples properties. The consequences are quite severe.

Oh! Let's have a snappy corporate strap line shall we.....

 

'Peeling the skin off the Banana Republic'

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ones who visited me filmed without my permission last July (2011) and they edited it very well! of course they will never video themselves doing anything wrong and this filming males the whole situation much worse because it looks as if they have proof of what they are alleging but in fact it is making more of the lie they have already told

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking about some one shoving a camera in some ones face here, we are talking about the bailiff videoing the events as they occur. The exact same thing as some police do. It wasnt done in secret either, the bailiff informed the debtor what he was doing.

If you feel that the bailiff is inappropriately videoing then you request a copy, which is your legal right to do and place a complaint.

 

BR this has nothing to do with PACE ruling, What are you talking about?? This is a civil matter not a criminal one. The bailiff is not collecting evidence either.

 

How can you assume the seriousness of this when the OP hasnt said what was being videoed. You have taken this totally out of context.

 

I work in broadcasting and have a pretty good idea what is legal and what is not when it comes to filming on both private and public property.

 

obviously not where bailiffs are concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm convinced i read a post on here a while back that some Rossie's bailiffs would be trying out video cameras when enforcing debt

 

I think it was an article in credit today

 

@BananaRepublic He'd be in the poo if he was standing on the pavement and filming through the windows and zooming in. Even LA's have strict blackout zones on their CCTV systems to prevent snooping into peoples properties. The consequences are quite severe.

 

Hallow yes it was in Credit Today, and they were crowing about like Civil Enforcement Occifers (deliberate spelling) it was to protect the public

 

BananaRepublic, they were in Liverpool, and were observing a woman undressing and did jailtime didn't they?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not talking about some one shoving a camera in some ones face here, we are talking about the bailiff videoing the events as they occur. The exact same thing as some police do. It wasnt done in secret either, the bailiff informed the debtor what he was doing.

If you feel that the bailiff is inappropriately videoing then you request a copy, which is your legal right to do and place a complaint.

 

BR this has nothing to do with PACE ruling, What are you talking about?? This is a civil matter not a criminal one. The bailiff is not collecting evidence either.

 

How can you assume the seriousness of this when the OP hasnt said what was being videoed. You have taken this totally out of context.

 

obviously not where bailiffs are concerned.

 

This isn't out of context at all. They have no right. You can ask them to stop, if they don't, they'll soon find out which side of the law they fall on if the Police are called. You've answered you own question, this is a Civil Matter, they have no right to film you without your express consent. End of..

Oh! Let's have a snappy corporate strap line shall we.....

 

'Peeling the skin off the Banana Republic'

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't out of context at all. They have no right. You can ask them to stop, if they don't, they'll soon find out which side of the law they fall on if the Police are called. You've answered you own question, this is a Civil Matter, they have no right to film you without your express consent. End of..

 

You carry on thinking that BR, You show me where it states that they have no rights to video when executing a warrant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legality and compliance of using a body-worn-video system?

 

Organisations have been using body-worn-video systems for some years now. It is an accepted security technology, like CCTV. Body-worn-video systems have been used successfully in civil and criminal cases.Legislation

Falls under CCTV regulations for use:

Inform people they are being recorded with signage and or verbal statement

Inform who is doing the recording (The organisation)

Inform on the purpose of the recording (i.e. for safety and security)

Have controls in place for who views any footage

Data Protection Act

Keeping safe records and deleting the information after a reasonable

period of time. The VideoManager software manages this aspect, with

controls for secure viewing, storage, auto deletion, evidence management

and audit trail.

 

Who else uses VideoBadge?

 

Many different public and private companies, who deal with the public. The common need is frontline workers who are at risk of abuse of allegation. Examples are the police, parking enforcement, security staff, bailiffs, housing wardens, street wardens, retail and logistics loss prevention officers.

 

I hope this settles this disagreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know who I'd be taking advice from. You are a fool if you seriously think you can just use cameras to do just what you feel like when conducting your business at work, especially when it involves members of the public

Oh! Let's have a snappy corporate strap line shall we.....

 

'Peeling the skin off the Banana Republic'

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this settles this disagreement.

 

I still think it makes a difference when a private organisation is visiting private property - in that one can request they stop filming, and they must leave if they refuse - as I understand it, even the Police attempting to gain "mugshots" during protests is debatable legally, and one of the reasons they are doing it by force.

 

The quote mentions the DPA - but what applies to CCTV, and businesses recording phone calls, and more germane to this case, calling a Bailiff call centre that records calls? You must warn the customer filming/recording is happening, and the Customer of course can choose to hang up/not enter the business premises. Which part of legislation exempts Bailiff's, or rather exempts a Bailiff's "Customer" from their legal rights to refuse to be recorded?

 

Anyone who is happy to be filmed should at least start their conversation by stating the time, and finish the conversation by stating the time, in order to show if footage is edited - which it absolutely will be if wrong doing occurs.

 

I would also like to know how a gentleman dressed a certain way sporting camera equipment on their clothing complies with the legislation that a Bailiff must not be "identifiable" as such from their dress?

 

I know who I'd be taking advice from. You are a fool if you seriously think you can just use cameras to do just what you feel like when conducting your business at work, especially when it involves members of the public

 

There is no need for rudeness, it is possible to debate civilly.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

well well...

.seem to have opened up something here.

 

...firstly he WAS NOT executing any kind of warrant as there isnt one

since i deal direct with the council over my arrears after making their ears bleed with my constant barrage of letters and e-mails about rossendales being completly OTT

and trying all sorts of imaginary tactics to get my money..

 

..this meat head was not having any of it demanding i pay them 100 quid a week compared to the £25 a week payment plan i have with the council.

 

he said that would not be recommended by the council (i had just told him i have the plan with them!!!and been paying it for months!)

and that he would be passing back the paper work to them

but, in the meantime sending me payment slips!

 

it was like talking to...well a meathead tbh..

 

..o then he said it was for last year...um....im a full time carer to a terminally ill hubby and 2 disabled kids

and get council tax benefit since april 2011 so last year...i think not!

and before that i had an attatchment order to my salary when i was working..

..so what the absolute hell he was talking about i dont know.

 

he said he was filming me

...no ifs or buts like he had the gods given right to.

..sorry but as an old and retired activist i do not agree to it.

..police, yes and for good reason.

..but an 18 stone bully (and believe me when i say these guys do not bother me one bit...iv sent more away back to their vans in tears).

..no way.

 

..i have already e-mailed and sent 2 letters in duplicate to the council.

...to me it is wrong

...they can edit it..

..they can photoshop my face onto some cheap porn pics for their own interest (probably all they can get anyway)...

 

.this will not be dropped and i am bit of a nuisance like that.

..ask s.p.m.l...

..they hate me...

.hahahaha.

 

..thanks for this and im with BR on this one and i cannot find anything relating to this at all..

..so to me its just another stunt in this area of legalized thuggery.

 

must get back to yet another letter pointing out a few home truths.

..no warrant, no reason to be there, no clarification, blah blah.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send a Formal Complaint to the Council CEO, your councillor, the leader and MP, telling them that the numpty from rossers, is harassing a vulnerable family who alredy have and are keeping to a direct payment plan with the council. Indicate that you think the bailiff is trying to defraud you imho, and film the J Arthur Ranker, yourself when and if he returns. he won't like that,

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You carry on thinking that BR, You show me where it states that they have no rights to video when executing a warrant.

 

Hi seanmarts, I'm not going to argue the toss, just try to get a numpty Bailiff to carry it out on a victim who is prepared to make an issue out of it. I know where my money would be. On this occasion, let's just say, I wouldn't be following your advice on this particular matter. This doesn't include just UK law, it extends to ECHR law and privacy laws which also cover these particular actions by those who think they can wield a camera at will and intimidate people, especially those acting on behalf of a private organisation (Whether they have a warrant or not) I'd be very interested if the LA who foolishly subcontracts theses rossendale muppets, know their contractors are fannying about with video cameras. The LA is fully responsible and I don't think even they are stupid enough to let these morons do that. Ask any LA / Licensed CCTV operator about strict rules of commercially using ANY camera equipment with the public.

Edited by BananaRepublic

Oh! Let's have a snappy corporate strap line shall we.....

 

'Peeling the skin off the Banana Republic'

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...