Harrow Council PCN', Newlyn, kickback bailiff tender, registration plate cloning

[kennythecelt]

The thing is Jamberson, as OP is in Scotland, unless he comes south of the border with the car, the bailiff can do squat, if Newlyn, are stupid enough to and I don't doubt they may be, go up to Scotland, OP can call the police and the bailiff will find himself hopefully in the Barlinnie, as he would be ultra vires and way way out of his jurisdiction, that is why kennythecelt is in a good position to kick them for the unwarranted harassment.

 

He has done everything right, Newlyn and Harrow council are so inept as to be worse than muppets. He has paperwork to show PCN result of cloning but still the greedy muppets try it on.

 

An English bailiff cannot enforce debt payment in Scotland. They would require to go to a Sheriff Court, provide the English Court judgement seeking the appointment of Scottish Sheriff Court Officers. Debt still needs to be recovered from Scottish people from English companies, etc and there is a process for it. There is a process for debts that Scottish people owe to companies in different countries. The law is clear on that.

 

But, there is no Walking in, no Seizing/ Seizure or valuation of effects and no Removal process. The Scottish legal equivalents were poinding and warrant sales and they were ended as one of the first Acts of The Devolved Scottish Parliament in 2001. It is clear misrepresentation by Newlyn PLC bailiffs to claim this as a threat. It clearly does not exist.

 

I am also a 3 hour ferry journey from the nearest port on the mainland.

[kennythecelt]

Kenny.

 

The above posts are very interesting indeed and I am very impressed with the way in which you have "turned detective".

 

Firstly, the matter of the Harrow Council "Kickback Contract" with Newlyn is well known with the enforcement industry, local authorities, Members of Parliament and various other government agencies. It is my understanding the the contract is currently being investigated by the District Auditor under the Audit Commission Act. If there has been any "irregularity" this will be identified by the DA. I do not propose to make any further comment at this present time.

 

There is no point in complaining to CIVEA and neither should a Form 4 Complaint be issued.

 

On the matter of a Consumer Credit Licence. Quite a few enforcement companies do not have such a licence and it would seem that they have obtained Counsels opinion that states that they do not require such a licence. Whether this is correct or not I do not know.

 

Where I do have a problem is with the DEBT REGISTRATION by Harrow of this PCN. I have been dealing with the Traffic Enforcement Centre for nearly 7 years and in all that time it is my understanding that the CCBC computer system CANNOT accept a registration with a Scots post code !!! As a matter of urgency I would suggest that you call the Traffic Enforcement Centre in the morning and ask them to CONFIRM the precise address AND POST CODE on the warrant of execution.

 

Could you please post back once you have spoken to TEC as this is VERY important and something does not seem right to me about the debt registration.

 

 

I have dealt with the Scottish equivalent of the Audit Commission whilst working, ie now called Audit Scotland, so I am familiar with how they operate.

 

Good to hear.

[tomtubby]

It is my understanding that Eric Pickles is aware of the complaint to the District Auditor.

 

The matter of registering a traffic debt at TEC with a scottish post code is of concern. When you call TEC tomorrow, make sure that you ignore the "prompts" on the telephone system and instead, wait to speak with an operator. Make sure that you also ask TEC whether there has been any application to AMEND the address. If so, what was the previous address.

 

Please post back once after your call.

[kennythecelt]

It is my understanding that Eric Pickles is aware of the complaint to the District Auditor.

 

The matter of registering a traffic debt at TEC with a scottish post code is of concern. When you call TEC tomorrow, make sure that you ignore the "prompts" on the telephone system and instead, wait to speak with an operator. Make sure that you also ask TEC whether there has been any application to AMEND the address. If so, what was the previous address.

 

Please post back once after your call.

 

Thanks again.

 

Remember the point about continental plates with the same number but different model and colour of car. How often does that happen? Identical numbers must exist across Europe, even although they are spaced differently.

 

Harrow have admitted in writing to me that when their operatives see photos/ recordings which captured details showing foreign/ continental type space registration/ number plates, that these should not be processed and entered on their system.

 

They obviously know they have no chance of chasing a French person for a fine or someone from Germany etc.

[kennythecelt]

kenny, yes that's the place - you want to use 0300 123 1059/ 01604 619450 or the email [email protected]. gov.uk

 

They won't be able to access any records without the PCN number though, so make sure you have that to hand.

 

And I am seriously impressed by your fightback against Harrow. Kudos to you.

 

 

I helped a bit in the fight with simple advice against banks here at CAG and with PPI, mortgage/ credit card charges.

 

I don't like injustice. Remember the CAG motto-"Reclaim The Right". We all have that within us and collectively, amongst us, we have the power to effect change.

 

There is something about that bloke Silverio at Harrow, I will post more on him.

 

I do welcome assistance, advice and contributions where possible.

 

Thank you for your contribution, I greatly appreciate it.

 

Unfortunately for both Harrow and Newlyn PLC, I also suffer from OCD. So perhaps I can put that to positive effect.

[kennythecelt]

For the record and for what it's worth, which is the sum total of zilch, is a link to the official complaints policy of Newlyn PLC, bailiffs.

 

http://www.newlynplc.co.uk/downloads/Newlyn%20Complaints%20policy%20v2.2.pdf

 

This was never intended for public sight not for consumers eyes. But it can be used to good effect against them and against Harrow. It is for employees only and shows what happens within the organisation. It is quite illuminating and damning. It can however be used to reflect the contract situation which Harrow currently has with Newly PLC in it''s profit share/ kickback contract.

 

They won't provide it if you ask for it and they refer you to CIVEA instead. Never use CIVEA, they are not independent, are a trade organisation, formed to represent the interests of bailiffs, their members who campaign on their behalf. Indeed, if you use them, it may work against your perfectly valid complaint at a later stage and can be founded upon against you.

 

This provides a link to their Code of Practice issued to Contact Centre Negotiators, Debt Recovery Officers Enforcement Agents (Bailiffs):

 

http://www.newlynplc.co.uk/downloads/Newlyn%20plc%20Code%20of%20Practice%20Debt%20Recovery%20v2_1.pdf

 

This link provides access to their policy on Duty of Care Policy Statement:

 

http://www.newlynplc.co.uk/downloads/Newlyn%20plc%20Duty%20of%20Care%20Policy%20Statement%20v2_3.pdf

 

This last policy relates to their whisle blowing policy. Presumably introduced after The Time's adverse coverage.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=NEWLYN+PLC+COMPLAINT+PROCEDURE+POLICY&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enGB439&oq=NEWLYN+PLC+COMPLAINT+PROCEDURE+POLICY&aqs=chrome..69i57.13033j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

Edited January 21, 2014 by kennythecelt

[kennythecelt]

Took me a while to get going today due to my medications. Unfortunately, from a driving point of view I cannot drive safely until the afternoon. Next year, legislation is being introduced to make it easier for Police to quite correctly ascertain the driving capabilities of people using illicit drugs, in a similar fashion to drink drivers. A little know fact is that the legislation will also impact on drivers who take prescribed medication. So, my driving adventures may be brought to a premature end. At least, I won't run the risk of any parking tickets, not that any are ever applied here. If someone parks on a double yellow, the warden generally pops into any nearby shop and asks the driver to move on.

 

Anyway.................

 

As suggested I phoned the Traffic Enforcement Center on 0300 123 1059, with no option button pressed and waited for the help desk. The quality of service was extremely high. Well done TEC. I will always give praise when it is deserved.

 

I had all my documentation to hand and gave the original PCN as issued by Harrow Borough- HRXXXXXXXX. The kind lady asked my to supply further details ie full name, address and post code. She immediately knew why I was calling and admitted that an error had occurred on the part of TEC and that given my post code, which was input to their system on xx/xx/xx and granted bailiff powers on xx/xx/xx. She was fully aware bailiffs had no powers in Scotland.

 

She could and would not comment in respect of the actions of Harrow.

She could not and would not comment on the actions of Newlyn's PLC bailiffs.

There had been no subsequent amendment of the post code or vehicle details or any information related to the case. IE Harrow had not attempted to recall the records in any way or cancel the incorrectly alleged outstanding debt/ warrant, etc forwarded by them to TEC for action. (Come to think of it, even they should have been aware that bailiff action was not possible given my Scottish post code which would be on the information received by them from the DVLA when checking registered keeper details).

 

I asked her how many times this had happened and obviously she could not comment as she would not know. I asked her if such information would be available under an FOI request. She said that was unlikely given it was court business.

 

She knew that the bailiffs had no power in Scotland and that action should not have been approved. I also reminded her that the slavish practice of poindings and warrant sales had been ended in Scotland. Perhaps that is something that should be pursued in England and Wales. Not sure of the position in N Ireland.

 

I was advised to submit a formal complaint to [email protected] and it would be investigated fully.

 

This I am considering the implications of. I have previously stated to Harrow that I want them to return to court and redress the situation and I don't see why I should clear up their mess. I feel like making them incur staff costs and court time in rectifying the situation and redressing me to the position I was in before their errors started. I would like their actions recorded in court. Is that too much like wanting blood??? Is it self defeating? Does it compromise any action I might take legally or otherwise later on? Some time needed to consider.

 

I understand that in everyday life, mistakes are made. Humans are like that. I can accept that in some circumstances. However, the implications of the mistake made by TEC need to be strongly emphasised, given the impact it had, once I reach a decision on the best way forward.

 

I have today e-mailed my local CAB (Citizens Advice Bureau) so that I can raise the issue with them, which then means that I have a formal route of complaint/ investigation available to me direct to The Office of Fair Trading (OFT). They can escalate the matter on my behalf. Their knowledge on this matter, at my local CAB, is likely to be substantially lower than mine, so I will assist them in the process.

 

Indeed, I am thinking of volunteering a couple of hours a week to them as I need to keep functioning mentally.

Edited January 22, 2014 by kennythecelt
SP extra sentence added.

[kennythecelt]

I have just finished a telephone conversation with The Local Government Ombudsman in respect of any possible complaints made to them by anyone else eg Bob Blackman or a local Harrow Councillor or anyone else in respect of the tender by Harrow Borough Council for the provision of tender services and their subsequent agreement of that contract and it's performance to date or any other issue related to it.

 

She was unable to provide this information over the phone but agreed that the information would be provided if I submitted a FOI (Freedom of Information) request to them. I will now carefully consider the structure and wording of this FOI request to them.

 

I also discussed my own case with her. I said that I would allow Harrow Borough to comply with it's own complaints procedure (which are still within timescale), before submitting a request to the LGO for my complaint to be investigated. Any decision made by the LGO can be founded upon in court, if I go down that road.

 

I can also include within that complaint reference to the kickback/ profit share bailiff contract which Harrow entered into, as I was subject to "services" provided by that contract provided by Harrow. It can also be done separately, as a UK citizen, affected by the "service", although resident in Scotland.

 

I cannot go to court and then seek action/ assistance or investigation by the LGO, obviously.

[kennythecelt]

Although I emailed my local CAB earlier today, I was passing it as I had to take my mother in law to a day care center. As I mentioned, she has dementia, so the activities provided socially make it a good day for her.

 

So I popped in and discussed the issues and complaints in general fashion. I outlined my intention which was to use them to facilitate this being raised officially with The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) and to make contact with the Harrow CAB. They will also have a caseload of cases similar to mine which my local CAB might be able to access outline details of, without breaching data protection. They will also be able to provide examples of inappropriate bailiff action within Harrow in respect of the kickback/ profit share contract.

 

Harrow CAB were involved in recent discussions with Harrow Council in developing the following policy:

 

Consultation process- note involvement of bailiff companies.

 

 

http://harrow-consult.limehouse.co.uk/portal/corporate_debt_revovery_policy/corporate_debt_recovery_policy

 

Corporate Debt Recovery Policy Consultation

 

Why are we consulting?

 

Effective debt management is crucial as this money provides needy resources which we use to deliver services.

 

The Corporate Debt Recovery Policy was originally agreed by the Council in 2009. There has recently been an extensive review of corporate debt recovery and as a result the proposed changes are included within the attached Draft Corporate Debt Recovery Policy.

 

This is an overarching policy setting out our approach to debt collection. A corporate framework for debt collection services ensures a consistent and fair approach is taken to debt collection across the Council. When this policy is agreed, Debt Recovery Services within the Council will update their policies to reflect the principles of the Corporate Policy.

 

To develop the policy we have been working with a multi-agency group, including:

 

Citizens Advice Bureau

Harrow Association of Disabled People (HAD)

Age Concern

Jobcentre Plus

Harrow Mencap

Newlyns and Chandlers Bailiffs

representatives from our Debt Recovery services.

We want to make sure this draft policy is inclusive and reflects the views of people living in Harrow. We are, therefore, asking for your views in a consultation that will be held over an eight week period from 30th September 2013 to 24th November 2013.

 

To be able to respond to this consultation effectively, you will need to read the "Draft Corporate Debt Recovery Policy" document, which can be downloaded from the "Supporting Documents" section below.

 

Why not come and give your views in person at our public workshop?

 

If you would like to come along and give your views, we are holding a workshop for all interested parties on the 31 October 2013, between 10.00 am and 12 noon, in the:

 

Members Lounge

Civic Centre

Station Road

Harrow

HA1 2XY.

 

If you would like further information, please telephone: 020 8420 9332.

 

with these comments which is at odds with a profit/ kickback agreement with the profit motivated bailiffs who are actively encouraged to step up harassment of vulnerable people if they are to maintain profit levels, given that they now pay 8% of profit back to Harrow. (These guys running that Council do not have a clue)

 

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/incoming/council-advise-debt-collectors-chasing-6505878

 

Council to advise debt collectors chasing the vulnerable to back off

14 Jan 2014 12:26

Over the past two years council chiefs have been devising a plan to introduce a new ‘vulnerability criteria’ which will advise debt collectors working on behalf of the authority whether to alter their approach if they assess that someone genuinely cannot pay – as opposed to choosing not to pay.

 

People struggling to pay their bills and facing ‘unprecedented hardship’ – some so pressured they are considering taking their own life – may be given a reprieve by Harrow Council.

 

Over the past two years, council chiefs have been devising a plan to introduce a new ‘vulnerability criteria’, which will advise debt collectors working on behalf of the authority whether to alter their approach if they assess that someone genuinely cannot pay – as opposed to choosing not to pay.

 

The move comes after a report, produced by Harrow Council’s overview and scrutiny committee in 2012, warned that the potential impact of central government’s welfare reforms would have a detrimental impact on taxpayers in the borough and their capacity to pay council tax.

 

Pamela Fitzpatrick, director at Harrow Law Centre in Pinner Road, Harrow, a charity which provides specialist legal, social and welfare advice to those most in need, told the Observer: “The proposed policy is well intentioned. However, we are not convinced that the council is taking sufficient steps to protect the most vulnerable.

 

“The increased council tax for vulnerable people comes at the same time as significant cuts to welfare benefits, which are impacting in particular on people who have serious illness or disability.

 

“As a result we are witnessing unprecedented hardship in Harrow.

 

“Sadly, we regularly see clients who are forced to make the harsh choice between paying essential bills, such as their council tax, or eating.

 

“A number of our clients have told us that their health has deteriorated and some have even reported feeling suicidal.”

 

Harrow Council’s cabinet committee is due to meet to vote on whether or not to implement recommendations made by the overview and scrutiny committee, including advising debt recovery services to developing processes for the identification of vulnerable households and reviewing actions accordingly.

 

Other recommendations are to improve how the council points people in the direction of sources of advice, such as debt management, and to implement some form of check in the debt recovery process before bankruptcy proceedings are instigated.

 

The report outlining the proposals states: “In this way we would hope that the devastating impact of bankruptcy is only applied to those of our residents who won’t pay rather than to those who can’t pay.

 

“Whilst we have no issue with the processes being applied to those of our residents who are refusing to pay, we hope that the mitigations we proposed in our review can safeguard the more vulnerable of our residents who are unable to pay these new bills.”

 

The vulnerability criteria would not reduce or absolve people from their council tax liability and the council will still operate a separate emergency relief scheme to give successful applicants ‘in kind’ support by supplying food vouchers, furniture, white goods, clothing, fuel top-ups and travel assistance, from which 437 people benefited between April and October.

 

Tony Ferrari, Conservative cabinet member for finance at Harrow Council, said: "This policy looks very carefully at vulnerable people in Harrow, and recognises that some of them experience difficulties when they owe a financial debt to the council. These criteria will allow us to look at each case individually and consider various options to assist vulnerable residents, depending on their specific circumstances.

 

"This does not mean debt will simply be excused, but rather allows us the flexibility to be fair and supportive to vulnerable residents when recouping their debt."

 

leading to this policy being approved on 15/1/2014- a full 2 years after it was first discussed. Strange how it was not in effect prior to the profit share arrangement with bailiffs! Me thinks that pressure is being exerted on that Council, perhaps by the District Auditor, as mentioned above, by tomtubby.

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=60834

 

Agenda items approved:

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s111962/Review%20of%20Corporate%20Debt%20Policy%20-%20Main%20Report.pdf

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s111963/Appendix%20A%20-%202009%20Debt%20Managmt%20Overarching%20Policy.pdf

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s111964/Appendix%20A%20to%20Corporate%20Debt%20Recovery%20Policy%20Enforcement%20Options.pdf

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s111966/Appendix%20B%20to%20Corporate%20Debt%20Recovery%20Policy%20Enforcement%20Options.pdf

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s111967/Appendix%20C%20-%20Corporate%20Debt%20Policy%20Consultation%20Booklet%20F1.pdf

 

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/www2/documents/s111969/Appendix%20E%20-%20Review%20of%20the%20Corporate%20Debt%20Recovery%20Policy%20EqIA%20version%209%2015%201%2014.pdf

[kennythecelt]

Link to the Audit Commission detailing published reports in respect of Harrow Borough Council.

 

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/?s=harrow&start=1&src=

 

Contact details for The Audit Commission:

 

http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/about-us/contact-us/

[kennythecelt]

This was a brilliant win for a consumer involving harassment and a successful claim for damages for debts that did not exist. British Gas appealed and lost. Sets a precedent.

 

LISA MARIA ANGELA FERGUSON v BRITISH GAS TRADING LTD

 

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/case-reports/lisa-maria-angela-ferguson-v-british-gas-trading-ltd

[kennythecelt]

In respect of PCN's issued by local council's/ authorities, can anyone please confirm and provide links to further information in respect of:

 

• What exact details are requested by them from the DVLA to ascertain the details of the registered keeper of the vehicle that has been the subject of the traffic violation? ie is it just name and address or does it extend to include vehicle make, model, colour and VIN?
   
  
• What details are actually received by local authorities from DVLA? ie is it just name and address or does it extend to include vehicle make, model, colour and VIN?
   
  
• Are there any protocols/ financial agreements in place which allow local authorities to request this information and what the DVLA provides? Obviously, the Data Protection Act covers such information, but is there anything else?
   
  
• Does anyone have documentary evidence in respect of any of the above which they can post here please?
  

[kennythecelt]

As mentioned previously, What Do They Know is an excellent web site which allows individuals to make direct FOI requests to certain statutory/ regulatory bodies, etc within the UK, covered by The Freedom Of Information Act. The cool thing about this site is that the responses from those bodies are also supplied, where provided, within the relevant threads.

 

If you search the http://www.harrow.gov.uk site ( https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/ ), in respect of FOI submissions and answers subsequently provided it will return a very limited number of responses. The What Do They Know web site search reveals a far higher number of FOI requests, how Harrow responded and what replies were given.

 

Here are the results of a search on Harrow borough- note their failure on numerous occassions to supply relevant information within required timescales. (although please note not all cases are one's for which Harrow Borough are actually responsible. Many relate to other services and statistics within Harrow for which that Council has no responsibility): https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/search/harrow%20borough/all

 

FOI requests have previously been made through this web site to Harrow relating to it's bailiff contract. Here are a couple of interest, one of which is long overdue. I wonder why? :lol:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/harrow_borough_councils_lying_po#comment-39970

 

Note how Harrow state,

 

"Harrow’s policy is to advice any complainant of the legal options to obtain redress"

 

 

"Although there is redress through the Courts against alleged malpractice, Harrow will always accept feedback and if issues are raised by tax payers they are noted and if appropriate investigated. Ultimately any complaint against any bailiff firm will be brought to the attention of the Bailiff Contract Manager who will investigate matter and raise the issues with the firm."

 

 

Thank you for your request for a review received on 13 June 2013. I am sorry that you are dissatisfied with our attempts to handle your request under the under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

"Fern Silverio, Head of Service- Collections & Housing Benefits, has reviewed the answers and confirms that the responses given are in line with what would be expected. Harrow's complaints process, and that of the LGO, precludes Harrow from accepting complaints where there is a higher and alternative form of redress, in this case either through the Magistrates’ Court or through the County Court through “replevin”."

 

Replevin is explained here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/replevin

 

 

That last statement, which is publically recorded is quite amazing. Does Fern (Fernando Silverio) the person responsible for issuing and agreeing a profit share and kickback contract tender with bailiffs approved by Harrow Borough on his recommendations really say this? It simply further compounds the financial problems of complainants really expect debt burdened people who may be vulnerable to have the resources and be required to seek redress within the Courts? The Council is responsible for the actions of their bailiffs who are contracted by them and act on their behalf. There is no prospect of body swerving that legal obligation and there are monitoring arrangements which Harrow should enforce within it's contract agreement to ensure that all actions comply with guidance/ best practice and the various laws which govern such matters.

 

Note the complainants reply, which includes the following statement,

 

If you read one of a series of questions asked by Lord Lucas in the Lords (2007), the then Home Office Minister, Baroness Scotland of Asthal, replied with this:

 

"A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the

Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud."

 

This is confirmed from a quick search:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70420w0001.htm

 

"Crime: Fraud

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a bailiff who repeatedly charges for work that has not been done commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2743]

 

 

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA94

 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): A bailiff or any other person who dishonestly charges for work that has not been done will be committing an offence under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 1 of the 2006 Act contains the new general offence of fraud.

 

One means by which this offence can be committed is set out in Section 2, on fraud by false representation. This section applies where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss. It is also possible that, where a bailiff repeatedly charges for work that has not been done, this conduct will amount to fraudulent trading either under Section 9 of the 2006 Act or under the provisions on fraudulent trading in company legislation.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and by doing so obtains a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2744]

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is by false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss. It is immaterial whether they actually obtained a payment or goods from a debtor.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

 

 

20 Apr 2007 : Column WA95

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether a person who represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, and intends by so doing to obtain a payment or goods from a debtor, commits a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2745]

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Fraud Act 2006 created a new general offence of fraud. This can be committed by three means, one of which is false representation. Fraud by false representation is set out in Section 2 of the Act. Where a person dishonestly makes a false representation and intends, by making the representation, to make a gain for himself or another, or cause a loss to another, or expose another to a risk of loss, that person will be committing an offence. A person who dishonestly represents himself to be a certificated bailiff, but is not, is likely to be committing an offence under this section. It will be necessary to show that the person was acting dishonestly in making the false representation, as well as that they intended to make a gain or cause a loss.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases already under investigation. Such operational issues are a matter for the chief officer of the force concerned.

 

Lord Lucas asked Her Majesty’s Government:

 

Whether bailiffs who illegally obtain entry to a debtor’s premises with the intent of obtaining payment from a debtor, or of taking possession of goods, commit a fraud within the meaning of Sections 1 to 5 of the Fraud Act 2006; and, if so, which sections of the Act apply; and whether it would be right for the police to claim that such an action is a civil and not a criminal matter. [HL2746]

 

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The basic rule regarding the powers of entry for bailiffs is that there is a right of entry that may be exercised into any relevant premises. In circumstances where a bailiff illegally obtains entry to a debtor’s premises, their conduct will amount to fraud only if they dishonestly, and with the intent to make a gain or to cause a loss, make a false representation, fail to disclose information or abuse their position. While an illegal entry may be made with the intention of making a gain or causing a loss, it may well not involve the other elements necessary to commit a fraud.

 

The decision on whether to investigate a crime rests solely with the police, who will take into account available resources, national and local policing priorities, the likely eventual outcome and the competing priorities of fraud and other criminal cases"

 

I wonder what Baroness Scotland of Asthal comments would be in respect of the issues raised in my case? Some of her comments are debatable.

Edited January 22, 2014 by kennythecelt
sentence added

[kennythecelt]

For information, concerns were raised in Westminster during the Harrow issue process for profit/ kickback arrangements with bailiff companies:

 

From Hansard, a question asked by Harrow MP Bob Blackman and a reply by the Leader of The House, Sir George Young, from Hansard:

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110915/debtext/110915-0002.htm

 

15 Sep 2011 : Column 1206

 

Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con): Given that Harrow council has issued a tender document for the procurement of bailiff services that requires the successful tenderer to pay back to the council 10% of the fee they obtain from the person from whom they collect the debt, may we have an urgent debate on the use of bailiffs, the services provided and the fees allowed, so that this House can express its view on such unfair practices?

 

Sir George Young: The Government have given a commitment to provide better protection against aggressive bailiffs, so I can offer some encouragement on that part of my hon. Friend’s question. On the first part, I will ask Department for Communities and Local Government Ministers whether there is any irregularity in Harrow council seeking a kick-back from any contract that it lets.

 

So, I wonder what answer was given by The Department for Communities and Local Government, which brings us back to our friend, Eric Pickles? A follow up letter to him is required further to my earlier correspondence with him.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think there is always a reluctance to deal with issues regarding bailiffs, because government have a vested interest in making sure that money owed is collected. Even when they stray into practices which appear to be dodgy, it is very difficult to gain any action against them, because the government won't want to legislate properly and Judges won't want to rock the boat.

 

In this particular case, I wonder whether a civil action for harassment would be best.

[kennythecelt]

Thanks for the contribution, advice and comments- keep them coming, please.

 

I can discuss harassment at my meeting with CAB.

 

They have this information:

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/discrimination_e/discrimination_taking_action_about_discrimination_e/ge30_taking_action_about_harassment.htm and

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/debt_e/debt_action_your_creditor_can_take_e/harassment_by_creditors.htm

 

See above post re British Gas.

 

Harassment: some limited background: http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/harassment-unwanted-letters-and-telephone-calls/protection-from-harassment-act-1997.shtml

 

Harassment can also be a criminal matter, so there are possibilities there to consider.

[ericsbrother]

I once did a bit of covert surveillance with a friend of mine who was employed to do such things. He used a car with South African registration as they have plates that are identical to the older UK plates, ie A123 ABC and ABC 123A. and are rh drive. So, noy cloned reg but legit, if in London for say 6 months most likely

[kennythecelt]

Yes, you are quite right, it must happen.

 

The case with Harrow involved continental style plates, the new numbering that we have, but the spacing was different ie 2 gaps as opposed to our 1 gap, and it may have been foreign and legitimate or cloned. I don't know as the police down there refused to investigate. But, the info Harrow got from the DVLA would have shown that the car was a different series/ model and colour. It should also not have been input as they are on record to me that they do not input foreign plates. Presumably because it is near impossible to pursue.

 

I also have recorded proof of a red astra van with my number plate and another BMW in another borough that was cancelled correctly with minimal fuss.

[tomtubby]

Kenny,

 

The most significant part of this complaint is your conversation with TEC and where they have CONFIRMED that Harrow Council should not have been able to register the PCN with them given that you live in Scotland.

 

I cannot stress upon you how SERIOUS this is and it is imperative that you send a Formal Complaint to TEC.

[kennythecelt]

Kenny,

 

The most significant part of this complaint is your conversation with TEC and where they have CONFIRMED that Harrow Council should not have been able to register the PCN with them given that you live in Scotland.

 

I cannot stress upon you how SERIOUS this is and it is imperative that you send a Formal Complaint to TEC.

 

That is not quite what I said. Maybe it got lost in translation.

 

Harrow have confirmed in writing that the continental plate should not have been put into their own PCN system at the outset as identified by CCTV photo and they acknowledge an error in doing so. They then compounded that first error by forwarding papers to TEC for legal enforcement action. I was unaware this was happening as I was told they had cancelled it, but they had not. So I did not know a case was proceeding and hence missed any appeal process as I challenged the PCN as soon as I received it and provided the necessary evidence.

 

Harrow input YYYY YYY when the continental matching plate was configured YYY YY YY and photographed as that. The person who viewed the real time image should have known it was a continental car and not have input it into the Harrow PCN system as a British registration plate.

 

TEC admitted that they themselves should never have input the information they received from Harrow into the TEC system due to my Scottish post code and that they had made an error and it should not have happened.

 

They would not comment on anything that happened at Harrow. I asked them about that and they declined to comment. TEC did not blame Harrow and only listened to what I said about the actions of Harrow, the continental plate, cloned plates, cancelled charge and a Scottish post code.

 

So I assume that Harrow issue paperwork to TEC who then input that into their own system. IE I don't think that Harrow or any other council submits electronic data into TEC's own system. It is also TEC's responsibility to check for a Scottish post code before inputting and raising action.

 

So, I am left with the distinct impression that both TEC and Harrow are at fault as regards this part of the PCN process.

 

Getting late so will pursue tomorrow. Thanks tomtubby.

[kennythecelt]

Today I issued a Formal Complaint to TEC (Traffic Enforcement Centre) requesting that they conduct a full investigation into all circumstances leading to them breaching their guidance by inputting a Scottish post code into their enforcement system which led to subsequent court action being granted against me.

 

I referred to my earlier telephone conversation.

 

I have requested that court records be amended and retracted. I have detailed the damage to my reputation and credit file.

 

I have told them of the resultant impact on my health.

 

I have asked what information was sent to them by Harrow.

 

I have asked for full redress.

 

In kept it relatively short and to the point.

 

I will update when I receive a reply.

[kennythecelt]

For the information of newbie's TEC are not responsible for the actions of bailiffs. Any complaint is best made to the client employing the bailiff for PCN's, as they manage and monitor the contract. At least, that is what we are told is supposed to happen. Complaints can still be made to the bailiff company of course but you are unlikely to get satisfaction.

[kennythecelt]

For a variety of reasons, I have not been able to update.

 

Therefore, this is just a brief update

 

I have received no confirmation or acknowledgement from TEC. I will get in touch with TEC tomorrow as that is a full 7 days.

 

I have received no further correspondence of any kind from Harrow Borough Council in respect of formal complaint and formal complaint 22, nor SAR and FOI requests.

 

I have likewise received nothing further from Newlyns PLC.

 

Over the weekend I will check all of the respective dates the complaints were raised, the dates of SAR and the dates of FOI requests and then consider the next steps.

[kennythecelt]

Spoke to TEC today. The reason for them not responding to me was that I had used the incorrect email address, missing out a . somewhere so reissued and receipt received.

 

I emailed Harrow and requested that all complaints made now be raised to stage 2 of the complaints process by someone higher up the tree. I require to demonstrate that I have used all possible avenues open to me within Harrow.

 

I have been unable to follow through on a SAR although the form has been submitted and they have waived the fee. They require me to attend in person and present my passport or driving licence plus utility bill etc, as this link demonstrates.

http://www.harrow.gov.uk/info/200031/data_protection_and_freedom_of_information_foi/647/data_protection_act/3

 

This would be OK if I lived in the London area but their policy is surely something the Information Commissioner should be made aware of. I have though asked Harrow for a way around this issue as I cannot post these documents because I have no faith in Harrow not to lose them given their track record, possibility of identity theft and I'm pretty sure that neither the DVLA or Passport Office would be too keen on them leaving my possession for a whole variety of reasons ie identity theft etc, and I would be held liable. I have informed them I may resort to ICO if there is no suitable way forward. My local police, could for example, witness these documents and supply a letter as to my identity, but I will leave the ball in Harrow's court meantime. Alternatively I could perhaps pop into my Sheriff Court for a JP to sign a document confirming ID.

 

I met with CAB today and they have seen all evidence. They are assisting with the small claims process. They believe I have a strong case. I will however, give strong consideration to using both the LGO and/ or OFT before that route. I want an example made of Harrow and their bailiffs and I want it publicised.

[kennythecelt]

All complaints with both Newlyn's and Harrow have been raised to stage 2 of their process. They failed to meet the timescale set in stage 1 of their procedures in all but 1 instance.

 

This works in my favour.