SCOOP....Up to date news stories about bailiffs, debt, universal credit, and much more.

[brassnecked]

I forgot to update this thread, In relation to my post number 321, after publishing details on the forum I am pleased to hear that Newlyn had returned the car to the debtor. A formal complaint had been made to the LGO (which has been rejected) so it is pleasing to hear that the car is now back.

Great that the car is back, obnoxious that it trook so long Newlyn will now be even more bold and dsaring wiyth seizures no doubt,

[tomtubby]

Great that the car is back, obnoxious that it trook so long Newlyn will now be even more bold and dsaring wiyth seizures no doubt,

.

.

 

 

I have actually seen a copy of the complaint made to the LGO and a full copy of their initial response and final one. It is fair to say (and the vehicle owner would share my view on this I am sure).......there has certainly been a confusing 'history' to the 'ownership' of this vehicle!!

[outlawla]

The bailiffs using spy cameras to snatch cars off the street for minor traffic fines

 

This is how bothered the police were about Lambeth council and Equita's £700 ransom......

"

The police operator told me this was now a ‘civil matter’ and the police would be unable to help me recover my car. He simply gave me the phone number for a debt recovery company called Equita Ltd....

[brassnecked]

The bailiffs using spy cameras to snatch cars off the street for minor traffic fines

 

This is how bothered the police were about Lambeth council and Equita's £700 ransom......

"

The police operator told me this was now a ‘civil matter’ and the police would be unable to help me recover my car. He simply gave me the phone number for a debt recovery company called Equita Ltd....

 

It had already gone for auction so if she had waited a day or so more it would have been sold.

 

Bailiffs should not be allowed to use ANPR, the MET CUBO and Whyte & Co parking Mad debacle is clear evidence of that fact

[tomtubby]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2728458/The-bailiffs-using-spy-cameras-snatch-cars-street-minor-traffic-fines.html

 

I have made reference a number of times on the main forum that I responded personally to the joint Consultation paper regarding ANPR and CCTV issued earlier this year. We do know that following the Consultation major changes are to be imposed regarding CCTV and the present position is that with regards to the use of ANPR for enforcement of an unpaid road traffic debt we are waiting for more news. I am passionately against the use of ANPR and have been a major critic for a very long time.

 

There is a error in the story in the second sentence. The lady confirmed in the article that she had paid Equita over the telephone and then attended to auctioneers premises (General Auctions) to collect her car.

 

In the 2nd sentence she incorrectly stated that she attended the auction premises to"

 

"buy back my car from an auctioneer who had, in turn, purchased it from bailiffs".

[old bill]

There needs to be a massive crackdown on the use of ANPR equipment, not just by the civil enforcement industry and the likes of NSL and VEAS, who carry out enforcement for DVLA, but law enforcement agencies also. All too often, innocent motorists are wrongfully arrested and/or suffer the unlawful seizure of their vehicle due to data on police ANPR systems being out-of-date or inaccurate. It is futile for ACPO and the motor insurance industry to beat their chests and bang on about disrupting criminals and keeping uninsured motorists off the road as justification for the use of ANPR equipment. It is becoming clearly evident that the claims they make simply do not stack up and hold about as much water as a sieve.

[brassnecked]

There needs to be a massive crackdown on the use of ANPR equipment, not just by the civil enforcement industry and the likes of NSL and VEAS, who carry out enforcement for DVLA, but law enforcement agencies also. All too often, innocent motorists are wrongfully arrested and/or suffer the unlawful seizure of their vehicle due to data on police ANPR systems being out-of-date or inaccurate. It is futile for ACPO and the motor insurance industry to beat their chests and bang on about disrupting criminals and keeping uninsured motorists off the road as justification for the use of ANPR equipment. It is becoming clearly evident that the claims they make simply do not stack up and hold about as much water as a sieve.

 

 

Have to agree, ANPR seizure due to faulty records maY well be a breach of ECHR, as it denies right to fair trial, especially if the PCN is for a previous keeper. or the MID is wrong and the vehicle is actyually lawfully insured. I am told that any fees for getting the motor out of the pound, are non refundable even though it is an error, or worse compensatiuon if it is crushed is not available. Is that the case?

[old bill]

Have to agree, ANPR seizure due to faulty records maY well be a breach of ECHR, as it denies right to fair trial, especially if the PCN is for a previous keeper. or the MID is wrong and the vehicle is actually lawfully insured. I am told that any fees for getting the motor out of the pound, are non refundable even though it is an error, or worse compensation if it is crushed is not available. Is that the case?

 

Not just that, BN. Although Parliament has given the police and DVLA the power to seize vehicles, the rumblings in the jungle are that such seizures are not only contrary to Article 6 of ECHR (Right to A Fair Trial), but Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Possessions) also. The legislation is, most likely, incompatible with the Articles and Protocols of ECHR. The justification put forward by ACPO is that it is to prevent the motorist continuing to commit an offence. Cobblers! The vast majority of the time the data is either inaccurate or out-of-date. The other one they pull is with boy racers, using the same excuse and the all-too-frequently-abused Public Order Act 1986.

 

If a vehicle is wrongfully or unlawfully seized by a civil enforcement company, technically, it is the creditor who is liable for any fees payable for a vehicle's release. However, although interpleader cases, so far, have been found in the motorists' favour, the motorist should not have to go to the lengths or expense they are being made to go to in order to protect their possessions from being illegally/unlawfully/wrongfully taken from them. In all honesty, I can see the interpleader provision under the new regulations coming under scrutiny and its lawfulness tested against its compatibility with the Articles and Protocols under ECHR. If this happens - and there is no reason why it should not - it could prove very expensive for the civil enforcement industry and creditors and raise very serious questions about the way in which the regulations were drafted.

 

If a vehicle is wrongly/unlawfully/illegally seized by one of DVLA's contractors (NSL or VEAS), go through the DVLA Wheelclamping Unit immediately. This stops enforcement and should ensure release without charge.

 

If the police wrongly/unlawfully/illegally seize vehicles, they tend to use private sector recovery firms who will not release vehicles until they are paid. It is, in essence, an extortion racket which is, eventually, going to backfire on the police and recovery operators. The police will tell you you cannot recover fees from them, but if they seized a vehicle with no lawful reason, there is no reason why a claim should not be brought against them for reimbursement of fees made by the recovery operator.

 

If a vehicle has been wrongly or unlawfully sold, then it is a case that it will either be subject to an order for recovery or a replacement vehicle provided. If a vehicle has been wrongly or unlawfully destroyed, then it is a case that the vehicle has to be replaced or the cost of replacement paid. However, the regulations applicable to bungling by DVLA contractors contains a provision whereby the innocent motorist is screwed by costs for seizure and disposal being taken out of any compensation paid.

[brassnecked]

Oldbill, the whole thing is nasty and should be stopped. Most Police Farces have a cosy arrangement with local recovery firms. Heddlu Gogledd Cymru have one with North Wales recovery I believe

[old bill]

Oldbill, the whole thing is nasty and should be stopped. Most Police Farces have a cosy arrangement with local recovery firms. Heddlu Gogledd Cymru have one with North Wales recovery I believe

 

It is one massive fraud, BN. Devon and Cornwall Police have an arrangement with a company called Vospers.

[brassnecked]

It is one massive fraud, BN. Devon and Cornwall Police have an arrangement with a company called Vospers.

 

Are they related to the boatbuilders who built MTBs in World War 2?

[Peterbard]

Not just that, BN. Although Parliament has given the police and DVLA the power to seize vehicles, the rumblings in the jungle are that such seizures are not only contrary to Article 6 of ECHR (Right to A Fair Trial), but Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of Possessions) also. The legislation is, most likely, incompatible with the Articles and Protocols of ECHR. The justification put forward by ACPO is that it is to prevent the motorist continuing to commit an offence. Cobblers! The vast majority of the time the data is either inaccurate or out-of-date. The other one they pull is with boy racers, using the same excuse and the all-too-frequently-abused Public Order Act 1986.

 

If a vehicle is wrongfully or unlawfully seized by a civil enforcement company, technically, it is the creditor who is liable for any fees payable for a vehicle's release. However, although interpleader cases, so far, have been found in the motorists' favour, the motorist should not have to go to the lengths or expense they are being made to go to in order to protect their possessions from being illegally/unlawfully/wrongfully taken from them. In all honesty, I can see the interpleader provision under the new regulations coming under scrutiny and its lawfulness tested against its compatibility with the Articles and Protocols under ECHR. If this happens - and there is no reason why it should not - it could prove very expensive for the civil enforcement industry and creditors and raise very serious questions about the way in which the regulations were drafted.

 

If a vehicle is wrongly/unlawfully/illegally seized by one of DVLA's contractors (NSL or VEAS), go through the DVLA Wheelclamping Unit immediately. This stops enforcement and should ensure release without charge.

 

If the police wrongly/unlawfully/illegally seize vehicles, they tend to use private sector recovery firms who will not release vehicles until they are paid. It is, in essence, an extortion racket which is, eventually, going to backfire on the police and recovery operators. The police will tell you you cannot recover fees from them, but if they seized a vehicle with no lawful reason, there is no reason why a claim should not be brought against them for reimbursement of fees made by the recovery operator.

 

If a vehicle has been wrongly or unlawfully sold, then it is a case that it will either be subject to an order for recovery or a replacement vehicle provided. If a vehicle has been wrongly or unlawfully destroyed, then it is a case that the vehicle has to be replaced or the cost of replacement paid. However, the regulations applicable to bungling by DVLA contractors contains a provision whereby the innocent motorist is screwed by costs for seizure and disposal being taken out of any compensation paid.

 

Hi Old Bill

 

Interested in this post, you say that there have been"rumblings* about human rights issues and immanent/impending actions regarding the DVLA as well as other issues regarding seizures etc, I would be very interested in any information you have regarding this and related matters.

 

I have been searching and cannot find anything, could you link me to your authorities please.

 

Many thanks

[Coughdrop]

Hi Old Bill

 

Interested in this post, you say that there have been"rumblings* about human rights issues and immanent/impending actions regarding the DVLA as well as other issues regarding seizures etc, I would be very interested in any information you have regarding this and related matters.

 

I have been searching and cannot find anything, could you link me to your authorities please.

 

Many thanks

 

Maybe here?

 

http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4085

 

:lol:

[Peterbard]

Maybe here?

 

http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4085

 

:lol:

 

lol Yes that is what I was thinking

[citizenB]

Maybe here?

 

http://www.fmotl.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4085

 

:lol:

 

Please tell me that is a wind up ? Did he really send that to the DVLA.. and expect someone to read it ?

[DragonFly1967]

Please tell me that is a wind up ? Did he really send that to the DVLA.. and expect someone to read it ?

 

I doubt very much that it's a joke. These FMOTL types actually believe what they're spouting and won't listen to anyone that has a different opinion than them. Even if the DVLA had replied they'd have never accepted the answer as it wouldn't fit in with what they believe to be 'the law'.

 

Quite frankly, it's rather tiresome.

[Peterbard]

Please tell me that is a wind up ? Did he really send that to the DVLA.. and expect someone to read it ?

 

No they are absolutely serious, the authorities will read the first few lines then put them in the bin. It amazes me how well written a lot of this stuff is, the content is nonsense of course, but you can see how people get drawn into thinking the author knows what he is talking about.

[brassnecked]

Wonder if this has anything to do woyj outlawa's popsts about NELC?

 

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/North-East-Lincolnshire-Council-staff-sacked/story-22843833-detail/story.html

[Peterbard]

Wonder if this has anything to do woyj outlawa's popsts about NELC?

 

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/North-East-Lincolnshire-Council-staff-sacked/story-22843833-detail/story.html[/

 

Disgusting practices, and all individuals should bought to book (under the requirements of the usual legal framework). but I was more interested in the industry/country wide conspiracy to defraud the motorists, deprive them of their vehicles and the subsequent "human rights" abuses as described by Old Bill, and the link shown earlier.

[outlawla]

Wonder if this has anything to do woyj outlawa's popsts about NELC?

 

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/North-East-Lincolnshire-Council-staff-sacked/story-22843833-detail/story.html

 

Unfortunately the fraud mentioned in that article concerned only that for which staff had been investigated and convicted of the crime. That which is the result of council policy, and alerted to the council, police, auditor etc was not deemed by any of them to be worthy of investigation.

 

However, another Grimsby Telegraph article does highlight a failing with the relevant police force in that it fails to record reports of crime correctly. This was similarly found to be the case when they wrongly recorded a complaint about misconduct within the force so there was no right of appeal.

[brassnecked]

Unfortunately the fraud mentioned in that article concerned only that for which staff had been investigated and convicted of the crime. That which is the result of council policy, and alerted to the council, police, auditor etc was not deemed by any of them to be worthy of investigation.

 

However, another Grimsby Telegraph article does highlight a failing with the relevant police force in that it fails to record reports of crime correctly. This was similarly found to be the case when they wrongly recorded a complaint about misconduct within the force so there was no right of appeal.

 

Common Purpose at work, as in sweep it under the carpet and denigrate the abused to hide the failimgs of the council, a bit like Rotherham, but financial rather than sexual abuse of the taxpayer.

[Peterbard]

Common Purpose at work, as in sweep it under the carpet and denigrate the abused to hide the failimgs of the council, a bit like Rotherham, but financial rather than sexual abuse of the taxpayer.

 

LOL Yes that is what I thought.

 

I believe they are teaming up with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

[brassnecked]

LOL Yes that is what I thought.

 

I believe they are teaming up with the fairies at the bottom of my garden.

Councils are of themselves now no longer benign organisations run by voluntary councillors for the public good. They are cash and power hungry juggernauts, They are not in it for us, and FMOL is of no help. They ignore the law, and will do their best toi wriggle off the hook if they frik up and they and their bailiffs do something nasty, See R V Tucker COA

 

As to the fairies, leave the alone they don't want to know the council, after all if the council knew they lived there they would want council tax from them for their mushroom houses and send a bailiff to collect LOL.

[Peterbard]

Hey I have no problem with people indulging whatever beliefs they wish. My interests however lie in real life problems and solutions.

 

I thought perhaps there was something other than the rhetoric we have all heard a hundred times here, sadly not.

[tomtubby]

 

If a vehicle is wrongfully or unlawfully seized by a civil enforcement company, technically, it is the creditor who is liable for any fees payable for a vehicle's release. However, although interpleader cases, so far, have been found in the motorists' favour, the motorist should not have to go to the lengths or expense they are being made to go to in order to protect their possessions from being illegally/unlawfully/wrongfully taken from them.

 

OB.

 

As many will known I was most critical of the 'Interpleader' procedure when it was first mentioned earlier this year (before the new regulations took effect) and indeed I wrote a series of articles in various publications highlighting my concerns and outlining suggestions for a 'preliminary' stage to be followed before a formal Interpleader claim to court becomes necessary.

 

I was delighted to hear that my concerns and suggestions were brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice and the Civil Procedure Rules committee and most (but not all) of the suggestions outlined were implemented in the new regulations.

 

Whilst not perfect....what we now have in the regulations is a legal procedure that allows a debtor or third party to write an INFORMAL letter (which can be sent by email) to the enforcement company if they believe that goods have been 'taken into control' when they should not have done so.

 

Such notice must be made within a strict time frame of 7 days and as soon as the enforcement company receive notice they must advise the local authority and it is for the LA to make a decision whether they are satisfied with the supporting documentation outlining the reason why the goods should not have been 'taken into control'. I am aware so far of two enforcement companies who are making the decision on behalf of the LA. This is NOT permitted (and is a matter that I recently brought to the attention of the Ministry of Justice).

 

I have personally assisted with many of these applications and so far.....every single one has been accepted and the goods released.

 

The Ministry of Justice are looking very closely indeed at how the 'Interpleader' applications will work in practice and with this in mind I am very interested indeed at your above comment:

 

However, although interpleader cases, so far, have been found in the motorists' favour

 

Are you referring in this comment to information that you have regarding Interpleaders that have actually been in court as it is my understanding that so far....no such cases have reached a court. I would be interested to know more.

 

An enforcement agent is under a lot more obligation to ensure that goods taken into control are owned (or jointly owned) by the debtor.