Jump to content


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


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2804 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

A very interesting story that appears in today's SCOOP concerns the clamping of vehicles on a road that the local tradesmen consider to be a PRIVATE ROAD. It would seem that the vehicles have all been clamped by DVLA (I would assume the reason being that some of the cars were not displaying road fund licence). Most cars appear to be used by local garages.

 

What is interesting about this story is what is defined as a 'private road'. Under the new bailiff regulations an enforcement agent is permitted to apply an immobilisation device to a vehicle on the 'public highway' (which is generally understood to be a road that is subject to a traffic regulation order). This is a subject that is currently causing a lot of debate regarding the new regs and will no doubt be the subject of discussion at the yearly parking and enforcement agent show in London tomorrow.

 

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11256685.Traders__cars_clamped_on__private_road_/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 391
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I think a private road can be and mean one that is not "Adopted" by the local authority, as the residents are responsible for its upkeep, they tend to be in poor repair unless a private industrial estate. Either way so long as they are signed as a private road for access only, they are not a public highway imho, so a bailiff/EA probably should not clamp a vehicle on one.

 

The local plod used to park at the end of one so they could use the T2020 Laser speed gun. The residents ordered them to move, police disagreed, so a complaint went in, no more speed trap from the private road.

 

Th EAs or DVLA probably would clamp though as indicated in the article, especially DVLA who would probably clamp a car on a barge on the river. Wonder if they have tried to remove a large Mobility scooter on a Q plate for no Zero rate disc?

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

Perhaps the council should have checked with their lawyers first !

 

What is a private road ? There are different definitions for different purposes. I believe the Road Traffic Acts covers private roads in some ways. i.e you can be done for dangerous driving on a private road.

 

The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes

 

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cargo Handling Ltd [1992] RTR 318.

A road which is not maintainable and manageable at public expense does not preclude it from being "a road open to the public" as that expression refers to a road to which the public has access.

 

If these laws covering EA's and clamping only cover public highways, I believe this only relates to those roads which are adopted by a local authority. So if Brighton Council have this particular road down as unadopted, then they have strayed into a grey area. I think the lawyers will be scatching their heads. There is law covering various offences committed on any road that can be accessed by the public, so it depends on how rigid the new laws have been written about the EA's activity on a public highway. Did the law makers intend to allow clamping on unadopted (private) roads ?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very interesting story that appears in today's SCOOP concerns the clamping of vehicles on a road that the local tradesmen consider to be a PRIVATE ROAD. It would seem that the vehicles have all been clamped by DVLA (I would assume the reason being that some of the cars were not displaying road fund licence). Most cars appear to be used by local garages.

 

What is interesting about this story is what is defined as a 'private road'. Under the new bailiff regulations an enforcement agent is permitted to apply an immobilisation device to a vehicle on the 'public highway' (which is generally understood to be a road that is subject to a traffic regulation order). This is a subject that is currently causing a lot of debate regarding the new regs and will no doubt be the subject of discussion at the yearly parking and enforcement agent show in London tomorrow.

 

 

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11256685.Traders__cars_clamped_on__private_road_/

 

The statutory definition of a "public highway" is "a road to which the public have access and is maintained at public expense". I cannot find a statutory definition of a "private road", but it is, generally, taken to be "a thoroughfare or other right of way to which the public may or may not have access and which has not been adopted by a local or other statutory authority as a highway and is maintained at private expense".

 

Turning to the activities of the DVLA's clamping contractors, these are currently NSL and VEAS (part of Capita). VEAS are well-known for clamping and towing away cars parked on private roads and land, including those correctly SORNed and belonging to motor traders, who are not required to display a VED on a vehicle until it is sold. NSL have some stroppy employees who refuse to produce identification when requested, resulting in police having to attend and warn them about their behaviour.

 

Looking at the article in "The Argus", I have a feeling the actions of Brighton & Hove Council and the DVLA contractor may well turn round and bite them hard on their backsides, especially if the road in question has not been adopted by the council, in which case, the council, DVLA and DVLA contractor could face legal action under the Torts (Interference With Goods) Act 1977. However, I must say that DVLA has, for once, taken a commonsense approach by immediately suspending any further attempts by their contractor to remove vehicles, which makes me wonder if Simon Tse and DVLA have parted company.

 

Addressing your comment about EAs and the new regs, TT, I would say that civil enforcement companies would be wise to check the legal status of any road before allowing their EAs anywhere near an address on a road where there is a query as to whether the road is a private road or public highway and not let them go blundering in and risk possible litigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a large sign saying Private Road (unadopted) they should be very careful before clamping.

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

Perhaps the council should have checked with their lawyers first !

 

What is a private road ? There are different definitions for different purposes. I believe the Road Traffic Acts covers private roads in some ways. i.e you can be done for dangerous driving on a private road.

 

The definition of a road in England and Wales is ‘any highway and any other road to which the public has access and includes bridges over which a road passes

 

Director of Public Prosecutions v Cargo Handling Ltd [1992] RTR 318.

A road which is not maintainable and manageable at public expense does not preclude it from being "a road open to the public" as that expression refers to a road to which the public has access.

 

If these laws covering EA's and clamping only cover public highways, I believe this only relates to those roads which are adopted by a local authority. So if Brighton Council have this particular road down as unadopted, then they have strayed into a grey area. I think the lawyers will be scatching their heads. There is law covering various offences committed on any road that can be accessed by the public, so it depends on how rigid the new laws have been written about the EA's activity on a public highway. Did the law makers intend to allow clamping on unadopted (private) roads ?

There is a strange "Catch 22" in English Law, UB, which you have highlighted. Although a private road is private for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act, it can also be a public place if the public have access to it, at a material time, whether on payment or otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is a large sign saying Private Road (unadopted) they should be very careful before clamping.

 

If that's the case, BN, I can see the motor traders uprooting the sign and battering the dozy councillor with it. As for the DVLA contractor, I feel they would be on a very sticky wicket indeed if they even thought of trying to extract release fee from the motor traders after unlawfully clamping and removing their vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is news story on SCOOP that I had meant to write about sooner. It features on page 2 and was posted on 28th May.

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news?page=2

 

The link is here:

 

 

http://www.yourthurrock.com/2014/05/28/vote-winner-thousands-received-bailiff-letters-in-election-week-in-thurrock/

The story is so important for a variety of reasons and deserves to feature on a new thread (which I will arrange this afternoon).

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is news story on SCOOP that I had meant to write about sooner. It features on page 2 and was posted on 28th May.

 

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news?page=2

 

The link is here:

 

 

http://www.yourthurrock.com/2014/05/28/vote-winner-thousands-received-bailiff-letters-in-election-week-in-thurrock/

The story is so important for a variety of reasons and deserves to feature on a new thread (which I will arrange this afternoon).

 

And the award for Committing Political Suicide During Election Week goes to....

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the award for Committing Political Suicide During Election Week goes to....

 

Thurrock Council. ably assisted by the less than squeaky Whyte & Co.

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

 

That one is scandalous, the Council and EA only refunded after The press intervened.. Time for enforcement by these cameras along with Bailiff/EA ANPR to be banned, as it was a requirementfor the driver to pull over, bus lane or not, and too many third party cars are taken from new owners due to DVLA, data being out of date as will the EA ANPR as a result. Another issue is the MIB database but that is another story.

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

 

On the matter of this parking 'fine' (which it is not). Sadly, the 'focus' of the story appears to be to do with the use of CCTV and how this driver was caught.

 

The focus should really be on the REASON as to WHY he had failed to get any of the statutory notices. If he has paid £512.00 then it is clear that the cost is calculated as being £195 for the PCN, £7 for the TEC registration fee, £75 Compliance fee and £235 Enforcement fee. Therefore be must have paid at the bailiff enforcement visit stage.

 

We don't know whether the car was detected by ANPR or whether a visit was made to his home. Clearly there must have been a problem somewhere with his address details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On the matter of this parking 'fine' (which it is not). Sadly, the 'focus' of the story appears to be to do with the use of CCTV and how this driver was caught.

 

The focus should really be on the REASON as to WHY he had failed to get any of the statutory notices. If he has paid £512.00 then it is clear that the cost is calculated as being £195 for the PCN, £7 for the TEC registration fee, £75 Compliance fee and £235 Enforcement fee. Therefore be must have paid at the bailiff enforcement visit stage.

 

We don't know whether the car was detected by ANPR or whether a visit was made to his home. Clearly there must have been a problem somewhere with his address details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all,

Here in my borough, ( Hammersmith and Fulham ) The locals are used to the over zealous use of ccty cameras to issue tickets. The revenue from these covert cameras runs into millions, [REMOVED] . So you have a situation where at the very busy Hammersmith Broadway with its cameras and box junctions no one moves out of the way for emergency vehicles. You

tell the council that you moved into a box junction to let an ambulance through wont cut any ice, You will have to appeal and appeal again and pay for the privilege to see the video evidence at their convenience . It was up until recently a Tory borough and it was

speculated that the revenue from these fines was being siphoned off to keep the council tax down. Discretion and fairness are two words you wont find in this councils dictionary.

Rant over, sorry Rooney should be dropped,

yours Fulhamboy

Edited by dx100uk
behave - dx
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This looks like a case of a council employee trying to be clever and almost getting away with it. It is an offence to impede the progress of an emergency vehicle being used for emergency purposes on a road. Having looked at the photo, I could just about see the blue light on one of the police bikes. What the van driver did amounts to Reasonable Excuse, i.e. he would have been committing an offence if he had not accorded precedence to the police bikes which were being used for emergency purposes and the only way in which he could accord precedence was to momentarily incur into the bus lane to let the police bikes pass. It would be interesting to find out if the council employee who almost cost the van driver his van and, consequently, his living is still working for the council involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This looks like a case of a council employee trying to be clever and almost getting away with it. It is an offence to impede the progress of an emergency vehicle being used for emergency purposes on a road. Having looked at the photo, I could just about see the blue light on one of the police bikes. What the van driver did amounts to Reasonable Excuse, i.e. he would have been committing an offence if he had not accorded precedence to the police bikes which were being used for emergency purposes and the only way in which he could accord precedence was to momentarily incur into the bus lane to let the police bikes pass. It would be interesting to find out if the council employee who almost cost the van driver his van and, consequently, his living is still working for the council involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the coulcil employee still working for them oldbill? Of course he is, and will no doubt have been promoted. probably done several others for the same thing. Time these cameras were banned.

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

This looks like a case of a council employee trying to be clever and almost getting away with it. It is an offence to impede the progress of an emergency vehicle being used for emergency purposes on a road. Having looked at the photo, I could just about see the blue light on one of the police bikes. What the van driver did amounts to Reasonable Excuse, i.e. he would have been committing an offence if he had not accorded precedence to the police bikes which were being used for emergency purposes and the only way in which he could accord precedence was to momentarily incur into the bus lane to let the police bikes pass. It would be interesting to find out if the council employee who almost cost the van driver his van and, consequently, his living is still working for the council involved.

 

You state it is an offence to impede an emergency vehicle, and while you are correct to a point,in this case you are wrong.

It is an offence to deliberately impede an emergency vehicle.But you must also obey all traffic laws ,sinage and commands.

 

If you are at a red light and a police car with lights on comes up behind you,you do not have to move the police driver should be trained to a standard where he will anticipate this and find other ways round,you cannot be expected to break the law.

 

In this drivers scenario they were police motorcycles, and it would be reasonable to assume they could have past him in a safe manner if he had slowed down on the highway,or even stopped.

 

As i think you have stated on here before,ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to the Data Protection Act? I thought the DVLA would be breaking the law by passing on information to a third party. I do not pay any of these bus lane/parking fines. It is time you people to take a stand against these thief's. If the local authority have incurred no lose of damage due to your actions why are they fleecing you?

And what about the Bill of Rights which basically says its illegal to impose, forfeiture and fines before a court hearing?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/WillandMarSess2/1/2/introduction

 

Quote. Grants of Forfeitures.

 

That all Grants and Promises of Fines and Forfeitures of particular persons before Conviction are illegall and void.

Edited by OlafJensen
Adding more information
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Bill of Rights argument in relation to PCNs has been covered here-I think from the trafficpenaltytribunal

 

NPAS CIRCULAR

BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1689

This circular informs you about a recent decision on an issue which has already

attracted press coverage in the national press and is potentially relevant to all DPE

councils.

In this case the main ground of appeal relied upon by Mr Higgins was that the PCN

issued by Sefton Borough Council and the whole of the decriminalised parking

enforcement scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991 is illegal because it is in

breach of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 . Mr Higgins argued that the Bill of Rights Act

1689 is still in force and makes it illegal for a Penalty Charge to be imposed before

the recipient has been convicted in a court of law. The particular provision relied on is

that “all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before

conviction are illegal and void.” The argument was made against a PCN issued by

Sefton Borough Council, but could be raised by any appellant against any DPE

council in any case as it concerns the underlying legality of decriminalised parking

enforcement and PCNs.

The Adjudicator rejected this argument and dismissed the appeal. His decision is

attached in full. However, we have summarised the key points made by the

Adjudicator in arriving at this decision.

• The 1689 Act is relevant, but there is no conflict between it and the

decriminalised parking scheme brought in by the Road Traffic Act 1991.

• The intention of the 1689 Act was to ensure a person has a right of challenge

to any financial penalty imposed on him or her.

• When a PCN is issued the Road Traffic Act 1991 imposes a statutory duty on

DPE councils to consider and respond to representations against the issue of a

Notice to Owner which must be issued before a Penalty Charge can be

enforced, and a right of appeal to an independent tribunal against the issue of

the PCN if the council rejects those representations.

• The Road Traffic Act 1991 does, therefore, provide a right of challenge to the

imposition of a Penalty Charge and is consistent with the 1689 Act.

• The High Court has considered the Road Traffic Act 1991, and the powers of

Parking Adjudicators and did not raise any issue in relation to the 1689 Act.

We anticipate that, in light of national press coverage about this issue being raised by

other individuals in relation to other DPE councils, we will see further cases where

this argument is pursued. If you are in any doubt as to how this issue may affect your

council you should consult your legal department. In any event you may want to

provide a copy of this circular and the Higgins decision to your legal department.

 

 

So whatever your views may be, they are not the views of the Judges and as they are the ones with the final say your opinion will count for little in a Court of Law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not a Freeman at all. They are dreamers in my opinion.

 

.

How true. I have spent the past hour talking to a tpuc supporter (another form of FmoTL) and she is truly barking mad !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2804 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...