Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Changes in the US are enticing more people to file bankruptcy to clear their student loans.View the full article
    • Servicing Stop Limited Registered Office Address: 57 London Rd, Enfield, Middlesex, England, EN2 6DU Company Type: Private Limited Company Company Status: Active Company Number: 06558606 Directors: Oliver Joseph Richmond Appointed 8th April 2008, Toby Robert Richmond Appointed 8th September 2009 Companies House Link: SERVICING STOP LIMITED overview - Find and update company information - GOV.UK FIND-AND-UPDATE.COMPANY-INFORMATION.SERVICE.GOV.UK SERVICING STOP LIMITED - Free company information from Companies House including registered office address, filing history, accounts, annual...   Endole Link: Servicing Stop Limited - Company Profile - Endole SUITE.ENDOLE.CO.UK Servicing Stop Limited is an active company located in Enfield, Greater London. View Servicing Stop Limited profile, shareholders, contacts...  
    • Hi I assume the Loft Conversion with the eaves and crawl space was there when you initially purchased the property. Even in done after purchasing the property and the correct permissions were in place i.e. Local Authority, Land Registry, Freeholder which is Southern Land which would be required as a Leasehold property. The difficulty is if the Loft Conversion was there when you purchased the property and there is no evidence in your documents of the eaves and crawl space due to where the Red Lines stop in the plans or even after purchase it was added this is the reason you are having issues with selling due to those missing Red Lines in the Plans and any other Buyers competent Solicitor would flag this up. I can understand the reasons the Buyer wishes a Deed of Variation probably there Solicitor requesting this to ensure those missing red lines are covered before the Sale as they Flagged this as an issue as Red Lines missing on Plans and want buyer protected. As for the £8000 costs Together and cohort Southern Land are trying to charge have you thought of contacting a few Property Solicitors yourself to get a few quotes. (only mention this because when I research this possible costs can range from £500 - £2000 depending on the Deed of Variation work required and nothing to stop you doing this then approaching Together and cohorts with it) Also ask Together/Southern Land for a breakdown of the £8000 costs for the Deed of Variation. Yup do send both Together and Southern Land a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that data in whether it be emails, written, recorded calls etc. They then have 30 Calendar Days to respond and that time limit only starts once they acknowledge receipt of your SAR Request. When you purchased the property some 17yrs ago are the Solicitors that you went through at that time still operating? (I know probably a silly question but if they are nothing to stop you contacting them and asking them about this especially if the Loft Conversion was in place when you purchased the property) Another link that will be useful to you as Leasehold is The Leasehold Advisory Service: Home - The Leasehold Advisory Service WWW.LEASE-ADVICE.ORG Government funded, independent advice for residential leaseholders and park home residents  
    • Why struggling parents aren't choosing cheaper brands when it comes to infant formula milk.View the full article
    • Musk's profane attack on advertisers baffled experts - without adverts, how would X survive?View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4

       

       
    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4


       

       

       

      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies

A local authority exposes itself


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3526 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

You seem to be exhibiting a great deal of reliance on rumours and wishful thinking as many people are grateful to Fair Parking for getting their money and vehicles back through taking on local authorities.

 

If I agree about one thing this is taking the thread away from the programme so if you wish to continue with your incorrect accusations including anything about judges then please start a new thread and do try to put some facts before the rest of us and I'll deal with them and indeed any more bile you would like to spit out.

 

Back on thread - you have given no good reason why the baliffs had no warrants with them or why they were not even mentioned in the programme. Although one bailiff was moved to say that he was certificated court officer (rather than certificated BY a court) not one bailiff said he had a court warrant.

 

There can be no greater issues to discuss than baliffs who have no warrants although you can lump in violations of the Data Protection Act ie discussing the matter with any third party who answers the door and then threatening them. Or you could ask why admitted self employed bailiffs were passed personal information from JBW and Newlyn also in violation of the DPA

 

You did notice these didn't you HCEO? You must also know that the Data Proetction Act prevents such information being shared for any reason that involves the collection of an alleged civil debt. If you didn't then maybe you are not a fit and proper person to hold the office of HCEO.

 

Most bailiffs carry blank warrants that they can quite lawfully fill in if sight of one is requested. If a bailiff does over 40 visits a day (and more if debts are multiples) then thats a lot of wasted trees printed as warrants over a period of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'.

 

Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really?

 

And did you see any of them doing that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'.

 

Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really?

 

And did you see any of them doing that?

 

Of course they can fill one out! What do you think a printed one is? Its printed from a computer file at the bailiff's office.

All this is doing is showing the warrant details in a readable format provided they have the correct information to copy from. Do you honestly belief that TEC issue warrants in paper format?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors.

 

You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant.

 

You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them

 

How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form?

 

And again did you see any bailiff prepare a wararnt on the programme?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors.

 

You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant.

 

You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them

 

How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form?

 

And again did you see any bailiff prepare a wararnt on the programme?

 

Ha Ha!! Rather new to this!! If only you knew.....!

Ok, last time to make it easy for you to understand. The file from TEC is in an electronic format and is received by the local authority. The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant in a readable format for interested parties. This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information.

I hope this helps if not I give up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bazm

Most bailiffs carry blank warrants that they can quite lawfully fill in if sight of one is requested. If a bailiff does over 40 visits a day (and more if debts are multiples) then thats a lot of wasted trees printed as warrants over a period of time.

Fair-Parking

Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion

Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'.

 

Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really?

 

And did you see any of them doing that?

· Today, 11:51

bazm

Of course they can fill one out! What do you think a printed one is? Its printed from a computer file at the bailiff's office. All this is doing is showing the warrant details in a readable format provided they have the correct information to copy from. Do you honestly belief that TEC issue warrants in paper format?

Fair-Parking

Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion

From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors.

 

You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant.

 

You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them

 

How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form?

 

And again did you see any bailiff prepare a warrant on the programme?

bazm

Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion

Ha Ha!! Rather new to this!! If only you knew.....!

Ok, last time to make it easy for you to understand. The file from TEC is in an electronic format and is received by the local authority. The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant in a readable format for interested parties. This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information.

I hope this helps if not I give up.

· Today, 12:49

Well actually I do know you work for a local authority hence the self indulgent sneer.

But as this post rambled on further into its haughty delusion, it not only unravels but from the horse's mouth it exposes why local authorities get parking enforcement completely wrong and why the statutory procedure they are meant to follow breaks down and becomes guesswork, speculation before metamorphosing into an established maladministration where abnormal becomes normal in the eyes of those who are charged with the duty of administering civil parking enforcement.

The file from TEC is in an electronic format.... Yes the file from the TEC is sent electronically as indeed is the file sent to the TEC asking for warrant authorisations. It’s called a 'batch' and it is given a batch reference number. It consists of names, addresses and registration details and could list up to 2000 people.

and is received by the local authority. Well it should be but in most cases ie ALL London boroughs, it is not - the actual form received is a TE8a/b complete with the same names, addresses and registration numbers and is received by the local authority's outsourced company who almost certainly asked the TEC for the authorisations in the first place. However what is missing is any sign of a warrant.

The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. I've no doubt about that but from the outsourced company and not the local authority

This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. I'm ahead of you actually, The outsourced company and not the local authority charged with preparing warrants under CPR 75 (7) (3) has sent people's personal data (without either their knowledge or consent) to a third party for enforcement of a civil debt allegation. This is a violation of the Data Protection Act 1998. The sharing of personal data for the purposes of debt collection is specifically prohibited by the Information Commissioner’s Office. If you wish to argue differently please quote which section of the DPA exempts your council. This personal information is then uploaded into bailiff ANPR vehicles without one warrant ever having been prepared. That means that no ANPR operative will ever have one.

At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. No and nor should they a) due to the DPA and b) because it is obvious that the local authority is not involved in the process. It is the local authority and local authority only which is authorised to prepare a warrant. Nobody else – not their outsourced company, their bailiffs or anybody else. And yet the local authorities excuse themselves from their statutory duty to do so.

However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. Format? The word you require here is FORM and not format - CPR 75 (7) (3) reads as follows ‘Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form. No mention of format at all.

This where it all goes wrong - confusing a ‘format’ whose Oxford English Dictionary definition states ‘the style and manner of an arrangement or procedure’ with a ‘form’ ‘a printed document with blank spaces for information to be inserted’. CPR 75 (7) (3) is quite explicit. It requires the local authority to fill the boxes IN a form, to be precise an Annex 9 template warrant provided in the Applicant User Guide supplied by the TEC. TEC Rule 10.3 cements this by adding ‘see Annex 9’. You must know the procedure if you are not new to all this.

Defining whatever passes for the appropriate ‘format’ which is never disclosed by the CPR or TEC is quite impossible and the only way any local authority believing that this is the way forward is to make it up as they go along.

The key word in CPR 75 (7) (3) here is must– as in ‘the local authority must’ – and not the bailiffs. Game, set and match. No bailiff filling in of forms at the roadside is permitted.

However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC Without substituting the word ‘form’ for ‘format’, this sentence makes no sense at all. What format? How can anything be entered into a ‘format’ which defines a procedure and not a document?

It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant. Not sure how the local authority can because it forfeited its rights to prepare warrants once it let more that seven days slip by after TEC authorisation, but I have dozens of examples of the bailiff companies doing this in order to fool people that they have some power to do so when they have none. To do it at the roadside also means backdating the times and dates on a legal document and pretending that this remains legal.

in a readable format for interested parties. The infamous misreading of CPR 75 (4) (3) which in referring how a local authority can send documentation to the TEC in an acceptable manner or arrangement states ‘Where a document is required to be produced, that requirement will be satisfied if a copy of the document is produced from computer records’. In short the TEC is authorising the electronic transfer of documentary information from the local authority to itself. The TEC confirmed this in an email dated 9th January 2013. As Lord McNally stated – ‘bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings’.

This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information. No comment required except to say that adopting and implementing and unlawful procedure over a long period does not make it any more lawful if the same mistake is endlessly repeated. Even the bailiffs on Panorama weren’t so stupid as to fill in ‘warrant’ forms

 

I hope this helps if not I give up. Perhaps it might be best for everybody if you did, because clearly you advocate an unlawful procedure that extracts money from people who should never have been treated this way.

As I say abnormal has become ‘normal’. It is a short step from local authorities then convincing themselves that if they have always done it this way, it must be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a bit of trouble understanding it. And i maintain net-ops code for a living. Is there any chance you can give a brief background to it?

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that was annoying on the Panorama programme and actually with Bailiffs now EAs enforcing CIVIL parking tickets is the fact they treat the debtor as a criminal as if it was a magistrates fine.

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

My point is that you have raised many serous issues (whether correct or not I do not know personally) with this kind of enforcement.

 

The question is can you really do anything with it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it might help if I added that this is the continuation of postings originally on the thread about Panorama which for the second time was in great danger of being diverted well away from its original theme concerning the contents of the programme. One bailiff HCEO and one local authority employee thought that personal attacks were fair game.

 

Rather than pollute the original thread, I simply started a new one.

 

What we have here is a local authority employee quite literally boasting about how his council goes about enforcing parking tickets via bailiff and in doing so graphically exposes all the wrong doing that his council thinks are 'normal'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps it might help if I added that this is the continuation of postings originally on the thread about Panorama which for the second time was in great danger of being diverted well away from its original theme concerning the contents of the programme. One bailiff HCEO and one local authority employee thought that personal attacks were fair game.

 

Rather than pollute the original thread, I simply started a new one.

 

What we have here is a local authority employee quite literally boasting about how his council goes about enforcing parking tickets via bailiff and in doing so graphically exposes all the wrong doing that his council thinks are 'normal'.

Do the council beleive everything the bailiff tells them?

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

Do the council beleive everything the bailiff tells them?

 

Most of them do as the majority of council staff are very VERY undertrained.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...