Parking Mad BBC1 April 17 9pm

[tomtubby]

I have just watched the programme for a second time on i-player and I cannot wait to see next weeks episode (although the best one is the following week).

 

By coincidence, a week ago I finished writing a lengthy press article about these Police and Bailiff Roadside Operation which is to be published in 3 weeks time. I am still shocked (although pleased) to hear the female bailiff state openly that if the driver attempted to drive away that she would get in the car !!!! And yet....I did not see her give a Notice of Seizure so there can be no legal basis for her retaining the car.

 

'Mr Mustard' was excellent and does a sterling job assisting the public ( I have spoken with him a few times) regarding appeals and he is very knowledgeable.

 

I have said many times that if a motorist believes that a PCN had been issued incorrectly that they should APPEAL the PCN. This is called 'informal representation' and if reject by the council the motorist has a 'second chance' by making Formal Representation. If this is also rejected the motorist may then ask for the matter to be reconsidered by the Adjudicator. The service is FREE to motorists but a little known fact is that the London local authority HAVE TO PAY A FEE for each case taken to the Adjudicator !!!

 

There are two Adjudicator services; one for London issued PCN's and the other for all other part of the UK and Wales. As confirmed by the programme the London based Adjudicator (PATAS) is more formal but outside London the Adjudicator is much more informal and appeals more easily agreed.

[porkyp1g]

Regardless of how it was issued, surely if you were in the wrong, you have a moral responsibility to pay the fine in the first place?

[lamma]

tt,

Three things jumped out at me.

1 Most people are clueless as to how CPE works. I admit that was true of me until I had cause to examine it. Perhaps of should be part of the theory part of the driving test

 

2 Many wrong things. Care was taken to eliminate many, for example no instance of the infamous "I am a Court Bailiff" nevertheless much wrong was shown.

 

3 An obvious question arises. Was the bailiff acting as agent for all the councils who had issued the PCNs ? It is tempting to think that they must have but does the usual arm's length 'independent contractor' set up (which of course gives plausible deniability to the councils and an easy way out when things are caught on hidden cameras etc.) stretch further than it should. But assumption should be avoided. To put it another way: Is there an inter-bailiff company 'arrangement'. if there is then much flows from this

 

4 The spider on the angel cake. In CPE enforcement the Bailiffs are acting as private Bailiffs. i.e in their private capacity. Capacity is of course or ultimate importance. And they seeking a civil debt. The Police getting involved is if course utterly wrong. Although I can see that they have an out in 'attending to prevent a breach of the peace' - just as they can if you or I served a warrant we had been granted by the civil court and we ask them to attend. However they are not attending, they are initiating, they are the primary actor. There is a huge and fundamental difference when the police do the stop.

 

I saw it as a horror story.

And if all the fees were correct I will eat my hat.

Highway robbery describes it best in my opinion.

 

I look forward to the next episodes. I hope they re not being re-edited.....

Edited April 19, 2014 by citizenB
spacing

[brassnecked]

Regardless of how it was issued, surely if you were in the wrong, you have a moral responsibility to pay the fine in the first place?

 

Problem is in many cases the ticket itself was wrong, should you pay it then? Take my example of the CCTV ticket issued to vehicles "parked" on yellow lines, that were actually in a traffic queue, should the drivers idssued with a ticket suck it down and pay? If someone is bang to rights then yes they should pay at the earliest opportunity to deny the rapacious ANPR Enforcers any money. It would appear that the councils are issuing wrongful and spurious tickets that are unlawful as well. I have to agree with Lamma at post # 28 the police are the primary actor, and as it is a pull for NON CRIMINAL Penalty Charges not criminal fines, they are ultra vires their authority.

[lamma]

Do not forget that every local authority is under a duty to act lawfully at all times.

That is the primary matter on which it all turns.

'Moral responsibility' of the motorist has no place in this, none at all. It is a false argument.

[brassnecked]

Do not forget that every local authority is under a duty to act lawfully at all times.

That is the primary matter on which it all turns.

'Moral responsibility' of the motorist has no place in this, none at all. It is a false argument.

Well one poster above would disagree with us, and they are entitled to their opinion, so long as the ticket is lawfully and correctly issued and there is no basis for challenge then it should be paid; but then we must consider that most LA's have a moral compass akin to Gordon McBroon, or a magpie.

[porkyp1g]

No of course if the ticket was issued in error and they've made a mistake, then of course you should challenge it. Like the old fella in the program, I was fully behind his appeal.

 

But if the ticket was a genuine one, then these people who parked incorrectly should be paying as soon as they can to keep the bill down, not bury their head in the sand and ignore it or fight it when they know they were in the wrong, letting it rack up and multiply in the mean time.

[brassnecked]

No of course if the ticket was issued in error and they've made a mistake, then of course you should challenge it. Like the old fella in the program, I was fully behind his appeal.

 

But if the ticket was a genuine one, then these people who parked incorrectly should be paying as soon as they can to keep the bill down, not bury their head in the sand and ignore it or fight it when they know they were in the wrong, letting it rack up and multiply in the mean time.

 

That is absolutely correct porkyp1g

[tomtubby]

Regarding the use of Police in the 'Roadside Operation' viewers may find the new thread that I will be starting in a few minutes of HUGE interest !!!!!!

[brassnecked]

I wait with bted breath, these "operations" are of great concern

[Guest]

thats just it. pursue things properly, proportionately, and within the law. stop trying to fleece.

[lamma]

Regarding the use of Police in the 'Roadside Operation' viewers may find the new thread that I will be starting in a few minutes of HUGE interest !!!!!!

I take it it will be in this forum.

I look forward to this as it is a subject of interest and requires clear thinking and good analysis.

Just two of tt's attributes in my opinion.

No one better to get the ball rolling than tt. (I am avoiding making a pun that this matter should lead to many balls rolling...)

[tomtubby]

This seems the best thread for posting this, forgive me if i am mistaken.

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/cvd95p/parking-mad--series-1---episode-1

 

.

.

The Parking Mad series has a few more episodes and as I understand it "Debbie" will be featuring on this weeks episode and also next week. If the bailiff company are Whyte & Co then 'Debbie' must be Mrs Deborah Carle. However, according to the Radio Times she is part off a 'husband and wife' team. Interestingly I cannot locate hubby's name on the new bailiff register. Bless.

 

It will be interesting to see which location the ANPR operation takes place in. Last week's episode featured the bottom part of the Purley Way (in Purley in Surrey) and was therefore in conjunction with Croydon Council. This is also interesting as I seem to remember being told that Croydon Council deny any ANPR operations have taken place. Very odd.

 

All in all, these operations appear to be shrouded in mystery.

 

PS: The two bailiffs are husband and wife. His name is Steve Kenny (although there is no listing for Mrs Debbie Kenny !!! I am assuming that she is Debbie Carle (but I could be wrong) ????

[brassnecked]

.

.

The Parking Mad series has a few more episodes and as I understand it "Debbie" will be featuring on this weeks episode and also next week. If the bailiff company are Whyte & Co then 'Debbie' must be Mrs Deborah Carle. However, according to the Radio Times she is part off a 'husband and wife' team. Interestingly I cannot locate hubby's name on the new bailiff register. Bless.

 

It will be interesting to see which location the ANPR operation takes place in. Last week's episode featured the bottom part of the Purley Way (in Purley in Surrey) and was therefore in conjunction with Croydon Council. This is also interesting as I seem to remember being told that Croydon Council deny any ANPR operations have taken place. Very odd.

 

All in all, these operations appear to be shrouded in mystery.

 

I think the council will be anxious to distance itself from this if it can, as in oops we have been rumbled perhaps?

[andydd]

Regardless of how it was issued, surely if you were in the wrong, you have a moral responsibility to pay the fine in the first place?

 

EErr.. No. Our legal system is build on laws and not 'moral responsibilty'.

[tomtubby]

It would seem that the 'husband and wife' team are Mr Steven Kenny and Ms Deborah (Debbie) Carle. Strange thing is that Ms Carle is also a Director of Direct Enforcement Ltd (where Mr Kenny also has an involvement).

 

Nothing is as simple as it seems ?????

[brassnecked]

It would seem that the 'husband and wife' team are Mr Steven Kenny and Ms Deborah (Debbie) Carle. Strange thing is that Ms Carle is also a Director of Direct Enforcement Ltd (where Mr Kenny also has an involvement).

 

Nothing is as simple as it seems ?????

What more "funny" handshake, and knowing winks? The plot thickens call that Hansom Cab Watson, but make sure the driver has toileted the horse, we don't want a ticket for fouling the highway, off one of those new-fangled Civil enforcement Dick Turpins/

[Fulhamboy]

Afternoon all ,

Regarding the program , was I hearing right , the female bailiff said " thats one of ours pull it in , " or words to that effect . So she instructed some one ie a police man to pull the car over. Please tell me if am wrong . Frack me the old bill at the beck and call of a bailiff !

I commented earlier on who is giving the orders when setting up these operations ? Surely the Met do not have to include or inform ANY bailiff co . Or is it the local authority yanking the Mets chain ? What are we a third world country with a Police Force for hire ?

[JoeyJoeC]

Can someone explain to me what the police are there for exactly?

[HCEOs]

It would seem that the 'husband and wife' team are Mr Steven Kenny and Ms Deborah (Debbie) Carle. Strange thing is that Ms Carle is also a Director of Direct Enforcement Ltd (where Mr Kenny also has an involvement).

 

Nothing is as simple as it seems ?????

 

Many Bailiffs (Enforcement Agents) set up Limited companies to trade through as it is more tax efficient than being a sole trader. It's the same for most small businesses, whatever their trade.

[brassnecked]

Can someone explain to me what the police are there for exactly?

 

To pull the car on a dubious RTA excuse, for the bailiff when the BAILIFF (CIVIL) ANPR sees a vehicle with a PCN. The bailiff cannot lawfully stop a car. Technically the police and bailiffs may well be in breach of DPA as the debt is not criminal, so is nothing to do with police.

[Satterthwaite]

Isn't there an ex Met officer that posts on here regularly? Can't think of user name.

 

Would be interested in his opinion on all this, he always seems pretty clued up.

[JoeyJoeC]

So once the police pull them over without a reason, they are free to drive off?

 

Unrelated, but was that female bailiff also on a show called "Brit Cam" the other day? There was another bailiff that I think is the same person, and she said something along the lines of a guy being a "Typical bloke" that was trying to cut off a clamp.

[brassnecked]

Isn't there an ex Met officer that posts on here regularly? Can't think of user name.

 

Would be interested in his opinion on all this, he always seems pretty clued up.

Don't think oldbill is happy with these pulls, maybe he will look in on this thread

[brassnecked]

The vehicle was a Motability vehicle so the bailiffs "decided" to let the car go..., but they would be going to the 80 year old mothers house to remove goods Unbelieveable