Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • RH you mean robbersway sorry robinson way?   if you've not paid anything to anyone since 2010 send our sb letter from the debt collection section of our library.   you should never be moving without updating your debt owners on any debt that you might have paid toward or used the said credit within say 7yrs you risk a backdoor CCJ you'll know nothing about.
    • Are you sure they are based in the EU?  I ask because a lot of e-gambling operations in the UK are based in my birthplace of the Isle of Man which is not really in the EU.  (Also channel islands which I'm not sure whether EU or not)
    • Very true TJ with GP surgeries, varying patient service all around. It's time for surgeries who are covid nervous to start putting in place their procedures to avoid sending patients to A&E unnecessarily,  It compounds the problem of the  over stretched hospitals. I found out today self testing kits are being delivered to the NHS probably gradually and in certain places of need as you say.  Hopefully it's being rolled out nationally and staff will be confident they are being cared for so they can care for others.
    • Well, it will a limited half hour conversation tomorrow. But that will be it, mainly it's to definitely get clear in my head that I am entitled to a refund before sending the letter. Will feed back what I can though. Modified slightly below:-   Dear Sir/Madam,     On xx/xx/xx date I entered into a contract with you for windows – reference the signed quotation number xxxxxx The requirements were clearly laid out and specified in the signed quote attached to my e-mail of date xx/xx/xx. Despite that you eventually supplied items which did not tally with the agreed specification. I have, and am asserting now, the right to reject the goods under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.  You appear to be saying that because the goods supplied were "made-to-measure" that you are not obliged to accept my rejection and to refund me the price; as such you are refusing to comply with your statutory obligations. I have already tried to point out you that these goods were supplied not as agreed so in that respect they are defective. In any event I should also point out you that whatever the circumstances, even if you supply goods which are made to the agreed specification, if they are defective then I would be entitled to reject them. You are continuing to refuse to reimburse me and so I'm writing to inform you that if you do not make arrangements to collect the defective items and to refund me in full within 14 days then I shall issue proceedings against you in the County Court for full reimbursement, plus any expenses incurred as a result of your breach, plus interest plus my costs. Yours faithfully,       Tom Legerton
    • Brilliant thanks ! And absolutely, this would be more around 30 miles test-drive if it happened so I could test slow/fast roads.  It was all hypothetical and with the lockdown hopefully easing, I should be hopefully purchasing after the test-drive but should dealerships not open, the above would be my only option
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2357 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wooo hooooo NoToMob :) I used to be out on the bike chasing them scamera cars all the time. :) rs2k was me.

 

No bike an even less lung function stopped me :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aha...he had a knife, at least he was arrested for an actual criminal offence not a dubious civil related one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all, re last night program .

What was clarified last night is that the old bill do do the bailiffs bidding . They park

their anpr van round the corner and when they get a ping they radio the woman bailiff .

Then she instructs the police to pull the vehicle over . Frack me that cannot be legal .

Did you notice that as soon as any motorist got lairy the old bill were ready to step in .

Stitch up no other way to explain it. Do the program makers realise how dubious legally

this set up is ?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't watch this programme. It makes my blood boil and I have never had a parking ticket. I am the sensible one, who checks where I can park legally and will pay for parking, rather than ever take the chance. But I don't live in a major town or city where I am taking my car regularly. Councils around the country appear to be making parking as difficult as possible, as they don't want cars and they will prey on motorists who don't park correctly to make money from them.

 

These roadside operations could well be deemed illegal by the courts, not that it would ever get that far, as nobody would put the money up for a judicial review.

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 quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

 

HCEO

 

I asked this question the other day and people could not answer it. The Police legally stop the car and ask the driver to speak to a bailiff. What is to stop the driver simply driving on as the bailiff will not have seized the car ? An enforcement officer will not have seized the car, until they have written out the relevant paperwork ?

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

No it isn't legal. It's worth remembering what His Honour Judge Cryan said whilst cross examining a Marstons bailiff engaged on joint operations

 

‘Had it occurred to you at any stage that what might be happening could be of doubtful legality?’

‘Some people might be sceptical about whether what you are describing to me is the real world, or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

 

Well in the interests of fairness if that was the case it should have been left in.

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

with regards to the "Parking Mad' episode last night, viewers may wish to revisit a thread that I started a couple of weeks ago (link below) and read my post number 4 which concerns the Metropolitan Police's response to a Freedom of Information request about these joint 'operations'.

 

Post number 4 concerns the Met Police's answer on the matter of the legality of such operations:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-!!!(1-Viewing)-nbsp

Link to post
Share on other sites

That guy who didn't like people parking on his street saw a man in a suit and immediately said "He must be on at least 100k".

 

I have to do this. I don't earn 100k, I earn less than 20k. The car park is not worth the £7 a day, so I have to park on residential streets. I pay the road tax which allows me to do this. A lot of those people have driveways anyway. If they don't like it, they should vote for a permit system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if everyone was to ask for the order to be sent to them that allowed the operation in the first place, which can be requested under s4(4)(15) of PACE 1984?

 

This would annoy the Officer that arranged the stop in the first place, but looking here again at see

 

s4(1) - s4(d) and s4(4)(15) and what about s4(16)

 

No where in c.60 s4 of the RTA 1984 or others states is it permissible for the Police to stop any vehicle for a civil debt or a EA formally (civil enforcement agent/bailiff), a Court fine maybe, if an outstanding warrant is there to act upon that states that the debtor is wanted or an arrest warrant is in force. They are obliged to assist an HCEO I believe.

 

So are the Police using s4(1)(a) for this purpose

quote

(a) a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic offence or a [F1vehicle] excise offence;

 

A compelling argument can be found here http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topic/145016-police-recovering-a-civil-debt/ see post #6

again serving officers can not come up with a valid reason for stopping a car for an EA, but they do admit that they do.

 

I have linked to the PDF of c60. s4 RTA. 1984 worth reading for the extra info you may like to know. but for ease for the relevant sections read here

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4

 

 

The full RTA Act can be viewed here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents

 

 

So an important question here why have EA's been given the power to use ANPR and finally some very good reading from the notoomob here

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3112.0

 

 

See here on page 10 a long read I am afraid but worth the read, but will make a person smile. I am watching you

 

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
A quick point to make: It is highly likely that the Driving Instructors car was a tool of the trade.

 

It may be that this was dealt with at the time and edited out of the show however.

 

 

I was actually shocked to see that the bailiff took this vehicle (in particular knowing the the incident was being filmed) as it was clear for all to see that the vehicle MUST have been a 'Tool of the Trade' and it was highly questionable whether it should be seized.

 

From the Metropolitan Police's response to the recent Freedom of Information request (on the other thread) it is clear that they have realised that the joint operations should NOT be undertaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS:

 

Thank you Mikeymack for your above post (which I intend answering later this evening.

 

I hadn't realised that a copy of my press article had appeared on the NoTo Mob website(below):

 

http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=3112.0

 

Right at this very moment I am putting the final touches to another press article on the matter of the 'Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations'. It is due for publication on Monday and I can then post a copy here on the forum.

 

PS: The word 'NoToMob' stands for No To Mobile CCTV enforcement. They have certainly done very well indeed and I can ASSURE anyone viewing this thread that there are some very influentical people involved in the NoToMob ( I know a few of them) and they are certainly 'shaking up' many local authorities at this present time......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I know them well..

I hope you can spend a little time going through my points as they have bearing on this post anyway... The only time the Police can assist an EA is if they are an HCEO, normal EA,s should not be able to use these operations as an enforcement tool to collect what is basically a civil debt..

i await the in depth reply later

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The official viewing figures for the 1st episode was 3.9 million viewers and a 'little birdie' haas told me that the figures increased to approx 4.9 million for the 2nd episode and it is estimated that WELL OVER 5 million people viewed last night's episode !!!

 

The official 'BARB' figures are not due for another week.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thought I saw the notice placed on the cars, by the bailiffs, state " In the custody of the law". Is that legal?

That is the actual status - when the bailiff is acting in the capacity of a court bailiff on a court warrant. However under CPE they act in the capacity of a private bailiff and the 'warrant' is issued by the Local Authority. The Local Authority is not part of "the law".

There is much smoke and mirrors in CPR part 75 regarding this (and the TEC).

 

A compelling argument can be found here http://www.policespecials.com/forum/...-a-civil-debt/ see post #6

again serving officers can not come up with a valid reason for stopping a car for an EA, but they do admit that they do.

I only read the first page of that. Far too disappointed by the woeful lack of knowledge of the police posters regarding CPE and the actual capacity of the bailiff.

Is it worth reading the rest of it ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

lamma

 

 

I only read the first page of that. Far too disappointed by the woeful lack of knowledge of the police posters regarding CPE and the actual capacity of the bailiff.

Is it worth reading the rest of it ?

 

This is the point no one can sort out this mess, a mess it is, once the MOJ talks to everyone and puts it in writing on how and when the Police and EA's can work together in this type of situation. Until then you will have everyone thinking one thing doing another, then making their own rules when in reality they should ALL work from the same book and be on the same PAGE.

 

 

JUST like PACE which is a full detailed account of how things MUST be done. If the MOJ integrated the works done by EA's into the training manual as part of basic training then things may work better!! This way the Police will know EXACTLY what the LAW is not what the EA's say it is.

 

 

What IS needed is exact clear precise writing on what and how the EA's and Police can work together and which EA or HCEO or what the title is for them.

 

 

The Police always state that "it's a civil matter" why then do they do these operations with EA's? Unless it has something to do with the Courts or a Writ then the two teams so to speak should work independently from each other. The Police are not the private source of support for a Civil enforcement team are they?

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still not had an answer to the question asked a couple of times.

 

What is to stop a motorist driving off and not speaking to a bailiff ? Once the driver has complied with a constables request to stop under S.163 and given any details they have asked for, they are under no obligation to speak to a bailiff. The bailiff will not have seized the vehicle and has no power to stop the driver. The Police cannot stop the driver, as they have not breached the peace and the constable in not acting under a warrant of a court in relation to the collection of a 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

Link to post
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that there is nothing to stop the driver driving off if the stop has only been made at the bailiffs request which given the footage shown appears an illegal stop to me.

 

However, if you were stopped by the Police in such a manner, would you drive off? I know I wouldn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply HHJ Cryan also observed in his cross examination of a Marstons bailiff

 

‘You see, what I am partly finding difficult envisaging is the idea of a motorist waiting around in an entirely voluntary basis whilst forms are filled in and you make computer checks on people and go back to them’.

‘One view of what is happening here, as a matter of reality, is that when someone is pulled over by a police officer in uniform, who asks official questions, and then says ‘Here is a bailiff who is going to ask you more official questions’, the overall impression of the whole of this is that the engagement of the bailiff is no less involuntary – in other words, the obligation on the motorist to remain is no less present when the bailiff takes over as when the police officer was there’.

‘Do you not accept that that is an impression which may well be in the mind of the average motorist when stopped in these circumstances…?

At which the bailiff's (sorry Marstons) barrister intervened.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My personal opinion is that there is nothing to stop the driver driving off if the stop has only been made at the bailiffs request which given the footage shown appears an illegal stop to me.

 

However, if you were stopped by the Police in such a manner, would you drive off? I know I wouldn't.

 

It really depends. We don't live in a Police state. The Police have to work within the law and enforcement agents have to follow rules/laws.

 

I don't agree with people not paying tickets that were correctly issued. They should think about the consequences of not paying. Some of these people will continue parking illegally, even though they get a ticket each time. Pretty silly really.

 

There could be circumstances where a driver would not want to speak to a bailiff and they should be aware of their rights to drive on, after following the reasonable request of a Police Officer to stop. If there is no law requiring them to speak to a bailiff at one of these roadside operations, they should be aware of this.

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

Time to be very blunt and not pussyfoot around the question on everyone's lips so I will ask it

 

 

1. We know it is LAWFUL for a uniformed Police officer to stop ANY vehicle correct?

 

 

2. Is it lawful for an EA it intervene even after the Officer has completed their enquiries?

 

 

3. Is it within the drivers prerogative to drive away once the uniformed Officer is finished.

 

 

4. What reason would the said Officer have to detain the driver if they drove away?

 

 

5. If the driver did move off would the Officer have any legal authority to further stop the driver if no offence has occurred?

 

 

6. Most enforcement stops are situated within the confines of a designated bus stop contrary to rule 47 in as much you must not stop or park in a bus stop clearway as plated on the lamp post/bus stop sign?

 

 

7. What is the exact wording within ANY Act that allows ANY EA to speak to a member out in public or on the public CARRIAGEWAY?

 

 

8. Are EA's exempt from seat belt laws? if not why was the EA not wearing hers in last nights show see this at the 5 mins mark perhaps she should get one in the post haahaa

 

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 yes probably

 

2: he can approach as could you or I anyone in the street otherwise chuggers could be dragged off to jail, but the driver is under no obligation to speak with or deal with the EA if they are merely a private bailiff for a purely civil debt

 

3: If the police have no business with the motorist then I think they could drive off, in fact if the EA came over whilst the police were speaking to the driver and they had an issue themselves with the driver and tried to intervene at that point the EA would be the criminal for obstructing the police possibly

 

4: none

 

5: not if there was no other reason to detain the motorist

 

6: The bus company would probably be within their right to get the bailiff if not the police vehicle towed, saw that happen in Hanley in the mid 1990sy, police had a speed trap in a bus stop, bus company tow truck came out and there was a heated debate going on between the coppers and a bus inspector, with a few passengers waiting at the stop for a bus that had to stop in the nearside carriageway of an urban expressway as the bus stop was occupied by the police car.

 

7: Don't think there is any specific section in any Statute that expressly permits this.

 

I'm sure there will be further comments on this, but you are absolutely correct MM the questions must be asked.

Edited by brassnecked
typo

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...