Parking mad 08/05/2014

[mikeymack2002]

Well time to get the discussion going. What comments on tonight's show please?

[mikeymack2002]

1. Lets start the ball rolling, did anyone notice the illegal search at the 19 minutes mark by the EA's? When they went through the bins, EA's do not have any authority to search through them, they had not even ascertained if it was the debtor that lived there but still went through the rubbish.

 

 

2. Did anyone love her face when she had to let the car go the look of disgust on that face was just so perfect

 

 

3. The EA's comments "it's like being a detective" this you are not and you have openly shown the whole country you act above the law.

 

 

4. Looking through someone's window the way they did is contrary to law, again they did not ascertain if the ACTUAL debtor was/is the owner/tenant again showing the public you have little or no RESPECT for the law

 

 

5. The comments of this EA are unreal and keeps referring to being a "copper" if you wish to question a debtor like a criminal then give them the PACE caution "oh you can't can you as you are not coppers are you, also you are not AUTHORISED to do so are you?"

 

 

6. What right have you got to look through the window if you have not ascertained if the debtor actually lives there at that time, as they may have moved and you are prying into affairs that do not concern the EA

 

 

7. The EA has established the debtor is not there but asks for PERSONAL information in regards to them without their consent this was at the 20 minute mark, again asking someone to break the law in this case the DPA 1998 asking the bare chested man to give them details of any letters.

[scousepie]

I saw the last few mins... just reminded me of High way robbery !!! makes me sick this country !!

[unclebulgaria67]

I think there was an example of the Police exceeding their specific role for this roadside operation, which was to purely stop a vehicle, ask for driving licence, insurance and then to stop any breach of the peace. The Police appeared to be assisting the bailiff in their enforcement activity, which is not allowed.

[mikeymack2002]

A lot of comments from members of the public stating "you do not have the authority to do this", so in all honestly it may be time for the Met to seriously look in to the legalities of using certain EA's at this sort of stop.

 

 

As being discussed on a different thread. Here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-‘ANPR-Roadside-Operations’...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-!!!(22-Viewing)-nbsp

[mikeymack2002]

unclebulgaria67 This topic of Police assistance is going to go to the very heart of the MET, why do they think they can stop a vehicle for a CIVIL debt, they can't but always do. It should now be in the basic training manual to have a section to new recruits to become knowledgeable in this side of the law.

 

 

EA's have a job to do but they too MUST abide by the law and stop bending it to suit their own needs.

[scousepie]

So if stopped by the police and all was in order and you drove off and just ignored the Bailiff what would happen ?

[unclebulgaria67]

So if stopped by the police and all was in order and you drove off and just ignored the Bailiff what would happen ?

 

Nothing. This was the consensus when discussed on here before. The Police guidance in roadside operations is to avoid any arrest for breach of the peace. The Police would have no legitimate reason to stop any motorist further after they had already fully complied with their S168 stop.

[mikeymack2002]

Nothing..... You do not have to talk to an EA. The reason for the stop has been sorted by the Police Officer walking away, because the EA wishes to speak to the owner at the time of the ALLEDGED PCN. Which might not even be you, they have no legal standing in which to stop a member of the public on the public CARRIAGE way the EA's rely on the Police to do the stop for them have a read of the other topic in the above thread

 

 

We are having some in depth discussions on this very matter

[brassnecked]

So if stopped by the police and all was in order and you drove off and just ignored the Bailiff what would happen ?

 

 

In law nothing should as no offence has been committed, and no law compels you to speak to or deal with a bailiff however skanky they are. going off how the Met operate they may well, initiate a high speed chase to stop the car for the bailif/EA quite unlawfully most likely. All roadside stops where the police stop a car soley when bailiff Civil ANPR goes ping are wholly unlawful this travesty will bite the Met on the bum soon imho

[mikeymack2002]

The use of an EA using the ANPR system is seriously flawed, the car may have changed hands, but they INSIST in using it to get payment for the OWNER at the TIME which maybe be several months in the past.

 

 

The DUE PCN is against the owner at the time not the on at THIS time, they really need to get this mess sorted ASAP

[mikeymack2002]

The MoJ should rescind the right of the EA to use the ANPR as a tool and most certainly ban them from using the Police stop's as an enforcement tool, this is wrong in so many ways since the new regs came into force it should have been dealt with then.

[brassnecked]

The use of an EA using the ANPR system is seriously flawed, the car may have changed hands, but they INSIST in using it to get payment for the OWNER at the TIME which maybe be several months in the past.

 

 

The DUE PCN is against the owner at the time not the on at THIS time, they really need to get this mess sorted ASAP

 

As none were shown it would be interesting to know how many cars stopped and the driver forced to pay up by Debbie were NEW owners who she said had to to pay for the previous owners PC, as the warrant was to the cars index number, whilst plod stood idly by and let her fleece a third party.

[mikeymack2002]

The warrant is for a named person not a vehicle, but they use out of date data from the DVLA or it may be that the partner is the driver, but again the warrant details are specific with a name. if that name is different to the driver the stop is illegal as the driver cannot in all honesty supply information to the EA as this breaches privacy laws. If the warrant has a named person and the person stopped is not the named debtor then the EA must retire

 

 

What would be brilliant to see is if a driver demands to see the warrant and the EA produces a doctored one and the POLICE officer is as sharp as a pin and notices this, what a story line that would make

 

 

In a different thread I have commented on this subject, but the EA should NOT take control of goods not belonging to the NAMED person on the Warrant

[brassnecked]

You are absolutely correct MM the warrant is to a named debtor, but the EA may well ignore that and press the innocent for payment that is a fact unfortunately plod are more likely to arrest the innocent at this roadside stitch up for a public order offence whilst the bailiff/EA remove the innocents car. another fact from the programme was that the bailiffs admitted they were on performance reklated Pay aka Commission.....

[tomtubby]

I was actually more concerned with this episode than the others for so many reasons. I lost count of the number of times that the Whyte & co bailiffs said that the car has outstanding warrants against it !!!

 

The absurdity of this comment can be best demonstrated by considering the following:

 

I could be fined for speaking on a mobile but this does not mean that there is a warrant against the PHONE

 

I could be fined if my dog messed in an open park area but this does not mean that there is a warrant against the DOG

 

I could be fined for overfilling my refuse bins but this again does not mean that there is a warrant against the REFUSE BINS

 

In all cases (including the parking tickets) the warrant is against the OWNER (of the mobile car, the dog, the refuse bins or the motor vehicle).

[brassnecked]

TT that illustrates why roadside operations are fatally flawed, as the Warrant is against the car owner at the time of the contravention, not neccesarily the person driving on the day the car is pulled over due to being flagged by ANPR It is civil so not an offence in a criminal sense, and is an unpaid " Penalty Charge Notice" not a "Fine", but the bailiffs/EA tell the police they are " Unpaid Parking Fines" that helps foster a mindset in the police at the roadside that these are somehow criminal fines, it is a form of misrepresentation that has a psychological effect on the coppers at the scene per se making them compliant to the EAs instructions.

 

As it is established who is liable for the PCN, but the car Registration is on the Warrant New Owner who bought the car within say the last six weeks is on a sticky wicket, as the DVLA may not have changed keeper details, and the ANPR will not therefore be updated, Whyte & Co or JBW or whoever will be reluctant to accept evidence profferd by the innocent as their ANPR has flagged the car for a pull, they are unlikely to have hard copy paperwork or receipts with them at the time of the pull, the Vehicle Registration number is on the Warrant, so bailiff feels secure in taking the car if New Owner doesn''t pay. Now that interpleader is in the mix it can only become worse.

 

Just had a thought UB, yes there is no compulsion to deal with the EA at the roadside once copper walks away, but as seen last night, with the sheer numbers of police and Whyte & Co EAs, the way the road was coned off etc, would make it very difficult to drive off without a copper or EA jumping in front to stop you from doing just that whatever the legalities of the situation.

 

These "Operations" should cease with immediate effect, but sadly they will carry on.

[postmn]

they seem to be in control of the stop and not the police . but watching it at the moment Horsham got featured . I have to look for the stars of the show

[tomtubby]

Brassnecked. Your above post is spot on...well done.

 

By coincidence I have written an extensive article on these Bailiff and Police ANPR Roadside Operations for a trade publication that goes to press over the weekend. Once published I will be allowed to post a copy here on the forum. I agree with you that these operations should stop right now and the "Parking Mad" series has highlighted the serious failings of these operations and worryingly, "Debbie" (the female bailiff from Whyte & Co) appears to have little regard for the regulations.

[unclebulgaria67]

They way the roadside operations are done will have to change anyway re the Taking Control of Good sections that cover these. When they apply a wheelclamp on a car, if the PCN is not settled immediately, the EA's have to keep the car at the spot it was stopped for a minimum of 2 hours, so the person owing the PCN has a chance to settle, before the car is taken away. If the bailffs are stopping cars on a main road, the Police should not allow clamped cars to be kept on the road for 2 hours, if they start to cause a hazard.

[citizenB]

Has anyone contacted the programme makers to point out these flaws ?

[tomtubby]

Under the new bailiff regulations MOJ are insisting that bailiffs undergo specific training etc. With respect seeing the way in which the bailiffs acted last night it is clear that they will do precisely what THEY want to do and further training will not make any difference. Bearing in mind that the bailiff was aware that he was being filmed I was very angry at what was said to the seriously disabled motorist who was pulled over for ONE parking ticket. This gentleman had lost both his legs and had the use of a vehicle provided under the Motability Scheme. I would assume that given the severity of his disability that the vehicle would have been modified etc.

 

The bailiff quite rightly confirmed that he could not seize a Motability vehicle and tried to insist that the driver had REFUSED to pay his ticket. The driver quickly argued that he was NOT refusing to pay and that instead, he could not AFFORD to pay but could make a payment proposal of £5 per week. This was rejected and on hearing this offer the bailiff was seen taunting the driver by saying that:

 

"You can afford to run a nice car Sir"

 

The driver was quick to respond saying that the vehicle costs £50 per week and the payment is deducted from his Disability Living Allowance.

 

Upon realising that payment would not be forthcoming the bailiff then demonstrated his total lack of compassion by informing this desperately disabled man that he would therefore have to contact Motability Finance to advise them that the driver had broken the terms of his Motability Finance Agreement by failing to pay a parking ticket.

[citizenB]

Upon realising that payment would not be forthcoming the bailiff then demonstrated his total lack of compassion by informing this desperately disabled man that he would therefore have to contact Motability Finance to advise them that the driver had broken the terms of his Motability Finance Agreement by failing to pay a parking ticket.

 

 

Is there such a term ?

[unclebulgaria67]

Is there such a term ?

 

I doubt it. There may be a wording about any criminal fines related to the use of the vehicle.

[tomtubby]

Citizen B

 

In answer to your question about Motability, about two years ago a lady contacted the debt charity (where I work one day a week) as her Motability vehicle had been taken back by Motability as she had a LOT of unpaid parking tickets (which from memory was about 20 tickets).

 

At that time I was involved in a lot of discussion with the Motability legal team and it was then that I was made aware that there is indeed a clause in the Agreements. However, the clause (at that time) stated that the driver could be in default if they failed to pay motoring FINES ( which are not parking tickets).

 

In light of last night's programme I will be contacting Motability Finance for further details.

 

If anyone viewing this post has a Motability vehicle I would be pleased to know what clauses are in the Agreement.