Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the legal position regarding "clamping" of a vehicle.

[old bill]

I thought as much OB (long time no see dude!)

 

Removing a clamp was always a criminal offence, in a theoretical situation where a debtor is arrested do they get charged or rather without evidence interviewed under suspicion of two offences, criminal damage and obstructing a bailiff?

 

Obstructing a bailiff in his duty has also always been an offence what's changed is it greater penalties?

 

Also, when did the law change allowing Enforcement Officers to wear highly visible clothing that states who they are? The HCEO's on can't pay wear armoured vests with ENFORCEMENT OFFICER extremely visible on them when enforcing, or is this allowed only for HCEO's acting on a high court writ?

I had a nasty fall back along which aggravated the FMS I have. I have now started to feel more "normal", FMS permitting, and am posting on CAG when I feel there is an important point to be made.

 

In order for a debtor to commit an offence of removing a wheelclamp, the EA first has to prove they have acted lawfully. If they can't, they're stuffed. If they lie to the police, they risk being arrested and charged with Wasteful Employment of Police, at best, Perverting the Course of Justice, at worst. If the police and CPS are stupid enough to run with an EA's false allegation - and there are some areas where the police and CPS are that stupid - in 99.99% of cases, the hearing rarely lasts more than one hour and invariably the case is dismissed. I know of one case where an EA enforcing for HMCTS continued with enforcement AFTER the court realised they had wrongly issued a distress warrant and withdrawn it. In order to divert attention away from himself and cover up his threats and bullying, he falsely claimed to the police the alleged debtor was harassing him. Fast forward six months to the preliminary hearing at the magistrates court and the three JPs sitting voiced concerns about the charge. Six weeks after that, at the full hearing, the hearing lasted just under an hour and the JPs unanimously threw out the case, not as "Not Guilty", but "No Case". The debtor is now suing the police, CPS, the EA and the civil enforcement company that employed the EA.

 

There is no law that says an EA can or cannot wear a hi-viz vest or jacket. However, thanks to the Parking Mad TV programme, they may not be doing that for very much longer. As for the HCEOs wearing stab vests, I know the two you mean. It is perfectly in order for them to wear stab vests if there is a risk of them being subject to attack with knives or other weapons. However, where those two are risking a run-in with the law is dressing in a manner that resembles or is very similar to that of a police officer, which they do. The blue/white chequered bands on the stab vests may only be worn by police officers, so how they got hold of those I do not know. I would not like to comment as to whether having the words Enforcement Officer emblazoned across the back and front of the stab vest is lawful. The markings on their van are almost certainly unlawful/illegal as they bear too much of a resemblance to a police force crest.

[caledfwlch]

Hope your getting better ob!!

 

I thought enforcement officers/bailiffs bearing logos or signs stating who they are was not allowed via the national regs at least to avoid causing embarresment and I guess potential financial defamation, reasons similar to why a debt collector would get in hot water for wearing a jacket with debt collecter in big letters. Will we see normal civil enforcers wearing them too?

 

I have no problem with the actual stab vest as the guys said, a colleague was shot recently. I would have thought a debtor could in theory have a cause of action ever criminally or civilly over the vests having police style chequred patterns - most people don't and won't know an enforcement officer is a modern term of bailiffs, and the words enforcement combined with police style body armour with police style chequrred pattern could very easily confuse and be used to wilfullu confuse a debtor that the person is some sort of police officer. The chequrred pattern does confirm imho that "Sherrifs" are trying to add a layer of extra authority they have no legal right to to bamboozle debtors. The 2 can't pay guys are clearly good guys doing a horrid job so I doubt they are being dishonest but what about less honest sherrifs in their company and others....

 

The specific cases I am thinking of with wheelclamps is when those awful gangs of erm chavs cut the clamp off to sell the scrap metal or as often seems the case dump it in river or well away from the debtors property, which is rather serendipitous and very very good timing for the debtor...

 

So I assume that without cctv or a witness prepared to go to court it stands that a debtor could not be charged if the clamp on their car was cut and dumped

[old bill]

The onus would be on the EA to prove their allegation. Lying to the police must rank as one of the stupidest things an EA could do. If the clamp is removed by someone other than the debtor, then the onus is still on the EA to prove who removed the clamp. Assuming it is the debtor isn't going to cut any ice.

 

I can see the two HCEOs being told to remove the chequered bands from their stab vests and markings from their van.

 

With regard to the use of the word "sheriff", I would point out that there are an increasing number of Common Law courts being established in England and Wales, the most recent being in South Wales, under the ambit of the International Common Law Court of Justice (ICLCJ) which is in Belgium. These Common Law courts appoint sheriffs to enforce law, not seize people's goods, although they can seize goods by way of lien under certain circumstances. The courts also appoint bailiffs, but it is my understanding the word "bailiff" has a different meaning to the more normal meaning of someone who seizes people's goods.

[caledfwlch]

What is the purpose of these new courts?

[%Ostrich%]

Unless the Police catch the offender in the act or the EA records the dope with his body camera/phone, any "allegation" to the Police must be legally sound as you say Old Bill.

 

As such, any EA (who wasn't present at the time of de-clamping) should report the THEFT of any vehicle previously Taken into Control and subsequently "missing". Additionally, if the damaged clamp is not present at the clamping scene, THEFT of a wheel clamp should be added to the report. The EA would be prudent to include details of the registered keeper and/or debtor with any supporting evidence of conversations with said people if they've taken place to enable the Police to conduct a thorough investigation.

 

More often than not, the debtor will often be caught in the act of driving said vehicle in the coming weeks with the vehicle being seized and potential arrest as a result.

[caledfwlch]

Erm OB - I don't think that court Is one with any real legal powers as their website claims to have prosecuted and convicted Queen Elizabeth II!!!

 

I don't know of any off the cuff t but there iseems to be an increasing tendency for cohabitees goods to be regarded as joint by enforcement agencies and the police. Wrongly imho.

 

My scenario is to illustrate how silly and wrong any presumption of an interest financially in a vehicle is because someone is a named driver, it is a matter of convenience so someone doesn;t fall foul of having no insurance if they have to drive their car, are stopped and told that the insurance on THEIR car doesn't cover the one they are driving so plod have it away.

[caledfwlch]

I would think Theft would be hard to prove especially. A wilful intent to permanently deprive the bailiff. Do the control of goods paperwork state that the goods must be held in the same location?

 

A charge of removing the clamp simply won't fly without hard proof.

Unless the Police catch the offender in the act or the EA records the dope with his body camera/phone, any "allegation" to the Police must be legally sound as you say Old Bill.

 

As such, any EA (who wasn't present at the time of de-clamping) should report the THEFT of any vehicle previously Taken into Control and subsequently "missing". Additionally, if the damaged clamp is not present at the clamping scene, THEFT of a wheel clamp should be added to the report. The EA would be prudent to include details of the registered keeper and/or debtor with any supporting evidence of conversations with said people if they've taken place to enable the Police to conduct a thorough investigation.

 

More often than not, the debtor will often be caught in the act of driving said vehicle in the coming weeks with the vehicle being seized and potential arrest as a result.

[old bill]

What is the purpose of these new courts?

 

Here is a link to ICLCJ. http://iclcj.com/

[old bill]

Erm OB - I don't think that court Is one with any real legal powers as their website claims to have prosecuted and convicted Queen Elizabeth II!!!

 

I think you will find that the primacy of the monarch of the UK has been abnegated and undermined, seemingly with her knowledge. Technically, that is Treason.

[old bill]

Unless the Police catch the offender in the act or the EA records the dope with his body camera/phone, any "allegation" to the Police must be legally sound as you say Old Bill.

 

As such, any EA (who wasn't present at the time of de-clamping) should report the THEFT of any vehicle previously Taken into Control and subsequently "missing". Additionally, if the damaged clamp is not present at the clamping scene, THEFT of a wheel clamp should be added to the report. The EA would be prudent to include details of the registered keeper and/or debtor with any supporting evidence of conversations with said people if they've taken place to enable the Police to conduct a thorough investigation.

 

More often than not, the debtor will often be caught in the act of driving said vehicle in the coming weeks with the vehicle being seized and potential arrest as a result.

 

A very unwise course of action to take if the EA has no evidence the debtor has any involvement in removing the clamp. Notwithstanding, the EA first has to prove they were acting lawfully when they attached the clamp.

 

Again, a very unwise course of action to take if the police have fallen for what an EA has said hook, line and sinker. In Criminal Law, there are Statutory Defences which mean that there are circumstances under which a person cannot be regarded as having committed an offence at law. So if a debtor comes out one morning and finds the clamp has been removed and reasonably assumes the EA has removed it, any arrest would be potentially unlawful. Notwithstanding, if there is a question as to whether the EA had a right in law or lawful authority to clamp the vehicle in the first place or the alleged debt is disputed, in which case seizure would, in itself, be potentially unlawful.

 

I helped someone deal with a case where an EA clamped a vehicle in contravention of the conditions attached to a warrant. In that respect, the EA had acted unlawfully. The person came out one morning to find the clamp gone and naturally and reasonably assumed the EA had realised his error and removed it. That did not prevent the EA going to the police, spinning them a fairy story and resulting in the arrest of the person and their vehicle being seized. The end result was that the police had to make a formal apology and the civil enforcement company that employed the EA had to return the vehicle and forgo a sizeable chunk of their fees.

[caledfwlch]

OB I am starting to think some sort of charitable organisation should be setup - its function to highlight, inform joe public and assist in complaints/legal action/possibly fund legal action for debtors in poverty with regard to Police abuses and their common and near daily disregard for the real Enforcement law etc. End of the day even those idiotic police bad apples will smugly tell people they are arresting that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" indeed, Officer and that applies to you too.

 

An Organisation might have more luck than individual debtors in getting justice when Constables outstep their powers and in a good few cases listen to the Bailiff and thus assist in the commissioning of a crime - it occurs to me that unless intent can be argued over then when a Constable does nothing unlawful themselves but allows the Bailiff to commit one then the criminal offence of "Joint Enterprise" could potentially be applied.

 

Might be a hard slog though as many officers appear to survive criminal conviction with their jobs intact and of course the IPPC is known widely to not be independent anymore preffering to take the police side on complaints, in certain areas at least.

 

Dyfed Powys Police esp here in Aberystwyth are well known for turning off patrol car GPS tracking when out to do dodgy stuff.

[caledfwlch]

OB that court is issuing Warrants based on "any persons arrest" to give the correct name for Citizens Arrest.

 

I can see their Sheriffs being arrested and charged with assault and kidnap.

 

As they have have convicted Queen Liz and issued a confiscation order for her assets the fact she still has those assets suggests the judgements are not enforceable.

[Fair-Parking]

Sorry to add a note of controversial discontent, but far from there being no 'presumption of guilt' in English law - this is precisely how parking enforcement is administered. It couldn't work any other way.

 

This presumption of guilt was confirmed by a senior employee of the MoJ in a face to face conversation with me back in 2011.

 

The irony that the MoJ was prepared to allow the back door destruction of 800 years of English law remains invisible to the MoJ.

[old bill]

Sorry to add a note of controversial discontent, but far from there being no 'presumption of guilt' in English law - this is precisely how parking enforcement is administered. It couldn't work any other way.

 

This presumption of guilt was confirmed by a senior employee of the MoJ in a face to face conversation with me back in 2011.

 

The irony that the MoJ was prepared to allow the back door destruction of 800 years of English law remains invisible to the MoJ.

 

Thanks for that, F-P. At least the MoJ has confirmed parking enforcement is being done unlawfully. The European Convention on Human Rights supersedes any domestic law which means any laws enacted in the UK since 1953 must be compatible with the Articles and Protocols of the Convention. A presumption of guilt contravenes Article 6. Under Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998, it is unlawful for a public authority to perform ANY act that is incompatible with a person's Convention rights.

[old bill]

OB that court is issuing Warrants based on "any persons arrest" to give the correct name for Citizens Arrest.

 

I can see their Sheriffs being arrested and charged with assault and kidnap.

 

As they have have convicted Queen Liz and issued a confiscation order for her assets the fact she still has those assets suggests the judgements are not enforceable.

 

That is basically how Common Law works. It is my understanding the Tribunal from which ICLCJ has arisen has legal standing. All cases in England and Wales go before Queen's Bench which is a Common Law court.

[old bill]

OB I am starting to think some sort of charitable organisation should be setup - its function to highlight, inform joe public and assist in complaints/legal action/possibly fund legal action for debtors in poverty with regard to Police abuses and their common and near daily disregard for the real Enforcement law etc. End of the day even those idiotic police bad apples will smugly tell people they are arresting that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" indeed, Officer and that applies to you too.

 

An Organisation might have more luck than individual debtors in getting justice when Constables outstep their powers and in a good few cases listen to the Bailiff and thus assist in the commissioning of a crime - it occurs to me that unless intent can be argued over then when a Constable does nothing unlawful themselves but allows the Bailiff to commit one then the criminal offence of "Joint Enterprise" could potentially be applied.

 

Might be a hard slog though as many officers appear to survive criminal conviction with their jobs intact and of course the IPPC is known widely to not be independent anymore preffering to take the police side on complaints, in certain areas at least.

 

Dyfed Powys Police esp here in Aberystwyth are well known for turning off patrol car GPS tracking when out to do dodgy stuff.

 

What you are describing, in a nutshell, is Misconduct in A Public Office by police officers which is a Common Law offence. There is nothing to stop anyone affected by police misconduct pursuing action with the assistance of the National Pro Bono Centre and one of the pro bono legal charities.

[tomtubby]

Here is a link to ICLCJ. http://iclcj.com/

 

Blimey, what a dangerous world that we have become. Such 'courts' will never ever be taken seriously in the UK (thank goodness). Thank ylu anyway for providing the link.

 

The reality of the situation is that very shortly indeed there is going to be significant changes to all Magistrate Courts in England & Wales and this will affect the entire way in which court fines are dealt with. The entire emphasis is on getting the individual to act responsibly by engaging with the courts at an early stage and actually addressing the summons. Less serious 'offences' (which account for approx one million cases) will be dealt with in a similar way to that of the Traffic Enforcement Centre (as an example). There will be no need to actually attend court. In fact, there will be no such facility.

 

If individual wishes to attend court (in cases where a no guilty plea is entered) that right will of course still exist. The right to submit a Statutory Declaration will of course remain and further details on SD's are due shortly.

 

The entire fines procedure from the summons stage to enforcement is to be undertaken by a 'private sector partner'.

 

For those subject to a court fine there is another significant change in that ALL fines are to be subject to additional charges to cover the 'cost to the court'. We haven't had details of the actual level of these additional charges but most importantly....the cost will be less for those that respond to the summons. At present, all fines are subject to a Victims Surcharge and this additional charge will also be included.

 

These significant changes will be taking effect by the year end (if not sooner). I have so many documents to plough through on this and will make sure that I start a new thread to outline how this new regime is to work.

[old bill]

Blimey, what a dangerous world that we have become. Such 'courts' will never ever be taken seriously in the UK (thank goodness). Thank ylu anyway for providing the link.

 

The reality of the situation is that very shortly indeed there is going to be significant changes to all Magistrate Courts in England & Wales and this will affect the entire way in which court fines are dealt with. The entire emphasis is on getting the individual to act responsibly by engaging with the courts at an early stage and actually addressing the summons. Less serious 'offences' (which account for approx one million cases) will be dealt with in a similar way to that of the Traffic Enforcement Centre (as an example). There will be no need to actually attend court. In fact, there will be no such facility.

 

If individual wishes to attend court (in cases where a no guilty plea is entered) that right will of course still exist. The right to submit a Statutory Declaration will of course remain and further details on SD's are due shortly.

 

The entire fines procedure from the summons stage to enforcement is to be undertaken by a 'private sector partner'.

 

For those subject to a court fine there is another significant change in that ALL fines are to be subject to additional charges to cover the 'cost to the court'. We haven't had details of the actual level of these additional charges but most importantly....the cost will be less for those that respond to the summons. At present, all fines are subject to a Victims Surcharge and this additional charge will also be included.

 

These significant changes will be taking effect by the year end (if not sooner). I have so many documents to plough through on this and will make sure that I start a new thread to outline how this new regime is to work.

 

Are you referring to the Treaty of Nice by any chance? What you have described is Napoleonic Law which presumes guilt unless the contrary is proven. It flies totally in the face of the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) which presumes innocence until guilt is proven, the principle upon which Common Law is founded.

 

There is a sizeable number of Common Law Courts operating in England and Wales already and cases are routed through Queen's Bench. Far from Common Law courts being dangerous, what you have highlighted is extremely dangerous. Welcome to Dodgy Dave's Dictatorship.

[unclebulgaria67]

Automatic fast track courts and the next step will be a part privatised Police Force.

 

It does worry me that accountability is gradually being eroded and that we will end up with a situation where people feel that they just have to accept that they have very little rights. It will be a case of referring to rule xyz123, which says you are guilty of an offence and have to pay the penalty within a period of x days or face further fees. The rules may offer an appeal in theory, but I suspect that such appeals will just be dealt with as an 'administrative' process without any hearing.

[tomtubby]

Are you referring to the Treaty of Nice by any chance? What you have described is Napoleonic Law which presumes guilt unless the contrary is proven. It flies totally in the face of the Rome Convention (aka European Convention on Human Rights) which presumes innocence until guilt is proven, the principle upon which Common Law is founded.

 

There is a sizeable number of Common Law Courts operating in England and Wales already and cases are routed through Queen's Bench. Far from Common Law courts being dangerous, what you have highlighted is extremely dangerous. Welcome to Dodgy Dave's Dictatorship.

 

.

.

No what I have outlined is applicable to all HMCTS Magistrate Courts in the UK and has actually been approved and will be operational very soon (once the applicable 'private' partner' has been officially appointed).

 

The other 'courts' to which you refer are not recognised and I suspect are just one of many different 'movements' that have sprung up in the UK, US, Canada and other European countries. FMoTL is likely the most 'well known' movement although with the power of the internet so many others are being set up.

 

Without the internet they would all disappear. Best to avoid at stick to what is legally recognised in our judicial system.

[tomtubby]

Automatic fast track courts and the next step will be a part privatised Police Force.

 

It does worry me that accountability is gradually being eroded and that we will end up with a situation where people feel that they just have to accept that they have very little rights. It will be a case of referring to rule xyz123, which says you are guilty of an offence and have to pay the penalty within a period of x days or face further fees. The rules may offer an appeal in theory, but I suspect that such appeals will just be dealt with as an 'administrative' process without any hearing.

 

.

.

There is no avoiding this new procedure being set up. The governments argument is all about saving costs and ensuring that those who break the law pay for the costs involved in bringing them to justice.

[unclebulgaria67]

There is no avoiding this new procedure being set up. The governments argument is all about saving costs and ensuring that those who break the law pay for the costs involved in bringing them to justice.

 

What offences can be considered under this new procedure ?

 

Nb. I have only ever had one speeding ticket and have never had a parking ticket in over 20 years of driving. I am one of those cautious drivers who generally checks on speed limits and parking restrictions etc. But it does annoy me all the same, when I hear of people being stitched up with fines for very minor issues. Some of it must be about income generation, rather than dealing with genuine issues.

[welsh1]

 

With regard to the use of the word "sheriff", I would point out that there are an increasing number of Common Law courts being established in England and Wales, the most recent being in South Wales, under the ambit of the International Common Law Court of Justice (ICLCJ) which is in Belgium. These Common Law courts appoint sheriffs to enforce law, not seize people's goods, although they can seize goods by way of lien under certain circumstances. The courts also appoint bailiffs, but it is my understanding the word "bailiff" has a different meaning to the more normal meaning of someone who seizes people's goods.

 

Aren't these the same courts that have "issued" warrants for the arrest of the Queen and the Vatican leaders.

As they are simply a made up court with no legal jurisdiction in England and Wales i find it hard to comprehend how you can state they can seize goods by way of lien ,as they have no powers whatsoever.

They cannot "appoint sheriffs to enforce law" as again they have no legal power or authority,no more than the man on the street has.

[old bill]

No what I have outlined is applicable to all HMCTS Magistrate Courts in the UK and has actually been approved and will be operational very soon (once the applicable 'private' partner' has been officially appointed).

 

The other 'courts' to which you refer are not recognised and I suspect are just one of many different 'movements' that have sprung up in the UK, US, Canada and other European countries. FMoTL is likely the most 'well known' movement although with the power of the internet so many others are being set up.

 

Without the internet they would all disappear. Best to avoid at stick to what is legally recognised in our judicial system.

 

I have been following the undermining and hijacking of the justice system in the UK for sometime, TT. Just because the MoJ or some other government department says it has been authorised does not, in itself, mean that it is lawful or that the resulting system the coalition dictatorship is trying to steamroller in is going to have any authority. And the argument the government is trotting out holds about as much water as a sieve. It has absolutely nothing to do with saving costs. It has everything to do with corruption and fraud which is being funded by the international banking cabal.

 

The European Court of Human Rights is a lawful court under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe and has supremacy over the British courts to the extent that it will not interfere or intervene unless the British government does something that is incompatible with the Articles and Protocols under the Convention. Article 17 prohibits the destruction of the Convention rights and Article 18 prohibits the restriction of Convention rights. This is not FMOTL theory; this is International Law to which the British government is a signatory. Other countries have and still are voicing their disquiet about the way in which the British government is treating its people. Complaints have already been made to the International Criminal Court which is also a lawful court.

 

Dodgy Dave and his band of Degenerate Desperados have realised the British people have found out what is going on and are desperately trying to collapse the country as fast as they can, hence the reason why they are rushing things through. However, they have seriously underestimated the strength of spirit, intelligence and resolve of the British people and this is what will bring them down. The biggest mistakes they have made are bullying the legal profession, the police and the armed forces. No government with an ounce of commonsense treats these groups with the contempt this present shower has.

[old bill]

Blimey, what a dangerous world that we have become. Such 'courts' will never ever be taken seriously in the UK (thank goodness). Thank ylu anyway for providing the link.

 

The reality of the situation is that very shortly indeed there is going to be significant changes to all Magistrate Courts in England & Wales and this will affect the entire way in which court fines are dealt with. The entire emphasis is on getting the individual to act responsibly by engaging with the courts at an early stage and actually addressing the summons. Less serious 'offences' (which account for approx one million cases) will be dealt with in a similar way to that of the Traffic Enforcement Centre (as an example). There will be no need to actually attend court. In fact, there will be no such facility.

 

If individual wishes to attend court (in cases where a no guilty plea is entered) that right will of course still exist. The right to submit a Statutory Declaration will of course remain and further details on SD's are due shortly.

 

The entire fines procedure from the summons stage to enforcement is to be undertaken by a 'private sector partner'.

 

For those subject to a court fine there is another significant change in that ALL fines are to be subject to additional charges to cover the 'cost to the court'. We haven't had details of the actual level of these additional charges but most importantly....the cost will be less for those that respond to the summons. At present, all fines are subject to a Victims Surcharge and this additional charge will also be included.

 

These significant changes will be taking effect by the year end (if not sooner). I have so many documents to plough through on this and will make sure that I start a new thread to outline how this new regime is to work.

 

TT,

 

With the greatest of respect, what you have highlighted breaches International Law. The arguments of this and previous governments are no more than smoke and mirrors. Unless the Treaty of Nice is signed and ratified, which is unlikely to be any earlier than November, Dodgy Dave and his Degenerate Desperados are going to have problems. Please don't make the mistake of believing that it is cut and dried, no matter what politicians and civil servants may want us all to believe.