Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Apologies if this has already been covered elsewhere but I haven't found a direct answer so here's my question.   Both my daughter and my partner have today each received a Letter of Claim from NPS. Both refer to 'incidents' in 2017 - my daughter's in March and my partner's in April. I remember these only vaguely but can't remember what (if any) action we took.   I remember my partner's more clearly because in their PCN where they claimed she'd overstayed (Cross Street, Long Eaton) there was something drastically wrong with their 'evidence'. I can't remember exactly but either their stated times contradicted or -and this is more likely from conversation today - they only provided one photo which was of her car leaving but nothing showing her entering the car park.   I have a feeling my daughter just chose to ignore hers, based on 'urban myth' from friends.   So anyway, today - more than two years on - both suddenly receive these letters from NPS with the usual rhetoric. I want to make sure these are both managed appropriately so I'm not sure what to do next and would appreciate any advice. I'm also particularly interested to read elsewhere on this forum that another case from said car park was rejected by POPLA in May 2017 due to insufficient signage and lack of planning permission for the relevant equipment:     This being the case, the same would have to apply to both our cases since this rejected case occurred just weeks after both of ours.   Not sure how much bearing this may have but I'm hopeful and your advice will be both very welcome and much appreciated.        
    • There will be no issues with a course offer if the dates are as you say. The usual cut off is four months from the date of the offence. This is so as to give the driver the time to accept the offer and take the course before prosecution becomes "timed out" at six months.   However, if the NIPs really were the first to be issued and there are no issues with the address details then both have a cast iron defence to the speeding allegation. The first is dated 20 days after the alleged offence and the second 23 days after the alleged offence. The Road Traffic Offenders' Act makes it quite clear that if a NIP is not served within 14 days of the alleged offence then no prosecution can take place. But as I said, late first NIPs are very rare and both need to check all the details I have mentioned before they decline any out of court offers of a course or Fixed Penalty.    For information, courses are normally offered for speeds up to (Limit +10% + 9mph). Only one course of any type can be taken in three years (with the date of the offences being used to calculate that period) and courses are not offered in Scotland. However, if a driver is not offered a course for any reason when he would normally qualify (including late NIPs) he has no right of appeal to have one offered. If the matter goes to court the court has no power to order a course.
    • My grievance against my manager is on Wednesday at 12.00 noon. A union officer is representing me. The representative for my manager is a product manager. I was told today that she is the Daughter or a Step-Daughter of the manager. Is this a conflict of interest? Am I correct in saying that, because the manager is the subject, the hearing has to be carried out by a person higher than the manager such as a director? if so, the product manager is not entitled to carry out the hearing. I'm pretty certain that I read this in law books. My Brother is a licensed union chairman but has since left his previous employment.  He is certain that I am correct . Any help would be gratefully appreciated.   diecastdave
    • Ok cool many thanks!  Much appreciated...I will check everything out now and answer all those questions!
    • Sorry,  its regular outgoings of payments. It’s income related they’re on, not contribution based.  Mum and applicant were totally unaware of the rules in regards to deprivation of capital.   On income related ESA but claim housing benefit and council tax support.   He hasn’t came into a huge chunk of money. It’s been spent over a duration of four years. appointee’s livid, and worried that he’ll be homeless.  
  • Our picks

josephbloggs

Husband & wife found guilty of obstucting an enforcement agent

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1756 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

http://dukesdebtadvice.co.uk/2015/01/19/obstructing-an-enforcement-agent/

 

The offence of ‘obstructing a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent’ is now becoming recognised

and used by Police after the law was introduced last April as part of

the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (para 68 of Schedule 12).

 

In one of the first cases to be brought to court in England since the new regulations were passed,

2 people – a husband and wife from Cheshire – were found guilty.

 

 

The pair were convicted of intentionally obstructing an Enforcement Agent,

namely Mark Bytheway of Dukes Bailiffs when he visited their home on 10th June 2014 to recover unpaid Council Tax.

 

The husband and wife were also found guilty of Dangerous Driving and Criminal Damage

in an incident which saw the Enforcement Agent’s vehicle damaged, rammed by another car and the keys taken.


None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DOes it go into any detail of the circumstances? Or are we just meant to believe a one sided view from the bailiff?

 

In any case there was NO reason for anyone to ram his car and take the keys. That is stupidity at the highest level.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's going to be a huge difference between this case, where they've rammed into the EAs car to a situation where someone quietly refuses an EA entry.

 

Let's remind ourselves - it is not an offence to refuse to allow an EA enter, nor is it an offence to ask them to leave. If they try to barge past you, they commit the offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the couple actually have a post on CAG about the actions of the bailiff i can remember reading something similar to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It it known what the obstruction was? I assume it was not for refusing entry unless the EA had a Court Order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds more like he was attempting to remove a car and it got out of hand. not a refused a peaceful entry so it must be obstructing an enforcement agent


:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must have been very serious given that they were ordered to complete 180 hours community service and pay fine and costs of £1,500.

 

The wife was also disqualified from driving for a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the couple actually have a post on CAG about the actions of the bailiff i can remember reading something similar to this.

 

You might be thinking about this one where the debtor was jailed for 9 months. In this case the debtor chased the bailiff in his car.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?431366-Judge-jails-debtor-for-9-months-for-chasing-bailiff-in-his-car.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one is by far the worst and seems to be as a result of dreadfully misleading information on the internet. The debtor posted on a forum only a few weeks offering to pay a fee of £500 (I believe) to anyone who may have information about the same bailiffs !!!

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?433030-Debtor-charged-under-section-68(1)-of-TCEA-2007-with-quot-intentionally-obstructing-a-bailiff-quot-.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bailiffs are known to view forums daily and I would like to make a critical post about 'clamping' of a vehicle.

 

Yesterday I spoke with 3 debtors whose vehicles had been clamped at their properties and in each case, the debtor only became aware that their vehicles had been immobilised when they left the property to go to work (or in the case of one debtor...when she left to take her daughter to school). In each case, a sticker had been left on the vehicle but the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor. Accordingly, there was no way of knowing whether any of the vehicles had been left clamped for the minimum period of two hours.

 

Thankfully in two of the cases bailiffs removed the immobilisation devices and agreed payment arrangements.

 

The third case is one that I have posted about on the 'Can't Pay//we will take it away' thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do the notices (on the window) not have times on them?

 

The beauty of mobile phones means that debtors can simply take a picture of the sticker and send a copy. In each case there was no time given on the stickers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I thought the stickers were notices themselves and the EA needed to list the time of impounding. Space to write the time and not filled in? Or no box on the paperwork to fill in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bailiffs are known to view forums daily and I would like to make a critical post about 'clamping' of a vehicle.

 

Yesterday I spoke with 3 debtors whose vehicles had been clamped at their properties and in each case, the debtor only became aware that their vehicles had been immobilised when they left the property to go to work (or in the case of one debtor...when she left to take her daughter to school). In each case, a sticker had been left on the vehicle but the statutory Notice of Immobilisation was not left with the debtor. Accordingly, there was no way of knowing whether any of the vehicles had been left clamped for the minimum period of two hours.

 

Thankfully in two of the cases bailiffs removed the immobilisation devices and agreed payment arrangements.

 

The third case is one that I have posted about on the 'Can't Pay//we will take it away' thread.

 

i would be interested in your opinion on a potential situation debtors could find themselves in based on this.

obviously aside from the "notice of immobilisation" there should be the "notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway" form. as you said they weren't left on 3 peoples situations.

clearly it should be left but hasn't. what do you think the reason is for this?

at first i was thinking could it be because the EA doesn't know whether he will have to remove or not so doesn't want to have to redo the paperwork including the removal fee, BUT then i realised they could add it on to the removal form.

 

anyway, i was thinking what should an enforcement agency do when one of their anpr vans claps eyes on a car and clamps it but the car is registered 100's of miles away, how would they go on posting the statuatory forms then?


None of the beliefs held by "Freemen on the land" have ever been supported by any judgments or verdicts in any criminal or civil court cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i would be interested in your opinion on a potential situation debtors could find themselves in based on this.

obviously aside from the "notice of immobilisation" there should be the "notice after entry or taking control of goods on a highway" form. as you said they weren't left on 3 peoples situations.

clearly it should be left but hasn't. what do you think the reason is for this?

at first i was thinking could it be because the EA doesn't know whether he will have to remove or not so doesn't want to have to redo the paperwork including the removal fee, BUT then i realised they could add it on to the removal form.

 

anyway, i was thinking what should an enforcement agency do when one of their anpr vans claps eyes on a car and clamps it but the car is registered 100's of miles away, how would they go on posting the statuatory forms then?

 

Hopefully tye ANPR vans will be weighed in at the scrapyard end of problem. perhaps they are being creative within the new regulations to maximise their infliction of terror on the debtor, to make them beg steal or borrow to pay them there and then before they remove a clamp.


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 OTHER

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...