Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

queensclose

council ticket private bailiff clamps car and police threaten to remove them from the car

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1722 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

quick question. bailiffs clamp my friends car over unpaid council ticket. he sat in the car and bailiff called the police. informed him he was committing the offence of obstructing an enforcement officer and will be arrested. officers radioed control who said to go ahead and arrest them

 

can they do this


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Short answer yes.

If its been clamped its in control of the enforcement agent.

Then if he gets in is could potentially be interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse and obstructing an EA

Tce act 2007 sch 12 para 68 1,2,3


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

heres my thought and properly wrong.

could you say i,m not obstructing the enforcement officer, he is welcome to to take the car but i am not moving. its not my fault the tow truck is not insured to carry passengers


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quick question. bailiffs clamp my friends car over unpaid council ticket. he sat in the car and bailiff called the police. informed him he was committing the offence of obstructing an enforcement officer and will be arrested. officers radioed control who said to go ahead and arrest them

 

can they do this

 

Without knowing the background it is very difficult to advise. For instance, it may be that your friend had entered into a Controlled Goods Agreement that was broken. It is possible that he has broken previous payment arrangements.

 

As I have said repeatedly on this forum, it is so important to address the debt on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (and in fact, the previous Director General of CIVEA stated in December that approx 50% of debts are now settled at the 'Compliance Stage').

 

Has your friend actually been arrested?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he ignored it and of the blue they clamped the car. he decided to pay as the officers warned him they has told by the control he could go ahead and arrest him on the bailiffs complaint he had been obstructed


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short answer yes.

If its been clamped its in control of the enforcement agent.

Then if he gets in is could potentially be interfering with controlled goods without lawful excuse and obstructing an EA

Tce act 2007 sch 12 para 68 1,2,3

 

Joseph Bloggs when you say yes you are assuming

a]that the owner of the car was also the person who was driving the car when the alleged offence was committed

b] that if they were, then the driver had received a Notice of Enforcement and the statutory 7 clear days notice had elapsed

c] that the car was not on finance

d] that the EA was certificated

for starters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its was the owners who had the ticket, it was the partner in the car

did have notice but ignored

no finance

was ea certified


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I started writing this about an hour ago then was called away so missed the previous couple of posts. However those reasons I cited are reasons why it may not be so cut and dried as Joseph asserted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they borrowed the money to avoid arrest. i just wanted to know for future reference to see how far the police would go.

 

the fact are. partner used car and got a council parking ticket.

they ignored it and hoped to go away.

 

enforcement officer clamped car early morning. unable to obtain access to a secure access flat to notify of it being clamped. partner came down to go to work and found it clamped. informed him that he visited the flat yesterday and left letter of attendance (no one would have allowed him entrance to the flats and wouldnt answer how he got in) produced id saying enforcement officer with photo. nothing to say he was authorized to execute warrants in england and wales. warrant of control in office as they dont need to carry them around apparently. he showed police a council website about liability orders. which said you can be arrested for obstructing an enforcement officer. i told the police they should seek advice from the police station and not rely on what the enforcement officer says.. they radioed back saying to go ahead and smash a window and arrest him.

he decided to pay because he didnt want the car damaged and towed away with extra expenses and the fact they were going to store the car 80 miles away


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer as to whether the police can arrest anybody for 'obstructing' a bailiff trying to enforce a PCN is emphatically NO. Its the latest bailiff 'smoke and mirrors' trick coupled with yet more police ignorance on civil law.

 

Para 68 (1) of Schedule 12 does not apply to parking. It only applies to judicial courts which have issued warrants themselves. It doesn't apply to the administrative court known as the TEC which does not issue warrants - it merely authorises them.

 

Not that the bailiff would have had a genuine warrant with him.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer as to whether the police can arrest anybody for 'obstructing' a bailiff trying to enforce a PCN is emphatically NO. Its the latest bailiff 'smoke and mirrors' trick coupled with yet more police ignorance on civil law.

 

Para 68 (1) of Schedule 12 does not apply to parking. It only applies to judicial courts which have issued warrants themselves. It doesn't apply to the administrative court known as the TEC which does not issue warrants - it merely authorises them.

 

Not that the bailiff would have had a genuine warrant with him.....

 

Whether the enforcement agent is collecting council tax, non domestic rates, a parking fine, court fine or acting as a hceo, if they are intentionally obstructed the person acting unlawfully can expect to be arrested.

There is no mention of what types of debt the enforcement agent is collecting affecting paragraph 68.

And as you well know, the enforcement agents dont have to carry warrants/liability orders in any case


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

no one was stopping him removing the car. he was just sitting in the car. the tow truck driver said he cannot lift the car with someone sitting in it because of insurance purposes. maybe he was also obstructing the ea.

 

what made it worse the ea was polish and very bad broken english and the police had to speak to his office to understand what was being said


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

based on what is above. he is considering making a compliant to to the police for losses caused by them threatening arrest by obstructing an enforcement officer. the control room advised the attending officer this was the law and they would enforce it.

 

any ideas how to word it


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what losses your friend might have incurred because of the Police action. The bailiff fees would have been the same and the only

extra fee would possibly be the clamping fee which may not be payable if the car owner did not receive the Notice that the car had been clamped.

And if that is the case then it is to the bailiff company that the owner should seek to get his money back.

 

However the Police were wrong to side with the bailff and you may be able to get compensation for threatening to smash the car window and

forcing the person who was not guilty of any misdemeanour to pay for a debt that was not theirs. Obviously the car was not guilty of any

misdemeanour either.

 

They could also suggest that the EA who would know that PCNs are not covered by the Control of Goods Regulations 2013 was guilty of

inciting the Police to commit an unlawful act and charge the EA accordingly. That might stop some of the bailiffs from continuing their lies to the

Police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the information thats coming back

 

just to be clear are you saying a PCN is not covered by the control of goods regulation. the breakdown of fees are listed under the letter control of goods where they have listed the car,

 

i understand that a PCN warrant is issued by the TEC so does not fall within the paragraph

 

the court”, unless otherwise stated, and subject to rules of court, means—

(a)the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court;

(b)a county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by a county court;

©in any other case, a magistrates' court;

 

with the TEC warrant was issued from a business centre with no hearing or judge to rule. just a member of staff saying yes they owe you for a parking ticket and you can pursue it.

 

because of the police threat his father paid over £500 which would not have been paid. if the police did not get evolved he could have got a family friend with a tow truck to remove the car into private storage and invite the bailiff to remove the clamp


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may all note I have removed some posts for now as they had nothing to do with the original plea. These will all be sorted and moved to a thread of their own possibly in the Bear Garden or Parking Forum but give a bit of time for this to be done.


Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it Ploddertom the OP has moved on from asking if the Police and EA action was correct to learning that that there is a possibility at the very least that the Police and EAs were wrong to threaten the car occupants. And the change in the thread reflected that.

Do you suggest that the OP should start a new thread seeking clarification of Fair-parking's assertions and arguments against by taurusgemini and

Joseph Bloggs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hesitate to comment as i know little or nothing about parking enforcment, but this is the active regulation which enables the use of schedule 12 in court fines would this not also be applicable here

 

62Enforcement by taking control of goods

(1)Schedule 12 applies where an enactment, writ or warrant confers power to use the procedure in that Schedule (taking control of goods and selling them to recover a sum of money)


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read some of what was on here I got confused as to the original post asking about obstruction then deviated into whether enforcement for PCN's were lawful. Therefore not surprised all the differing posts were removed. Maybe we should have a new thread to discuss the Obstruction issue as there are some matters that are clearly not but it appears that Bailiffs are again twisting HM Constabulary around their little fingers.

 

Procedures as to the legality of PCN Enforcement is one that should be taken up with the Government, conjecture here only seems to provide ammunition for elsewhere when in actually fact it is only 1 persons view and not that of the Forum as a whole. If the subject is going to degenerate into tit for tat then this thread is better off closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what is being said, but as a general point ,how are people to give advice on the behavior of EAs if they do not understand what it is they are allowed to do in the first place.

 

From what I have read I see no reason why the schedule 12 procedures do not apply in parking enforcment, this also means that the protections are also available, I think any advice given should reflect this.


DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is one thing I have learned from this Forum thanks to interpretations of the various Acts and Regulations by Bailiff Advice and Ploddertom for

example is that you cannot take one line of and Act and take it as read without reading other parts of the the Act.

 

There is no doubt that the Control of Goods Regulations 2013 was rushed into force without perhaps crossing all the "t"s and dotting the "i".

Schedule 12 begins by explaining the definitions of the words used. Below I have copied the definition of "Court" in their world.

3

1] In this schedule

 

 

 

 

 

"the court", unless otherwise stated, and subject to the rules of court, means-

 

[a] the High Court, in relation to an enforcement power under a writ of the High Court

 

a county court, in relation to an enforcement power under a warrant issued by a county court

 

[c] in any other court, a magistrates court

 

It is Fair-parking's argument that the TEC does not fall into any of those categories. Indeed on his website he states that he has in writing from

the TEC that they confirm that they do not comply with the above definition of a Court. I have no way of knowing whether the MOJ intended

to exclude parking from the Regulations since it ihas been decriminalised or whether it was a careless piece of legislation.

 

It may be surprising that this very important point has been missed by most people on this Forum but to me it does read that the TEC is not

included as a Court and therefore neither is parking .

 

It follows on from there that the Police were wrong to threaten to arrest the people in the car and should be of help to the OP in deciding what

action could follow from his first post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1722 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
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...