Compliance & Enforcement charge in one visit section12? discussion

[Fair-Parking]

The OP has given some extremely imaginative advice by the bailiff fraternity. No - bailiffs can't go out and clamp a vehicle wherever they like - it has to be at the address written on the warrant as per CPR 75.7.3. and fresh warrant for any other address can only be authorised under CPR 75.7.7 when the local authority (and not the bailiff company which is not party to TEC proceedings) makes an application to the TEC for the new address/location.

 

Even if a 'warrant' has been issued, which is highly unlikely, it relies on Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which does not include parking as the TEC is not a judicial court

[sillygirl1]

Sitting here with a friend who is a bailiff and he's found Fair-Parking's comments highly amusing. He thought that they might have got their ideas from internetlawyer.com or a FOTL site.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Wrong fair-parking. We can clamp the vehicle wherever it is if it on the highway.

The only time you would need court approval is if the vehicle is on 3rd party property.

[Peterbard]

.I would leave it, it is just an excuse to bring out the tired and fatally flawed TCE and parking enforcment argument, the OP is ok that is all that matters.

[josephbloggs]

Wrong fair-parking. We can clamp the vehicle wherever it is if it on the highway.

The only time you would need court approval is if the vehicle is on 3rd party property.

 

Exactly. Hence the prescribed form "taking control of goods on a highway"

[Fair-Parking]

The fact that something seems implausible, doesn't make it wrong. Schedule 12 of the Taking Control of Goods Act 2007 only applies to judicial courts who have made judgments and who have also issued warrants. See Paragraph 3 (1) of the Act. The Traffic Enforcement Centre is neither a judicial court and nor does it issue warrants. It has no judges, no hearings, no access to the public and no solicitors or barristers are seen there. It is an administrative court whose function is to rubber stamp the presumption of guilt made by its paid up local authority members who fund this court.

 

As for the criticisms. All GTSTL has to do is explain CPR 75.7.7 if he believes that a bailiff can enforce anywhere in England or Wales under parking enforcement regulations as opposed to other regulations following real judgments and magistrates courts orders.

 

Dodgeball explained his belief in another thread by quoting Section 104 of the Act without taking into consideration that it relies on judgment debts. He also confused 'Act' with 'enactment'.

 

If I have been wrong then the CPS is hardly likely to have dropped a prosecution based entirely on Section 68a, Schedule 12 of the Act just five days before a hearing in Westminster Magistrates Court following receipt of representations by Fair Parking.

 

However people can believe whatever they wish. It won't make any difference to the fact that Schedule 12 is outside of the jurisdiction of anything less than a judicial court ora magistrates court . Section 3 (1) clearly explains that

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The tec is part of Northampton county court so it is a court and does issue warrants of control for unpaid parking fines.

 

7.7 applies to a new address, which I have already stated needs the courts permission.

ANYWHERE on the public highway, whether near the property or not is good to go.

[Fair-Parking]

The TEC has never issued a warrant and nor is it a county court as confirmed by this email from the TEC dated 19th September 2014

 

In answer to Fair-Parking's question ‘I would be very obliged if the TEC could clarify whether it is a county court', the TEC replied

 

'The Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC) is not a County Court in itself. It is part of Her Majesty’s Court & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) and is based at the County Court Business Centre (CCBC) in Northampton[/i

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes, but it is part of hmcts, and therefor, like the county court is also part of hmcts, it has the authority to stamp warrants. But yes, they are not the county court, in the same way that the high court is not a county court, but they too issues orders.

For the most part, the high court office that stamps a warrant is based in the county court, the county court staff stamp the warrants etc, but it is itself, not the county court.

 

I say its part of the county court as they come under the umbrella of the ccbc.

[Fair-Parking]

'Like a county court' is an apt description of something that isn't a county court.

 

It doesn't issue any orders either except one - the 'Order for Recovery' after that the TEC merely authorises local authorities to prepare warrants (CPR 75.7.3)

 

Not quite sure how to counter somebody who says the TEC IS a county court when the TEC itself states both clearly and distinctly that it isn't - except to repeat that people can believe whatever they wish to believe.

 

It doesn't alter the facts

[Peterbard]

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/82

 

82Enforcement of penalty charges

(1)The Lord Chancellor may make regulations for or in connection with the enforcement of penalty charges.

(2)The regulations may include provision—

(a)creating criminal offences to be triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower amount as may be specified;

(b)for amounts payable under or by virtue of any provision of this Part to be recoverable, if a county court so orders, as if they were payable under a county court order.

[Fair-Parking]

Again - the ONLY order the TEC makes is an Order for Recovery - an order addressed to its applicant local authority giving it authority to pursue an alleged parking or minor traffic contravention.

[Peterbard]

We have gone through this ll before, if you fail to understand the legislation you must see that these offences are being pursued by bailiffs using schedule 12 procedures. as far as the legislation above, it enables the order to be enforced as if it were issued by a county court, so that really is all that can be said.

The rest of legislation required has been amended in respect of this and in order to comply with the TCE( see consequential amendments TCE act) so really there isn't any argument. And that is it yet again on this mater from me.

[Fair-Parking]

Yes we have - and you still haven't grasped it. Not only does the CPS agree with me but so did the Met on three occasions when it also dropped prosecutions after I sent representations to them. Not one prosecution has continued after I contacted the police and CPS.

 

Perhaps you know more than the Police and the CPS but trying to play 'top trumps' doesn't help you. The TEC operates purely under CPR 75 and not any other part of the CPR.

 

Also contained within the TEC's email of 19th September 2014 is the following

 

'Penalty Charge Numbers (PCN) issued through TEC are done so in accordance with part 75 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)'.

[Peterbard]

Looks like no one has"grasped this", accept you FP. Perhaps that should tell you something.

 

The CPS does not agree with you neither do the police, it is bordering on delusion now.

 

How many cases have you lost pushing this now FP, isn't it about time you stopped this nonsense.

[Fair-Parking]

When there is no argument remaining (not even a mention of p104) then insults are all that is left. Quite clearly the fact that the CPS and the Met dropped four cases is purely coincidental.

 

And your proof for saying that they did not accept my representations is where?

 

Not a hint of the merest possibility that there may be a legal answer to the badly worded Schedule 12 in relation to parking

[Peterbard]

When there is no argument remaining (not even a mention of p104) then insults are all that is left. Quite clearly the fact that the CPS and the Met dropped four cases is purely coincidental.

 

And your proof for saying that they did not accept my representations is where?

 

Not a hint of the merest possibility that there may be a legal answer to the badly worded Schedule 12 in relation to parking

 

Look we are off topic again, so start a new thread, show your evidence and we will look at it( if the team agree), I am not sure what you are trying to say any-more to be honest.

[Fair-Parking]

If it is, then you took it there, I merely mentioned that the OP having suffered under a bailiff misreading of Schedule 12 was misled - you have posted several times since and I have merely responded to you. If you want to end this then stop throwing insults and unsupported accusations.

 

This isn't a game. It isn't about 'top trumping' with claims of 'my views of legislation are cleverer than yours', it is about the fact that Schedule 12 should never have been used here. I have offered reasons as to why not. If you don't wish to believe them then that's fine, but you have gone far further than that - indeed instead of considering whether there may some merit in what I say, you have unsuccessfully tried to kick everything into touch and failed.

 

You haven't even been able to state that whilst you do not believe there is a defence, it would be of benefit to the public if there was one.

 

It is even quite possible to read your posts as being from somebody who wants the idea that Schedule 12 doesn't apply to be unsuccessful. If that is true why on earth are you on a consumer action forum?

[Peterbard]

No its about you putting forward a proposition but being unwilling to have it properly challenged. You have no idea how many half baked ideas I have seen like this, if it cant stand examination it is usually because it is not correct.

 

 

sorry FP i have considered your argument and it has no merit, it is not s case of what I want just what the legislation says.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Yes, I have seen a few cases that have been dropped, with PART of the complaint being about certain things like warrant validity and other silly things like that, but NONE of them that I am aware of have ever been dropped for those reasons, but purely on the back of another reason also in the complaint that was upheld. But some delusional individuals then think it was the whole complaint, not a specific part of it, that got it thrown out. People need to read their judgements correctly. And I would be love to read a judgement that you have that shows it was thrown out for the reasons you claim.

[Fair-Parking]

I'll draw the curtain down on this - we have one individual who complains that this is 'off thread' determined to take it further away by avoiding the issues he can't cope with, and another who is under the impression that if HE didn't hear anything, it doesn't exist whilst at the same failing to realise that if something didn't go to court, there can be no judgment. Note the correct spelling Sir

 

Neither having come up with any tangible reason as why Schedule 12 applies in parking and hoping that is doesn't. You can understand the bailiff thinking that but the other defies logic.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Evidence has been provided that the act does cover parking tickets but you fail to understand it.

You have failed to provide a shred of evidence that a case has either been thrown out of court or dropped before court for the reasons you claim.

In order to deflect, you become the grammar police.

And being a condescending little p**** in the process just makes you look a tad bit silly.

Can you provide one shred of evidence to back up your claims? No, thought not.

[Peterbard]

FP, I and others have shown you the legislation, even in this thread, even your beloved CPR mentions enforcment by the TCE, the act even modifies the wording of the 1993 regs which is used to enforce the warrant to comp;y with the TCE , every single factor of your argument is flawed.

What really bothers me, is that I have just heard you charge people money for this nonsense, you really aught to be ashamed of yourself.

[dx100uk]

discussion thread created now

 

 

please keep to this - the original op's thread is now closed.

 

 

dx

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Wait.... Is the http://www.Fair-parking website yours? Bwhahahahahahahahaha.