Police Section 5 DA04 - Accused of spitting at clamping officer

anewman

The police probably think an SIA card puts them in the same sort of official position as their own profession :eek: They would also be quite likely to side with Bouncers who are regulated by the same industry, and many bouncers are thugs.

Coupon-mad

anewman wrote: »

The police probably think an SIA card puts them in the same sort of official position as their own profession :eek: They would also be quite likely to side with Bouncers who are regulated by the same industry, and many bouncers are thugs.

I get that impression as well, some Police Officers just see any Security types as kindred spirits.

The general Police inaction is shocking when you read of the occasional case Trading Standards and decent Police forces have actually brought against clampers for blackmail etc. - and yet nothing is done in most Counties even when clampers actually steal a car and re-register it.

Nilrem

I think at least part of the problem is that clamping by the scammers (sorry clampers) is classed as a civil matter, and as such the police don't have many powers normally.
Add to that the confusion over where the clampers powers actually end/what they can/can't do (not helped by the government not actually laying down the limits for things like "fines" by the clampers), and I suspect the average police officer won't have much of a clue - and if the law doesn't state what is a "reasonable" penalty for parking in civil cases, the police can't do much on their own as long as it remains a "civil" matter (they enforce the law, as laid down by Parliament, and interpreted/clarified by the courts).
I'm not saying the average officer is clueless, just that they are in such cases usually working without any formal training or guidance about what is and isn't allowed by the clampers in terms of fees if the clamper is licensed (remember it was left to the SIA to licence and the clamping industry to regulate the clampers). Remember police officers are not legal experts (that's left to the guys earning a lot more), but trained in regards to the powers they have been given, and the practical side of the laws behind them (hence some officers are so much better at some aspects of policing than others*).
It's probably one of the things that many officers really hate dealing with, as whilst they might automatically tend to side with the clamped, they have to follow what training/procedures they have been given, or potentially face a serious complaint.

Trading Standards on the other hand are much better versed in the civil side of things, and have the access to more specialist legal advice on a regular basis, hence so many of the prosecutions being bought by TS and the Police together.

The FPN thing is I think because the police can get into trouble for not investigating any offence that IS clearly defined as illegal (and the clampers will know this), so a FPN if the "accused" agrees to it (admitting guilt) is the fastest, easiest and potentially least harmful (for the accused) way to deal with some offences, unfortunately the it's is down to the officers discretion and so they will make mistakes at times. Hence the option to refute the charge, refuse the FPN and go to a magistrates court where if you've got a witness who will back your version of events up you'll most likely be found not guilty.


*Why a Traffic officer will normally know traffic law, use and regs, licence requirements etc to a quite complicated level and likely be able to find a defect with most vehicles if someone annoys them enough/gives them enough cause to spend the time really examining a vehicle (but still be surpassed in the knowledge of the regs by VOSA officials who may spend all day every day examining vehicles).

HO87

Stigy wrote: »

The FPN is a way of keeping minor offences out of court and as such, you'll not receive any form of criminal record if paid.

In the strictest interpretation you are correct. However, the fact remains that should the OP be obliged to obtain an Enhanced CRB check (which Australia are entitled to ask for, and do so occasionally - the Rehab of Offenders Act does not apply) then this matter will appear.

If the OP is simply intending to obtain a Working Holiday Visa (these are normally valid for 12 months), for example, then he will only be asked if he has been convicted of any offence or whether, having been charged, has any matters that remain outstanding.

The payment of a PND is not a conviction.

Since when have Fixed Penalty Notices been issued in place of Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND)? One hastens from suggesting that you're getting sloppy again Stigy.

Stigy

HO87 wrote: »

Since when have Fixed Penalty Notices been issued in place of Penalty Notices for Disorder (PND)? One hastens from suggesting that you're getting sloppy again Stigy.

I haven't thought about it to be honest. I have seen councils and certain Police Forces issuing FPNs and assumed they were the same as PNDs, just marked differently. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what it's called, as it means the same thing, does it not? They both are intended to keep certain minor offences out of court, and are for the fixed amount listed on the notice.

It would appear once again, that people in this thread are getting so cross with the Clampers that most of them are ignoring the OP's initial post and jumping straight on the usual band wagon. I think I am the one of the only people who has offered advice so far, and yet I'm being pulled up due to semantics yet again. It would also appear, that whilst others have used the term 'FPN' in this thread, I'm the one being pulled up on it.

esmerobbo

I see the OP quotes he got a fixed penalty fine, and we have assumed it was a fixed penalty notice. Maybe they were issued a PND. As you can see DA04 is recordable on the PNC.

The list of offences in the PND scheme and the Central Ticket Office
(CTO) reference, are shown below: (for more information click here for
links to the Police National Legal Database)
Penalty Notice of £80 (Offences marked with an * are PNC recordable.)

DA04 Causing Harassment Alarm or Distress (Section 5, Public Order Act 1986)*

DailyClicker

DailyClicker

peter_the_piper wrote: »

Am I being paranoid here but could this be an attempt by the clamper to get a "conviction" against the victim to help win any chargeback or small claim case?

They have done this because I've been putting pressure on our local MP, and Trading Standards to investigate this company. Progress is being made very slowly, but won't give up until justice is done.

They don't like the fact I advise people to pay on a credit card, and they then offer then to pay half the amount in cash.

DailyClicker

Stigy wrote: »

In order for an FPN to be an appropriate means with which to resolve an offence, the offender should admit the offence to the Officer at the time. In other words the appeal is only available because it's a legal right one has in all enforcement situations such as this one (even if found guilty at a Magistrate's Court you can appeal and go to Crown Court!). If you weren't prepared to admit any wrongdoing, then you shouldn't have been issued an FPN and should have been arrested really! Sometimes this falls on deaf ears with some Officers/Officials and as such all manner of people receive FPNs that shouldn't do! If you did admit your wrongdoing, then there'll probably be not much point appealing to be honest, as the Police Officer's notes will reflect this, as might you replay when cautioned.

You're lucky you weren't charged with obstructing the public highway...Or did I read that it was a private road?

Thanks for your reply.

I did not spit at the clamper, and did not admit the offence as I hadn't done it.

The Police officer, said I had to take the ticket (I've uploaded it above), and I don't have the choice of being arrested, as I'd be issued it in the Police Station after a night locked up.

He only spoke to the clamping officer, did not listen to me, or any of the witnesses.

It was a private road, and I moved my vehicle as soon as requested by the Police, and was not preventing anybody from entering/leaving, as the tow truck did not arrive in the whole three hours of the dispute.

I've made a complaint about the officer in question, but they said it cannot be revoked.

DailyClicker

Nilrem wrote: »

The FPN thing is I think because the police can get into trouble for not investigating any offence that IS clearly defined as illegal (and the clampers will know this), .

Could you tell me more about this please, and whether it's wrote in any Police documentation, as no fair investigation took place.