police,cars and bailiffs did you watch this today ?

roddydogs

The "Driving off" Rule will soon be changed-its totally unfair to old/disabled people who dont know the rules who meekly stand there and let the warden/attendent hand them the ticket, which then becomes "served", whilst the yob who drives away quickly swearing gets away with it!

rog2

roddydogs wrote: »

The "Driving off" Rule will soon be changed-its totally unfair to old/disabled people who dont know the rules who meekly stand there and let the warden/attendent hand them the ticket, which then becomes "served", whilst the yob who drives away quickly swearing gets away with it!

It is not always the 'yob' who drives off swearing, rd. A couple of years ago, there was a BBC programme which clearly showed Traffic Wardens (Private Company) who 'issued' tickets after people had driven off. There was, at the time (I don't know if still valid) a condition that if the driver arrived to move the car before the ticket had been 'fully issued' then that ticket had to be cancelled - the particular company was completely ignoring this.
Whilst, I agree, most parking tickets are issued 'within the terms of the law' and that the law deserves to be respected, let us not forget that many of those who are claiming to 'uphold the law' have, themselves, been proven to have acted outside of that law in their zealousness to collect money.
When any form of law enforcement, involving money, is handed to the private sector it will, almost inevitably, become the subject of 'target management' in order to satisfy the 'profitability' of the private company involved. In the enforcement of law profitability should never be placed above the rights of people.

BAILIFFCHASER

no

rog2 wrote: »

These fines are 'legal' because they are 'backed by photographic evidence'. However, in order to be legally accepted the 'cameras' and those responsible for them, have to undergo regular legal checks - in fact many 'camera' penalties have been successfully contested on the basis that these checks were either not, or incorrectly, carried out.
Any 'element of doubt' would go in favour of the assumed driver.
We don't seem to have this 'avenue of defence' when confronted by bailiffs - even though there are circumstances where 'bailiff action' can be questioned or contested these are seldom if ever pointed out by the bailiffs, whereas a 'fixed penalty notice', relating to an alleged motoring offence, clearly states the options available to a defendant, should he/she wish to 'contest' the charge, along with that person's right to see the evidence in question.

The problem that i see with penalty charge notices is that with the amount of appeals i have handled. The council never send the person apealling all of the evidence and it usually shows up when you goto a tribunal. This is misguiding and the ajudicators dont seem to make a big song and dance of this.

BAILIFFCHASER

no

Even if anpr was to pick a vehicle out they would then have to proove owner ship. Imagine driving your own car and having a reipet from the previous keeper prooving you just brought it ? Would like to see mr newtons face then !!!!

Poppy9

BAILIFFCHASER wrote: »

If you saw the last programme where they towed the red alfa romeo away. You would have heard the voice over saying the car was eventually released when the owner sucessfully apealed against his parking tickets. What does that tell you ? I have a feeling that people do not know how to handle the tickets.

He should have then been able to sue the council for removing his vehicle illegally plus any out of pocket expenses he incurred while without his vehicle.

I think Bailiff fees are extorionate and the Govt. should do something to limit them. It is totally unreasonable that 3 parking tickets turn into a 2 or 3 thousand pound charge over just a few months. More publicity also needs to be given to people regarding bailiffs rights. From the TV programmes they seem to behave like heavy handed thugs who think they are doing the country a service - I suppose this makes good TV and they don't show the decent ones (if there are any:rolleyes: ).

Given the Govt. recent history on the storing of personal information any one of us could mistakenly be at the mercy of these people. In the last year both my OH and myself have had problems with the DVLA making mistakes in their record keeping. It took from May to Sept for them to admit they were wrong with regard to my OH car and I'm still waiting from February for them to confirm they have corrected the ownership of a vehicle they mistakenly registered to me even though the company I bought my vehicle from have provided them with evidence that they gave them the correct details for the other vehicle. They are still looking into it!

Also the IR transferred their records and transposed my OH NI number in the process. Triggered off all sort of silly letters and demands. He couldn't ring to speak to them as he failed the security checks as their information didn't match his correct NI number . They ignored his letters as they said he had failed security checks. Eventually he had to take in his birth certificate, pay slips, medical card and his police warrant card to a Govt. office and they amended their details. No apology or explanation.

SomeoneElse_2

Herbie21 wrote: »

What most people are unaware of is that if a bailiff visits you to collect more than one PCN he CANNOT charge multipule fees. This is where they will try to charge a levy fee, visit fee and immobilisation fee for EACH PCN. This has been the subject of two recent court cases.....and each time the bailiff companies lost hands down.



Herbie, I don't think they lost because of this. A bailiff can legally charge fees on multiple cases. It is only dependant upon the contract drawn up between the bailiff company and the local authority whether or not they do charge. Some councils obviously prefer them not to.

In addition, if a bailiff is acting on incorrect information, this is not the bailiffs fault. They can only act on the information given to them by their client. In the case of parking fines, the DVLA provide information about the registered keeper to the local authority, the local authority then pass this information onto the bailiffs.

It is only when the bailiff attends the property that they realise they have the wrong address or the vehicle was sold long ago. If people do not keep their records up to date with the DVLA then the data provided is questionable. However, you cannot blame the bailiff for this.

roddydogs

A.dont park illeagally.
B.if u do and get a ticket, pay it.
THEN U WONT SEE A BAILIFF, WIILL YOU?

Poppy9

SomeoneElse wrote:

In addition, if a bailiff is acting on incorrect information, this is not the bailiffs fault. They can only act on the information given to them by their client. In the case of parking fines, the DVLA provide information about the registered keeper to the local authority, the local authority then pass this information onto the bailiffs.

It is only when the bailiff attends the property that they realise they have the wrong address or the vehicle was sold long ago. If people do not keep their records up to date with the DVLA then the data provided is questionable. However, you cannot blame the bailiff for this.

The buck has to stop somewhere. The DVLA/ LA may have mistakes in their records because they have made an error. The owner of the vehicle maybe unaware of the error. I said in my earlier post that the DVLA had an error on their records for my OH. Due to their error my OH's car could have been lifted and impounded for no tax as according to the DVLA computer the car had been untaxed for 12 months. My OH only found out when he tried to renew on line and it wouldn't let him. He rang DVLA and they kept saying the computer says no. He read out the tax disc number from his vehicle and they said "oh yes that's valid the car is taxed and the disc valid but we can't change the computer" . In the 12 months the DVLA had not issued any penalty notices to say the vehicle was not taxed. There was obviously some bug in their system. Therefore if a bailiff turns up and the owner tells him he is mistaken he has a duty to check out all the facts. If they had come to collect my OH car and he showed them the valid tax disc, clearly displayed, then they had to check out it fully before taking any action.

BAILIFFCHASER

no

Herbie, I don't think they lost because of this. A bailiff can legally charge fees on multiple cases. It is only dependant upon the contract drawn up between the bailiff company and the local authority whether or not they do charge. Some councils obviously prefer them not to.

In addition, if a bailiff is acting on incorrect information, this is not the bailiffs fault. They can only act on the information given to them by their client. In the case of parking fines, the DVLA provide information about the registered keeper to the local authority, the local authority then pass this information onto the bailiffs.

It is only when the bailiff attends the property that they realise they have the wrong address or the vehicle was sold long ago. If people do not keep their records up to date with the DVLA then the data provided is questionable. However, you cannot blame the bailiff for this.[/quote]


Just wandering are you referring to acea guidelines or non acea guidelines?

BAILIFFCHASER

no

roddydogs wrote: »

A.dont park illeagally.
B.if u do and get a ticket, pay it.
THEN U WONT SEE A BAILIFF, WIILL YOU?

get a life.