Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[Variomatic]

Devil2575 said:

But it is relevant because the Police are assisiting TFL appointed Bailiffs in the recoverey of money.

The fact that I think this should happen is why I do not object to it.

The fact that the civil courts in some cases seem inadequate to recover unpaid debts resulting from CCJs is why I think it should happen.

Capisce?

So why should it be different (it is) if you go to the police about a civil problem / debt?

The police are there to maintain law and order and they can't do that if their operations are biased in favour of one groups (say, baliffs) against another (say, private individuals).

In fact, if anything, any bias should be in favour of the individual who may have no other power to rely on.

[10 Pence Short]

Devil2575 said:

But it is relevant because the Police are assisiting TFL appointed Bailiffs in the recoverey of money.

The fact that I think this should happen is why I do not object to it.

The fact that the civil courts in some cases seem inadequate to recover unpaid debts resulting from CCJs is why I think it should happen.

Capisce?

No, possibly because courts aren't supposed to recover debts, so they can neither be adequate or inadequate for the purpose. That's what bailiffs are for.

Should the Police be allowed to detain you to recover money on behalf of third parties, is the question you should be asking yourself.

[Devil2575]

10 Pence Short said:

Devil2575 said:

But it is relevant because the Police are assisiting TFL appointed Bailiffs in the recoverey of money.

The fact that I think this should happen is why I do not object to it.

The fact that the civil courts in some cases seem inadequate to recover unpaid debts resulting from CCJs is why I think it should happen.

Capisce?

No, possibly because courts aren't supposed to recover debts, so they can neither be adequate or inadequate for the purpose. That's what bailiffs are for.

Should the Police be allowed to detain you to recover money on behalf of third parties, is the question you should be asking yourself.

The Police should be able to detain people who have had a CCJ against them in order to assist a bailiff with the recovery of a debt.

I'm not advocating the Police stop people who owe anyone or everyone money, but where a judgment has been made in a court I see no problem with this whatsoever.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

-snip-

Should the Police be allowed to detain you to recover money on behalf of third parties, is the question you should be asking yourself.

The way that question is phrased one tends to think no.

But, when it's pointed out the assistance is just a stop and introduction and the money owed is the subject of a warrant then it's a bit different.
Also, the police doing anpr checks anyway, so it'scnot really a waste of police time or a drain on resources.

A different question could be;

Should the police be allowed to stop a car so a court appointed balif can have a chat to the driver about a warrant that they have been unable to serve as the driver has not got a correct address on the DVLA systems?

[10 Pence Short]

Devil2575 said:

The Police should be able to detain people who have had a CCJ against them in order to assist a bailiff with the recovery of a debt.

I'm not advocating the Police stop people who owe anyone or everyone money, but where a judgment has been made in a court I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Thanks for the answer. Let's say you owed Argos some money and disputed the debt. Would you be happy to be detained by the Police whilst the bailiffs with a warrant did their thing?

Further, are you suggesting that owing money should be criminalised, or is it that you think the Police should have a wider remit to deal with all civil debts owed that are supported by a warrant?

No right or wrong answers, just interested in your opinion.

[Rovinghawk]

Devil2575 said:

The Police should be able to detain people who have had a CCJ against them in order to assist a bailiff with the recovery of a debt.

Please state what criminal offence is allegedly involved in all of this.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

Thanks for the answer. Let's say you owed Argos some money and disputed the debt. Would you be happy to be detained by the Police whilst the bailiffs with a warrant did their thing?

Further, are you suggesting that owing money should be criminalised, or is it that you think the Police should have a wider remit to deal with all civil debts owed that are supported by a warrant?

No right or wrong answers, just interested in your opinion.

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting question.
In my opinion it's broadly no.
I don't want the police involved in 'regular' debt recovery.

But, if the debt is against a car.
And the dvla records have the car at the wrong address and the debtor can not be found, and there's a warrant for that debt, I see no reason for the police not to assist.

I do think owing money should be criminalised some times.
If the debtor has ignored all balifs and court orders then I think it should eventually become a criminal offence.
Perhaps just something like contempt of court.

Edited by Snowboy on Monday 14th April 11:37

[Variomatic]

Snowboy said:

A different question could be;

Should the police be allowed to stop a car so a court appointed balif can have a chat to the driver about a warrant that they have been unable to serve as the driver has not got a correct address on the DVLA systems?

The answer to that depends very much on what other action the police take / don't take.

If they "offer an introduction" but ensure that the motorist isn't prevented from leaving if he wishes to decline then that's fair enough. They should already have confirmed correct address etc as part of their own stop and I'd have no qualms about them passing that information (and that information only) to the bailiff for confirmation if the driver insisted on leaving, because it should already be available on records that the bailiff has access to.

If, on the other hand, they actively assist in the detention of the driver for the bailiff's purposes (by, for example, blocking the car themselves) or passively allow the bailiff (in the absence of a warrant for arrest - which bailiffs can obtain in some cases) to detain the driver then they're overstepping the mark.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

I know the question was directed at me,

Thanks for the answer, however the question wasn't aimed at you.

[Devil2575]

10 Pence Short said:

Devil2575 said:

The Police should be able to detain people who have had a CCJ against them in order to assist a bailiff with the recovery of a debt.

I'm not advocating the Police stop people who owe anyone or everyone money, but where a judgment has been made in a court I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Thanks for the answer. Let's say you owed Argos some money and disputed the debt. Would you be happy to be detained by the Police whilst the bailiffs with a warrant did their thing?

Further, are you suggesting that owing money should be criminalised, or is it that you think the Police should have a wider remit to deal with all civil debts owed that are supported by a warrant?

No right or wrong answers, just interested in your opinion.

Owing money as a result of a county court judgement and then simply not paying should be criminalised.
Going to ground in order to avoid paying should be criminalised.

I wouldn't need to be detained because if I had a CCJ against me i'd either pay it or dispute it through the appropriate channels. What I wouldn't do try to hide to avoid paying or simply stick two fingers up to the system and not pay.

I think that either the Police's remit should be widened to assist in enforcing civil debts supported by a warrant or court appointed bailiffs should have more power.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

Snowboy said:

I know the question was directed at me,

Thanks for the answer, however the question wasn't aimed at you.

That was supposed to say "wasn't".
Sorry.

[Devil2575]

Rovinghawk said:

Devil2575 said:

The Police should be able to detain people who have had a CCJ against them in order to assist a bailiff with the recovery of a debt.

Please state what criminal offence is allegedly involved in all of this.

You need to actually read all of my posts before responding because you clearly don't understand where i'm coming from.

[10 Pence Short]

What if you genuinely didn't know about the CCJ? Would you be happy being arrested and detained by a bailiff over an outstanding CCJ you had no knowledge of? Or perhaps you thought you'd resolved a dispute and a supplier, let's say BT, erroneously obtained a warrant?

What level of training would a bailiff need to become suitably safe and proficient at arresting and detaining people? Presumably he would have to comply with PACE and other relevant legislation. Who would bear this cost?

Would you be happy being arrested and detained on the instruction of a private company?

[Devil2575]

Snowboy said:

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting question.
In my opinion it's broadly no.
I don't want the police involved in 'regular' debt recovery.

But, if the debt is against a car.
And the dvla records have the car at the wrong address and the debtor can not be found, and there's a warrant for that debt, I see no reason for the police not to assist.

I do think owing money should be criminalised some times.
If the debtor has ignored all balifs and court orders then I think it should eventually become a criminal offence.
Perhaps just something like contempt of court.

Edited by Snowboy on Monday 14th April 11:37

I broadly agree with this.

Where debtors have ignore court orders and bailiffs it should become a criminal offence.

[Variomatic]

Devil2575 said:

Owing money as a result of a county court judgement and then simply not paying should be criminalised.

It used to be. But overall it was a very bad idea, and very open to abuse, so they changed it in the Debtors Act 1869. Going back would be regressive in the extreme.

[Zod]

Devil2575 said:

Snowboy said:

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but it's an interesting question.
In my opinion it's broadly no.
I don't want the police involved in 'regular' debt recovery.

But, if the debt is against a car.
And the dvla records have the car at the wrong address and the debtor can not be found, and there's a warrant for that debt, I see no reason for the police not to assist.

I do think owing money should be criminalised some times.
If the debtor has ignored all balifs and court orders then I think it should eventually become a criminal offence.
Perhaps just something like contempt of court.

Edited by Snowboy on Monday 14th April 11:37

I broadly agree with this.

Where debtors have ignore court orders and bailiffs it should become a criminal offence.

Bring back the debtor's prison!

[Devil2575]

10 Pence Short said:

What if you genuinely didn't know about the CCJ? Would you be happy being arrested and detained by a bailiff over an outstanding CCJ you had no knowledge of? Or perhaps you thought you'd resolved a dispute and a supplier, let's say BT, erroneously obtained a warrant?

What level of training would a bailiff need to become suitably safe and proficient at arresting and detaining people? Presumably he would have to comply with PACE and other relevant legislation. Who would bear this cost?

Would you be happy being arrested and detained on the instruction of a private company?

How would I not know I had a CCJ? My address is know to all the companies I deal with and all the relevant government agencies. There is no reason for not to be fully informed of any procedings.

If I had a CCJ that I wasn't aware of i'd be happy to be detained long enough to provide all the relevant details so that it could be addressed.

I'd be happy to be detained on the instruction of a court.

I've never suggested that people should randomly be detained merely at the behest of provide companies.

[10 Pence Short]

Devil2575 said:

How would I not know I had a CCJ? My address is know to all the companies I deal with and all the relevant government agencies. There is no reason for not to be fully informed of any procedings.

If I had a CCJ that I wasn't aware of i'd be happy to be detained long enough to provide all the relevant details so that it could be addressed.

I'd be happy to be detained on the instruction of a court.

I've never suggested that people should randomly be detained merely at the behest of provide companies.

Not all post arrives in time, if at all. Not all companies are competent. Neither are all courts, who ultimately rely on information from third parties to make decisions. Not all CCJs are the result of legal activity (ID fraud, for example).

In your scenario you could find yourself detained against your will by a bailiff for any number of erroneous reasons, at the behest of a private company chasing a debt.

I don't fancy the state having such powers of interference over my private affairs, thank you.

[Snowboy]

Zod said:

Bring back the debtor's prison!

I wouldn't want that.

But, just a mechanism where a meeting between debtor and the balif/court can be enforced.
Perhaps a final demand for attendance at court and missing that hearing would be an offence.

Don't make the debt illegal as such.
But make avoiding it illegal.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

Don't make the debt illegal as such.
But make avoiding it illegal.

What if you have insufficient assets or income to pay an amount that is satisfactory to the creditor? Would you be happy going to prison for this 'offence'?