Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[Devil2575]

Variomatic said:

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.

Perhaps the problem was with system being open to abuse rather than the idea?

Besides I never suggested a return to debtors prison.

If I have a CCJ due to a debt then I should pay it. If I dispute it I can do so through legal channels. If I cannot pay it through lack of funds this can be taken into account and a payment method be set up. If I simply try to abscond to avoid paying it then I should be criminalised. There is a gulf of difference between facing up to your problems and dealing with them or simply fking off and hoping to get away with it.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

Not all post arrives in time, if at all. Not all companies are competent. Neither are all courts. 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.

Detained.
An interesting word.

I wouldn't agree with spending 8 hours in the cells for an unknown ccj.
But getting pulled over and having a 5 minute chat seems fine.
If there are CCJ's caused by ID theft against me I'd thank the cops for letting me know.

Anyhow - we're only talking about getting police involved when all normal channels have been exhausted.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

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'?

No.
I'm not sure why you have bought up prison.

There are already mechanisms in place to deal with this situation.
I'm just talking about bringing the debtor and the balif/courts together.

[Devil2575]

10 Pence Short said:

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.

Incompetance is present in all aspects of life including the Police. I'd suggest that we could all find ourselves detained wrongfully as a result of incompetance already.

If the problem is incompetance by companies or courts then this should be addressed. Individual incompetance or error is a human failing, but CCJs should never result from a single individual anyway. Systemic incompetance is not acceptable and should be dealt with.

[Variomatic]

Devil2575 said:

If I have a CCJ due to a debt then I should pay it. If I dispute it I can do so through legal channels. If I cannot pay it through lack of funds this can be taken into account and a payment method be set up. If I simply try to abscond to avoid paying it then I should be criminalised. There is a gulf of difference between facing up to your problems and dealing with them or simply fking off and hoping to get away with it.

But there are perfectly effective ways to enforce payment without requiring detention or police assistance (except to prevent a breach of the peace).

The "wrong address with DVLA" bit is a red herring because that's very often not as a deliberate attempt to "hide" but an administrative fk up by either the driver or the DVLA. Wven when it occasionally is deliberate, address details can always be found in other ways. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable for the bailiffs to be notifying the police of incorrect details and to have the car stopped and the driver questioned for that because that is potentially a criminal matter.

Once a correct address is known, normal correct procedures can be used.

[Variomatic]

Snowboy said:

No.
I'm not sure why you have bought up prison.

As soon as you criminalise civil debt prison becomes a factor because it opens the way for criminal contempt, which is an imprisonable offence.

[anonymous-user]

10 Pence Short said:

If you take two different scenarios...

1. Police setup the stop. They determine, based upon Policing reasons, which cars they are going to stop. Bailiffs are present with their own ANPR and can talk to any pinged drivers once the Police have finished with them. To me that seems entirely legal, as the purpose of the stop is within what is lawful use of s.163.

Alternatively,

2. Bailiff set up their ANPR. When they get a ping they alert Police who then function the stop. The driver is stopped for no other reason than the bailiff's ping. This is abusing s.163, as the power is being used for a reason other than Police purpose, solely to enable bailiffs to stop motorists when ordinarily they have no such power.

I think this is a perfectly sensible and acceptable POV and I agree.

[anonymous-user]

Snowboy said:

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.

A judgment creditor can obtain an order that the debtor attend court and be examined about his assets. If the debtor can be served, then failure to attend is a contempt of court. The civil court can them issue a bench warrant that permits tipstaffs to arrest the debtor and bring him to court (tipstaffs prefer these jobs to be away from home on a Friday. They find the debtor around 5pm on Friday, too late for court, park him the police cells over the weekend and have a weekend away).

Trouble is, the judgment creditor has to pay for all this. And more often than not the evasive debtor is the skint debtor, so it is throwing good money after bad.

So a different way of looking at the question is to ask why you and I - through taxes that fund the Police - should have to subsidise an individual's debt collection efforts?

[FiF]

Variomatic said:

Devil2575 said:

If I have a CCJ due to a debt then I should pay it. If I dispute it I can do so through legal channels. If I cannot pay it through lack of funds this can be taken into account and a payment method be set up. If I simply try to abscond to avoid paying it then I should be criminalised. There is a gulf of difference between facing up to your problems and dealing with them or simply fking off and hoping to get away with it.

But there are perfectly effective ways to enforce payment without requiring detention or police assistance (except to prevent a breach of the peace).

The "wrong address with DVLA" bit is a red herring because that's very often not as a deliberate attempt to "hide" but an administrative fk up by either the driver or the DVLA. Wven when it occasionally is deliberate, address details can always be found in other ways. In fact, it would be perfectly reasonable for the bailiffs to be notifying the police of incorrect details and to have the car stopped and the driver questioned for that because that is potentially a criminal matter.

Once a correct address is known, normal correct procedures can be used.

Plus let's not forget that the majority of the claimed amount isn't the original debt but bailiff fees that have somehow accumulated. In the case of a changed address and / or administration screw up without the debtor having had any opportunity to pay or contest it.

Usually the majority by far of the claimed amount.

Bit like a £2500 compensation claim having 50k of legal fees.

Do I need to quote the big fleas have little fleas poem.

[Rovinghawk]

Snowboy said:

Detained.
An interesting word.

I wouldn't agree with spending 8 hours in the cells for an unknown ccj.
But getting pulled over and having a 5 minute chat seems fine.

Where is the dividing line at which point having your liberty removed is unacceptable? 10 minutes? 20? An hour?

Snowboy said:

If there are CCJ's caused by ID theft against me I'd thank the cops for letting me know.

You think they'll just take your word for that? They hear that excuse every single day.

Snowboy said:

Anyhow - we're only talking about getting police involved when all normal channels have been exhausted.

Are we? How do you know? How do the police know?

[Snowboy]

Variomatic said:

Snowboy said:

No.
I'm not sure why you have bought up prison.

As soon as you criminalise civil debt prison becomes a factor because it opens the way for criminal contempt, which is an imprisonable offence.

Fair enough.
I think you're stretching things somewhat, but on reflection I have no problem with someone ending up in jail if there evasion of the debt crosses certain lines.

There's already criminal offences for fraud and other finance related crimes. It wouldn't be a huge change in legislation to add in 'non payment of ccj' to that.

[testosterone]

I thought i would post the notice i was given by the baliff when i paid the charge. If you look below the address it says 'Rd Op NW8'. Presumably short for roadside operation NW8 which is where i was stopped.

Whilst i was waiting for the baliff to get his chip and pin machine two other vehicles were pulled over and were spoken to by the baliff. I also recall a car transporter on the other side of the road with two cars.

[Red 4]

£645 including costs for a parking infringement - at least Dick Turpin wore a mask.

I'd expect to see more operations like this - easy money.

I'm very glad I do not live in London.

[eldar]

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?

I do. You are happy to combine the role of contestable and bailiff. This isn't just TFL, it is civil debt in general.

The 'Its a civil matter, sir' comment will look a bit thin when the copper was recovering debt for Wonga 5 minutes before.

[testosterone]

The table of charges on the back of the notice does not match up with what i have been charged. I phoned the baliff only to be told that he is self employed working under contract for Jbw who in turn are working on behalf of Tfl and that he cannot explain the charges. Somehow i know i am going to be flogging a dead horse !

Ok so Tfl which is basically central government have got the £202 charge out of me so some of you like them think they have won the day. However they need to bear in mind that i am self employed and the business i am in involves a lot of cash transactions. Obviously when i complete my tax return this incident could well distract my attension. Somehow i think central government will lose more than £202 !

Secondly this instance has shown that as far as the police are concerned, the normal man in the street is now game which i find a bit below the belt. Again, in my business which involves trading foreign currency i come across a lot of people trying to launder money. From time to time i have passed on valuable infomation to the police which they would never have known about otherwise. Now i know where i stand i will be declining in anymore goodwill gestures.

I honestly believe that this is down to Mr.Bernard Hogan-Howe- the met commissioner and his policy of zero tolerance. Unfortunately like most long term serving police officers he has become institutionalised and lost track of the real world. The police are constanly moaning about lack of police resources and cutbacks but still have time to divert their time from real crime to civil matters it seems.

[testosterone]

Table of charges on the reverse side of the notice

[eldar]

Snowboy said:

Fair enough.
I think you're stretching things somewhat, but on reflection I have no problem with someone ending up in jail if there evasion of the debt crosses certain lines.

There's already criminal offences for fraud and other finance related crimes. It wouldn't be a huge change in legislation to add in 'non payment of ccj' to that.

Gaol people who don't pay CCJs? What happens if they can't - Debtors Prisons? Bring back the birch, perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshalsea

[Type R Tom]

Sorry if it's been asked before but what does Other - £175 mean?

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

Snowboy said:

If a person is deliberately trying to avoid paying money owed that's been agreed by a court as being owed then I think it's broadly within the polices powers to assist if asked.
The degree of assistance might be up for discussion, but I don't think facitating a meeting is over the line.

I can't really understand why someone has a problem with police doing this.

The function of the police (very broadly) is to prevent crime, detect crime & bring those suspected of committing crime before the courts.

No suspected crime = no grounds for police involvement.

Unpaid debt is not a crime, therefore unpaid debt is not grounds for police involvement. For them to use their powers to assist the collection of civil debt is beyond the legitimate scope of their powers & hence unlawful. It's that simple.

the functions of the police given by mr roving of the family Hawk oddly don't include the ones i'dthink he'd be most likely to accept under both the common law and The Common Law and require no contracts to have been entered...
i.e. - Preserve Life
- Keep the Queen's peace.

[testosterone]

Type R Tom said:

Sorry if it's been asked before but what does Other - £175 mean?

I am still waiting for an official reply but the baliff said it was for his charges on the day, i.e. for writing out a receipt and processing my debit card which took about 15 mins. Not a bad earner eh ?