Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[Big Al.]

9mm said:

I couldn't agree more. If he could just stop posting assertions he can't or won't back up, life would be a lot easier.

We are currently looking into this please bear with us.

[FiF]

testosterone said:

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 ?

I have no fricking clue how they get to that amount from the initial charge. Talking your OP at face value, there can be NO charges from the walking or close possession charges, because they simply hadn't done either. One could argue that they had close possession for part of a day while they were talking to you. So that's £5.60.

One supposes they could argue that the rest of the £180 is for abortive visits to the registered keeper's address, i.e.your old address.

Suggest this is submitted to Booker prize for fiction.

[10 Pence Short]

Maybe it's the Met's commission for hire of s163 RTA?

[Snowboy]

Didn't they change the charging structure just recently?
Perhaps it's an old form with outdated prices on the back?

[Rovinghawk]

Snowboy said:

Didn't they change the charging structure just recently?
Perhaps it's an old form with outdated prices on the back?

Do you think it acceptable to use incorrect paperwork for what they're doing?

[FiF]

Rovinghawk said:

Snowboy said:

Didn't they change the charging structure just recently?
Perhaps it's an old form with outdated prices on the back?

Do you think it acceptable to use incorrect paperwork for what they're doing?

The charging structure was changed marginally. It was a bone of contention with bailiffs.

Suspect this is all wound up in some weasel words in the rules such as, charges will be reasonable or some such open ended.

The other thing is that this was a firm twice removed from TFL. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that TfL havehad their charges. The first outfit have then added their charges and the next firm theirs on and so on.

Big fleas little fleas and so ad infinitum.

They know that people in this position aren't going to be best placed or organised to argue the toss post collection if they think they've been dealt with unfairly.

As before always the bloody Met.

[10 Pence Short]

FiF said:

They know that people in this position aren't going to be best placed or organised to argue the toss post collection if they think they've been dealt with unfairly.

As before always the bloody Met.

I would imagine people are less likely to argue if they've been ambushed by the roadside in the presence of Police Officers who, having ordered the stop, might be presumed by the motorist to be 'in on the act'.

Far be it for me to suggest this is part of the thinking on behalf of the creditor when designing such operations.

[Rovinghawk]

FiF said:

The other thing is that this was a firm twice removed from TFL.

Someone (CBA to check who) disputed that it was a private firm, claiming that the bailiffs belonged to TfL.

I'll say again- police using statutory powers to assist private firms with debt recovery is wrong, doubly so when the creditor provides funding to the police.

[Snowboy]

It's a problem if two sides though.

On one hand, if the individual paid the money owed there would be no further costs.

On the other hand, if they ignore the letters, can't be traced etc then there will be costs involved in pursuing them, and someone needs to pay those costs.

I don't particularly like the current process where debt is sold and resold to ever dodgier balif firms with ever increasing fees.
I'd prefer a situation with a fixed fee for tracing the debtor and if the debtor can't be traced within x weeks an arrest warrant is issued.
It keeps fees down, it'll encourage people to pay, it'll stop innocent people getting repeated balif visits because someone else used to live in their house.

Determining the debt is a civil question.
Avoiding paying a debt should be considered criminal.

Edited by Snowboy on Tuesday 15th April 09:46

[FiF]

It's normal if someone says they don't know about a debt or it's a previous company under new ownership for the alleged debtor to be asked to prove this.

This includes the transfer of ownership of property, eg vehicles, which are under threat of seizure.

I don't know about anyone else whilst I have a vague idea of when I bought a vehicle year/month I certainly don't carry around paperwork to prove it.

So how would you prove it at the roadside as the bailiff wouldn't just take your word for it. If they have the ability to check ownership details online then why would they be attempting to recover a vehicle. If it needs the police intervention for data then that's more than just facilitating a meeting.

There's hearsay evidence that they do try and recover debts where ownership has changed.

This is one of those scenarios that I liken to walking along a cliff. Three paths of varying straightness and distance from the edge. The Met have chosen not to take the nice safe straight one a quarter mile inland. They're also avoiding the one most of us would choose which is quite near the edge follows the contours generally but there is a decent margin of a few yards in favour of the one right on the edge that threatens to give way under your feet and dump you on your arse in the water.

Obviously the details will depend if they are stepping over the line. Find it very difficult to believe they are not but if so then fair enough.

[Snowboy]

I would hope that if you were the new owner and it wasn't you that had the ticket/debt then the balif wouldn't take the car.
In fact, in such a situation it might be handy to have a cop nearby to help out.

Even if the dvla havent been updated a couple of calls to insurance companies should sort things out.

[Rovinghawk]

FiF said:

It's normal if someone says they don't know about a debt or it's a previous company under new ownership for the alleged debtor to be asked to prove this.

How can someone prove they don't know about a debt?

[FiF]

Snowboy said:

I would hope that if you were the new owner and it wasn't you that had the ticket/debt then the balif wouldn't take the car.
In fact, in such a situation it might be handy to have a cop nearby to help out.

Even if the dvla havent been updated a couple of calls to insurance companies should sort things out.

From here

bailiffadviceonline said:

Given that the bailiff is seeking to locate the vehicle and not the debtor it is very common indeed for a bailiff to seize a vehicle that belongs to a new owner. This is very common with PCN’s issued by any of the 33 London boroughs as residents appear to change their cars on a more frequent basis than anywhere else in the UK. We receive enquiries about this every day. Very often the new owner is forced to pay sums of up to £1,000 to the bailiff for the release of their own car!!

??

[FiF]

Rovinghawk said:

FiF said:

It's normal if someone says they don't know about a debt or it's a previous company under new ownership for the alleged debtor to be asked to prove this.

How can someone prove they don't know about a debt?

In the case of a genuinely new address as opposed to an attempt at evasion they can't easily.

Points at numerous discussions about DVLA claiming they haven't received notices when they clearly have et al.

[Snowboy]

FiF said:

Snowboy said:

I would hope that if you were the new owner and it wasn't you that had the ticket/debt then the balif wouldn't take the car.
In fact, in such a situation it might be handy to have a cop nearby to help out.

Even if the dvla havent been updated a couple of calls to insurance companies should sort things out.

From here

bailiffadviceonline said:

Given that the bailiff is seeking to locate the vehicle and not the debtor it is very common indeed for a bailiff to seize a vehicle that belongs to a new owner. This is very common with PCN’s issued by any of the 33 London boroughs as residents appear to change their cars on a more frequent basis than anywhere else in the UK. We receive enquiries about this every day. Very often the new owner is forced to pay sums of up to £1,000 to the bailiff for the release of their own car!!

??

This came up earlier in the thread.
It is quite common for gangs and families to use shared cars.
These cars are frequently 'sold' to other members to keep the balifs from claiming them or to prevent speeding/parking tickets finding the real driver.
It also let's them much about with insurance too.
It's an old trick.

The law change means that these cars can be seized.

I think it's very unlikely a genuine new owner who's bought a car in good faith would fall foul of this when stopped at one of these checkpoints with a cop nearby.

I can imagine this is mostly a problem with cars taken from houses of new owners by the deeper end of the balif profession.

Edited by Snowboy on Tuesday 15th April 10:47

[anonymous-user]

Snowboy said:

I think it's very unlikely a genuine new owner who's bought a car in good faith would fall foul of this when stopped at one of these checkpoints with a cop nearby.

Tell us: have you ever had any dealings with a bailiff?

[Snowboy]

Greg66 said:

Snowboy said:

I think it's very unlikely a genuine new owner who's bought a car in good faith would fall foul of this when stopped at one of these checkpoints with a cop nearby.

Tell us: have you ever had any dealings with a bailiff?

I have had balif companies chasing debt from a previous occupant of my house.
I have also had an arrest warrant for not paying a TV licence in a house I had moved out if.

The short chat with the cops was a lot nicer than the months of hassle from the balifs.

[FiF]

Snowboy said:

This came up earlier in the thread.
It is quite common for gangs and families to use shared cars.
These cars are frequently 'sold' to other members to keep the balifs from claiming them or to prevent speeding/parking tickets finding the real driver.
It also let's them much about with insurance too.
It's an old trick.

The law change means that these cars can be seized.

I think it's very unlikely a genuine new owner who's bought a car in good faith would fall foul of this when stopped at one of these checkpoints with a cop nearby.

I can imagine this is mostly a problem with cars taken from houses of new owners by the deeper end of the balif profession.

Edited by Snowboy on Tuesday 15th April 10:47

I think you need to provide links and explanation of the legislation as to how that would allow the seizure of vehicles from scrotes whilst dealing in a proper and decent manner with a genuine new(ish) owner.

All assuming that the vehicle is otherwise legal in all respects, condition of vehicle and equipment, mot if required, tax and insurance which meets the THIS test.

??

[Snowboy]

FiF said:

I think you need to provide links and explanation of the legislation as to how that would allow the seizure of vehicles from scrotes whilst dealing in a proper and decent manner with a genuine new(ish) owner.

All assuming that the vehicle is otherwise legal in all respects, condition of vehicle and equipment, mot if required, tax and insurance which meets the THIS test.

??

I think everyone knows the law change.
If they don't they can Google it.

I am talking about the application of that law.

I like to think that if an innocent new owner explained the situation and asked for police assistance then the balif could be persuaded to not take the car even though they legally could.
Assuming the new owner is insured it would be easy enough to show inconsistencies with ownership.

With regards to the cars being repossessed from houses by balifs.
I agree this is horrible. But that's more to do with balifs than to do with police assisting balifs.

I think the whole debt recovery process is a mess.
It should be enforced by government agencies rather than balifs, as balifs are profit making companies.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

I think everyone knows the law change.
If they don't they can Google it.

I don't. I would like you to put up the link, please.