Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think most people object to balifs in general rather than the idea of police assisting a civil court.
If a civil court had decided a person was entitled to a hefty cash sum for some reason I doubt anyone would object to the police assisting in finding that person so they could be given the money.
bks. Both of those claims are completely untrue, and you know it. Plenty of posters in this thread have stated and explained to you their objections. If a civil court had decided a person was entitled to a hefty cash sum for some reason I doubt anyone would object to the police assisting in finding that person so they could be given the money.
You twice said "anyone". That's clear and unambiguous.
I'd say you view is the minority one in this thread. Why your think it would be the majority view in the real world is a mystery.
Of my two comments the first was most, the second was anyone.
I might be totally wrong in my second comment.
Would you object to the principle if the police were asked to assist in finding someone who had been left a substatial sum of money but couldn't be traced?
Snowboy said:
That's where it gets interesting.
There are no rules/laws explicitly allowing or forbidding police from assisting bailiffs in terms of stopping cars.
There do not need to be rules forbidding Police from stopping you. They have no power to stop you at all, unless statute or circumstance at common law (irrelevant here) provides it. Any other stop for any other reason is unlawful.There are no rules/laws explicitly allowing or forbidding police from assisting bailiffs in terms of stopping cars.
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think most people object to balifs in general rather than the idea of police assisting a civil court.
If a civil court had decided a person was entitled to a hefty cash sum for some reason I doubt anyone would object to the police assisting in finding that person so they could be given the money.
bks. Both of those claims are completely untrue, and you know it. Plenty of posters in this thread have stated and explained to you their objections. If a civil court had decided a person was entitled to a hefty cash sum for some reason I doubt anyone would object to the police assisting in finding that person so they could be given the money.
You twice said "anyone". That's clear and unambiguous.
I'd say you view is the minority one in this thread. Why your think it would be the majority view in the real world is a mystery.
Of my two comments the first was most, the second was anyone.
I might be totally wrong in my second comment.
Would you object to the principle if the police were asked to assist in finding someone who had been left a substatial sum of money but couldn't be traced?
jbsportstech said:
-snip-
Would be nice if rather than let that rather unpleasant arrogant woman hold the mans van for that long if they stepped in and said you cannot sieze the van as it's not reg to person on the ticket plus it's a work van so a tool of trade trade so on titis occasion I feel he cannot be detained any longer as we have no grounds to hold him and nor do you.
-snip-
I was disappointed to hear that the police hadn't stepped in.Would be nice if rather than let that rather unpleasant arrogant woman hold the mans van for that long if they stepped in and said you cannot sieze the van as it's not reg to person on the ticket plus it's a work van so a tool of trade trade so on titis occasion I feel he cannot be detained any longer as we have no grounds to hold him and nor do you.
-snip-
It would have hoped that police assisted stops would be much better at following the law than bailiffs acting alone.
The main reason I'm hesitant to condemn it completely is because TV shows tend not to show the whole truth of a situation.
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
Snowboy said:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I think most people object to balifs in general rather than the idea of police assisting a civil court.
If a civil court had decided a person was entitled to a hefty cash sum for some reason I doubt anyone would object to the police assisting in finding that person so they could be given the money.
bks. Both of those claims are completely untrue, and you know it. Plenty of posters in this thread have stated and explained to you their objections. If a civil court had decided a person was entitled to a hefty cash sum for some reason I doubt anyone would object to the police assisting in finding that person so they could be given the money.
You twice said "anyone". That's clear and unambiguous.
I'd say you view is the minority one in this thread. Why your think it would be the majority view in the real world is a mystery.
Of my two comments the first was most, the second was anyone.
I might be totally wrong in my second comment.
Would you object to the principle if the police were asked to assist in finding someone who had been left a substatial sum of money but couldn't be traced?
I stand corrected and take back that comment.
It's not true. I was wrong
Greg66 said:
Again, bks.
You twice said "anyone". That's clear and unambiguous.
I'd say you view is the minority one in this thread. Why your think it would be the majority view in the real world is a mystery.
In this context it's purely enforcement of council parking fines collecting 400-500 quid from people who didn't pay the £60. As I have pointed out how do they claim their ridiculous visit fees are within the total if they haven't bother to visit you they have just grab you of the local street!You twice said "anyone". That's clear and unambiguous.
I'd say you view is the minority one in this thread. Why your think it would be the majority view in the real world is a mystery.
So the council get £90-100 the courts get another £60 so the baliffs get the balance of at least £240 for grabbing you as you drive past a bus stop and you think this is a good way for the met to spend their time extorting money from people.
These fine are based on threats if everyone appealed the system would crash, people
Any the £60 cause they are scared it will be £400 if they don't! It's a system based on extortion of large amounts of money totally disproportionate to the original contravention.
10 Pence Short said:
Snowboy said:
That's where it gets interesting.
There are no rules/laws explicitly allowing or forbidding police from assisting bailiffs in terms of stopping cars.
There do not need to be rules forbidding Police from stopping you. They have no power to stop you at all, unless statute or circumstance at common law (irrelevant here) provides it. Any other stop for any other reason is unlawful.There are no rules/laws explicitly allowing or forbidding police from assisting bailiffs in terms of stopping cars.
I'm happy to agree to disagree about our interpretation of those laws.
But, I do have another relatively abstract question.
Is there a difference between being pulled over vs being asked to stop.
(Or any other descriptive term.)
I could stand near a road and beckon people to pull over.
Could a balif in a high vis flag down cars and ask them to pull over.
The car would have no obligation to stop.
But, AFAIK, I would not be breaking any law by asking them to stop.
jbsportstech said:
In this context it's purely enforcement of council parking fines collecting 400-500 quid from people who didn't pay the £60. As I have pointed out how do they claim their ridiculous visit fees are within the total if they haven't bother to visit you they have just grab you of the local street!
So the council get £90-100 the courts get another £60 so the baliffs get the balance of at least £240 for grabbing you as you drive past a bus stop and you think this is a good way for the met to spend their time extorting money from people.
These fine are based on threats if everyone appealed the system would crash, people
Any the £60 cause they are scared it will be £400 if they don't! It's a system based on extortion of large amounts of money totally disproportionate to the original contravention.
100% in agreement with you here.So the council get £90-100 the courts get another £60 so the baliffs get the balance of at least £240 for grabbing you as you drive past a bus stop and you think this is a good way for the met to spend their time extorting money from people.
These fine are based on threats if everyone appealed the system would crash, people
Any the £60 cause they are scared it will be £400 if they don't! It's a system based on extortion of large amounts of money totally disproportionate to the original contravention.
The fines and fees applied by debt collection agencies are shocking.
I'm not sure if it's fair to blame the met though.
AFAIK they aren't responsible for determining the debt.
Snowboy said:
I do have another relatively abstract question.
Is there a difference between being pulled over vs being asked to stop.
Comparing a Police officer asking you to stop with a bailiff doing the same is irrelevant. As you rightly point out, a bailiff has no power to require you to stop. Ignoring him would be fine. It is an offence not to stop for a uniformed Police officer when asked. There is nothing to distinguish between a Police officer asking or ordering you to pull over.Is there a difference between being pulled over vs being asked to stop.
10 Pence Short said:
Snowboy said:
That's where it gets interesting.
There are no rules/laws explicitly allowing or forbidding police from assisting bailiffs in terms of stopping cars.
There do not need to be rules forbidding Police from stopping you. They have no power to stop you at all, unless statute or circumstance at common law (irrelevant here) provides it. Any other stop for any other reason is unlawful.There are no rules/laws explicitly allowing or forbidding police from assisting bailiffs in terms of stopping cars.
Police can stop any car on a road at any time for any reason.
ED209 said:
Police can stop any car on a road at any time for any reason.
No, they cannot.You can use the powers provided for the purposes provided. 'Any reason' may be your understanding, but that would be incorrect. Otherwise, for example, you may decide that today you don't like black cars and choose to pull them over whenever you see them. That would be unlawful use of your powers.
10 Pence Short said:
ED209 said:
Police can stop any car on a road at any time for any reason.
No, they cannot.You can use the powers provided for the purposes provided. 'Any reason' may be your understanding, but that would be incorrect. Otherwise, for example, you may decide that today you don't like black cars and choose to pull them over whenever you see them. That would be unlawful use of your powers.
They are 7 points.
Snowboy said:
Mojooo said:
For the Bailiffs to justify having ANPR you would assume there must be a fairly largwe database of non paid fines.
I don't know how much an anpr machine costs but I can't imagine it's more than a few hundred £.It's just a camera and a computer.
Then it's just a case of loading the reg numbers with warrants against them and cruising round big car parks.
But, it must be worth the effort to be profitable.
for bailiff work you create and populate your own database of VRNs you want to speak to - you don't need the DVLA /PNC ones
that then leaves the costs of image recognition software - as the rest of the functionality (database etc) will be COTS stuff as
ED209 said:
Police can stop any car on a road at any time for any reason.
I was told that if I were seen in a certain part of the world I'd be pulled over & given the most thorough check the world has ever known.The reason was that I was sleeping with the policeman's wife.
A friend of mine who is a judge told me that this would be abuse of power & the constable in question could be nailed to the wall for it, so I suggest that you're wrong.
10 Pence Short said:
ED209 said:
Police can stop any car on a road at any time for any reason.
No, they cannot.You can use the powers provided for the purposes provided. 'Any reason' may be your understanding, but that would be incorrect. Otherwise, for example, you may decide that today you don't like black cars and choose to pull them over whenever you see them. That would be unlawful use of your powers.
Vehicles get stopped based on a hunch all the time and those stops often yield decent results.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff