Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[CoolHands]

so clearly if you see a copper indicating for you to pull over with a bailiff on hand, you should drive straight past, its certainly what I would now do.

[Snowboy]

CoolHands said:

so clearly if you see a copper indicating for you to pull over with a bailiff on hand, you should drive straight past, its certainly what I would now do.

Why?
Do you have reason to think you have outstanding CCJ's against you?

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

Why?
Do you have reason to think you have outstanding CCJ's against you?

It's an irrelevant consideration, in any case. It is an offence if you fail to stop when requested by an officer in uniform, unless the stop is in some way unlawful. There is no way you can establish the lawfulness until you've complied.

This is part of the problem when Police officers abuse their powers to effect stops on behalf of bailiffs.

[FiF]

dacouch said:

On tonight's Parking Mad they show the bailiffs parking their ANPR van before the police road block and the van radio through for a car to be pulled which a police officer pulls over and then passes straight to the bailiffs...

Yep that was completely blatant how it was setup and operating in practice.

Completely contrary to the bks spouted by the apologists for the Met.

Be interesting to see the Met response to the FOI request. Albeit it will take 20 years for them to comply with this one.

Driving instructor was an idiot though. It's a grey area but judging by his attitude to his pupil seemed a good job to take him out of the instructor pool frankly.

[Snowboy]

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the police are pulling cars over on the request of the bailiffs.

There was a question about whether they were also pulling over other cars too. Whether it's a mix of bailiff and regular stops, or if it's only bailiff stops.
I'd like to think the former, but I have no proof either way.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the police are pulling cars over on the request of the bailiffs.

There was a question about whether they were also pulling over other cars too. Whether it's a mix of bailiff and regular stops, or if it's only bailiff stops.
I'd like to think the former, but I have no proof either way.

It doesn't matter, because each and every stop is either lawful or not on its own merits. It matters not if the stops before and after yours were legal.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

It doesn't matter, because each and every stop is either lawful or not on its own merits. It matters not if the stops before and after yours were legal.

It doesn't matter for one aspect of the discussion.
It's quite relevant for another aspect of the discussion.

The thought that an entire police operation has been set up to catch ccj's does seem a bit of a odd situation.
But a standard police operation that is looking for police anpr tags, that also grabs CCJ's seems like a good use of resources.


(I've used the term CCJ as shorthand, you know what I mean)

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

But a standard police operation that is looking for police anpr tags, that also grabs CCJ's seems like a good use of resources.


(I've used the term CCJ as shorthand, you know what I mean)

If the operation was Police led and partly involved targeting of outstanding criminal court fines (s125 Mags Act) through multi agency cooperation, I would agree with you.

If it's the Local Authorities or TFL using the Police's power to stop, in order to give their bailiffs power parliament has decided they should not have, I do not agree.

[Snowboy]

Is it the principle you disagree with, or is it the legal aspect?
Laws can be changed or clarified.

If there was a specific bit if legislation written that made it very clear that this was legal; would you still object?

[FiF]

Snowboy said:

I don't think anyone is questioning whether the police are pulling cars over on the request of the bailiffs.

There was a question about whether they were also pulling over other cars too. Whether it's a mix of bailiff and regular stops, or if it's only bailiff stops.
I'd like to think the former, but I have no proof either way.

Sorry but for much of this thread that has been the very contention by such as yourself and vonhosen. That these were police stops for police purposes and what happened afterwards was because CEOs were also present and only involved once all police matters were dealt with.

Moving on.

Anyway aren't the police allowed to act as agents of DVLA in respect of tax and registration issues. Wonder if they had anything to say about the instructor's situation.

He wasn't living at the address to which the car was registered. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that you only had to have your vehicle registered at an address which you can be contacted. True for most people that IS their home address. Or am I just being picky about the words blondie used to argue that no other option than seizure or immediate payment was possible.

On another note amused to see that the order they had for the Juke had actually been paid which opens up more questions. Pity the numpty had two others unpaid. Win some lose some suppose.

[Snowboy]

FiF said:

Sorry but for much of this thread that has been the very contention by such as yourself and vonhosen. That these were police stops for police purposes and what happened afterwards was because CEOs were also present and only involved once all police matters were dealt with.

Moving on.

Anyway aren't the police allowed to act as agents of DVLA in respect of tax and registration issues. Wonder if they had anything to say about the instructor's situation.

He wasn't living at the address to which the car was registered. Someone please correct me if I am wrong but I thought that you only had to have your vehicle registered at an address which you can be contacted. True for most people that IS their home address. Or am I just being picky about the words blondie used to argue that no other option than seizure or immediate payment was possible.

On another note amused to see that the order they had for the Juke had actually been paid which opens up more questions. Pity the numpty had two others unpaid. Win some lose some suppose.

I think there were misunderstandings earlier about what people are saying about the operations and which cars are being pulled over.
There probably still are to some degree.

I think the address question gets tricky in the case of debt and cars.
Iirc, the registered keeper is responsible for the parking ticket.
But the CCJ should be on the residential address of the defaulter.
If these two addresses are different it can cause problems.

I think that this was abused by people to dodge paying their fines so the process has been altered a bit in terms of being able to impound the car.
So in some way the debt remains with the car - regardless of who is driving it. (Assuming the owner/keeper hasn't changed since the ticket was issued.)

Or something like that.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

Is it the principle you disagree with, or is it the legal aspect?
Laws can be changed or clarified.

If there was a specific bit if legislation written that made it very clear that this was legal; would you still object?

Yes, on the basis that civil debts are civil matters. In practical terms I don't want the Police wasting their time chasing debts that are not part of the criminal system. In moral terms I don't want the Police to interfere in my life over civil matters and on an ethical level I don't want the Police to put effort into tasks at the behest of organisations who give them money.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

Snowboy said:

Is it the principle you disagree with, or is it the legal aspect?
Laws can be changed or clarified.

If there was a specific bit if legislation written that made it very clear that this was legal; would you still object?

Yes, on the basis that civil debts are civil matters. In practical terms I don't want the Police wasting their time chasing debts that are not part of the criminal system. In moral terms I don't want the Police to interfere in my life over civil matters and on an ethical level I don't want the Police to put effort into tasks at the behest of organisations who give them money.

Fair enough.
How would you feel about the idea of Bailiffs having authority to stop cars with CCJ's attached to them?
OK.. I can guess, no need to answer.

How do you feel about the laws that allow bailiffs to impound parked cars that flag up a ccj?

[anonymous-user]

Snowboy said:

Is it the principle you disagree with, or is it the legal aspect?
Laws can be changed or clarified.

If there was a specific bit if legislation written that made it very clear that this was legal; would you still object?

You've hit upon the biggest problem in your position.

A clear piece of legislation that either granted the Police a power to assist enforcement of civil money judgments, or imposed a duty upon them to do so, would have to define which civil judgments it applied to.

That's to say: TFL/local authorities, and only them? Them plus finance houses? Those groups plus businesses and private individuals?

Anything solution other than "all civil judgments" is discriminatory. Why should (say) a local authority be in a better position than a business when it comes to extracting money from Bloggs? They both have just as much right to be paid as the other.

But then you've just turned every police force the country into bailiffs/civil enforcement officers. Which is not the job of the police, and is a huge drain on their resources.

I don't see that it's an answer to make evasion of a civil money judgment a crime. You'd need a very clear definition of evasion; you create additional work for the police in investigating whether, in fact, there has been evasion (the say-so of the creditor is not going to be enough), and then you oblige the police to use *all* their police powers to hunt for the suspect - not just ANPR checks. Once again, you've turned the police into bailiffs/CEOs but armed them with the full repertoire of police powers.

Parliament has never indicated that police should be bailiffs/CEOs, and has already determined that bailiffs/CEOs should not have police powers, or anything like police powers, so as an idea this is a dead duck.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

How do you feel about the laws that allow bailiffs to impound parked cars that flag up a ccj?

I don't think impounding cars or stopping motorists on the road for civil matters, based purely upon an ANPR hit, is a good idea, full stop. There is no guarantee the person you are looking for is the person in the vehicle. There is no guarantee a person will be carrying sufficient documentation with them at all times to satisfy the bailiffs they're not liable or not who the baliff would like them to be.

I also object to bailiffs bothering me away from my home or business (assuming I am responsible for it). To stop me going about my ordinary business or to hassle me in the street is oppressive and uncivilised.

By all means turn up at my home and make demands (if they are due). Don't go lifting my car from Sainsburys car park or the side of the A40 when I don't have opportunity to properly discuss matters with you.

[Snowboy]

Greg66 said:

You've hit upon the biggest problem in your position.

A clear piece of legislation that either granted the Police a power to assist enforcement of civil money judgments, or imposed a duty upon them to do so, would have to define which civil judgments it applied to.

That's to say: TFL/local authorities, and only them? Them plus finance houses? Those groups plus businesses and private individuals?

Anything solution other than "all civil judgments" is discriminatory. Why should (say) a local authority be in a better position than a business when it comes to extracting money from Bloggs? They both have just as much right to be paid as the other.

But then you've just turned every police force the country into bailiffs/civil enforcement officers. Which is not the job of the police, and is a huge drain on their resources.

I don't see that it's an answer to make evasion of a civil money judgment a crime. You'd need a very clear definition of evasion; you create additional work for the police in investigating whether, in fact, there has been evasion (the say-so of the creditor is not going to be enough), and then you oblige the police to use *all* their police powers to hunt for the suspect - not just ANPR checks. Once again, you've turned the police into bailiffs/CEOs but armed them with the full repertoire of police powers.

Parliament has never indicated that police should be bailiffs/CEOs, and has already determined that bailiffs/CEOs should not have police powers, or anything like police powers, so as an idea this is a dead duck.

All good points.
As far as I'm aware, the police are currently only requested to assist in matters where a car is the reason for the debt.
And the debt and car are linked.

I was trying to find out the bailiffs work the other way and impound cars registered at addresses to pay other debts.
I can't find any proof either way.
I hope this is not the case.

So, as far as I'm aware we're only talking about CCJ's assigned to cars.
And there aren't than many bodies that can assign debt to cars, which become CCJ's.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

Snowboy said:

How do you feel about the laws that allow bailiffs to impound parked cars that flag up a ccj?

I don't think impounding cars or stopping motorists on the road for civil matters, based purely upon an ANPR hit, is a good idea, full stop. There is no guarantee the person you are looking for is the person in the vehicle. There is no guarantee a person will be carrying sufficient documentation with them at all times to satisfy the bailiffs they're not liable or not who the baliff would like them to be.

I also object to bailiffs bothering me away from my home or business (assuming I am responsible for it). To stop me going about my ordinary business or to hassle me in the street is oppressive and uncivilised.

By all means turn up at my home and make demands (if they are due). Don't go lifting my car from Sainsburys car park or the side of the A40 when I don't have opportunity to properly discuss matters with you.

Under your process, how would the courts get the money back from the OP who hadn't updated their DVLA records?
They would have no way of knowning his address.

That's pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

Under your process, how would the courts get the money back from the OP who hadn't updated their DVLA records?
They would have no way of knowning his address.

That's pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell.

They have the person's name (and I presume DoB etc if through the DVLA licensing). They have the electoral registers and every other search facility that any other creditor has.

If you owe any other agency or business money, they don't necessarily have any other info than your name and address to start with.

Remember, a parking ticket may require a vehicle to get it, but the debt is not secured on that vehicle. It is the Registered Keeper who is responsible for the debt. The RK can sell the vehicle whenever they like to whoever they like, as the outstanding fine is nothing to do with the vehicle.

I see no reason why a Local Authority or TfL should get special use of precious resources in a way that no other private organisations can.

[Snowboy]

10 Pence Short said:

They have the person's name (and I presume DoB etc if through the DVLA licensing). They have the electoral registers and every other search facility that any other creditor has.

If you owe any other agency or business money, they don't necessarily have any other info than your name and address to start with.

Remember, a parking ticket may require a vehicle to get it, but the debt is not secured on that vehicle. It is the Registered Keeper who is responsible for the debt. The RK can sell the vehicle whenever they like to whoever they like, as the outstanding fine is nothing to do with the vehicle.

I see no reason why a Local Authority or TfL should get special use of precious resources in a way that no other private organisations can.

I do see your point.
But, there's an opposing point that asks why waste all that time and effort tracking old addresses and hassling new house residents when the car can be tracked instead.

I think we're in a time of change.
Iirc It used to be that all car related stuff was dealt with by the police or a branch if the police.
Now it's been privatised, but the private companies lack the authority to deal with it.

Those that are responsible for collecting the (traffic) debt need to have the power to do so.

At the moment they are trying a collaboration between police and bailiffs - if that doesn't work out they'll try something else.

[Variomatic]

Snowboy said:

Under your process, how would the courts get the money back from the OP who hadn't updated their DVLA records?
They would have no way of knowning his address.

That's pretty much the entire problem in a nutshell.

Already covered that, but seems to have been missed.

When the bailiffs discover that DLA records are wrong, they're perfectly entitled to pass that informatio to the police.

Failing to update the records is a criminal offence, so the police are then perfectly entitled to stop the vehicle using ANPR to rectify the matter.

Once the vehicle's been stopped and the records corrected, the bailiffs will know where to find it because the records will be correct, and they'll be able to recover the debt against appropriate valued goods.


eta: Although, there's no evidence at all the the bailiffs are only requesting stops for mis-registered cars anyway - that's pure supposition on this thread with nothing at all to back it up.