Andrews V Bolton Borough Council

[Ocelot0411]

Hi guys

 

I am trying to get hold of the above case or at least details of it. Does anyone know where I can find these?

 

Thanks

[Tony P]

What sort of case was it?

A Court case or Parking Appeals case?

[Ocelot0411]

Court case at Bolton County Court. It was in relation to a bailiff encorcing a warrant when he did not have a vaild warrant in his possesion at the time of enforcement.

[Jamberson]

try posting on the bailiff section of this website.

[Ocelot0411]

Hi does anyone know where I can get hold of a copy of this case please?

[ploddertom]

What is it about.

[outlawla]

There might be a lead here:

[Ocelot0411]

Thanks Outlawla, I did actually see that earlier on today, but was hoping for a bit more detail. Don't suppose anyone has the Bailiff Buletin in question do they?

 

Ploddertom its about baiiliff's enforcing warrants without having it in their possession and also about the legally of electronic warrants.

[ploddertom]

I suspect this will be one of those cases that is classed as "unreported" as it comes from a lower Court. You could always try contacting Mr Kruse direct through CAB.

 

PT

[tomtubby]

The Bailiff Buletin is produced by John Kruse every 3 months and he charges a very reasonable fee for a yearly subscription.

 

The Bolton case is one that the bailiff industry keep referring to in order to try to say that a bailiff company can print a warrant etc. One of the posters on the forum by the name of Fair Parking knows this case VERY WELL.

[brassnecked]

The Bailiff Buletin is produced by John Kruse every 3 months and he charges a very reasonable fee for a yearly subscription.

 

The Bolton case is one that the bailiff industry keep referring to in order to try to say that a bailiff company can print a warrant etc. One of the posters on the forum by the name of Fair Parking knows this case VERY WELL.

 

 

The warrant is emailed as a PDf or whatever, and they can print it locally. I wonder if it HAS to, be printed on a laser printer, as, inkjet print is not indelible like a laser printed document, similar to insurance cover notes issued by a broker? If so and the ink on the warrant presented runs in the rain? According to the link, no need to print it unless debtor asks to see it.

[lamma]

Interesting. It is my understanding that that although the service of Council Warrants is rather shall we say 'cloudy' they are are treated 'as if' they were real Court Warrants and so the Rules of Court should apply. Notably the TEC dropped reference to "Rules of Court" in the 2011 version of its guide but such references are in the preceding version.

[Fair-Parking]

The judgment is seriously flawed. It was made by HHJ Holman who admitted he knew nothing about parking and was led by Christopher Royle Counsel for Bolton Council who also knew nothing about parking but maintained that he did. I attended and despite the fundamental principle that all evidence presented in court should be subject to challenge, Judge Holman allowed no challenge. It was like watching the blind leading the blind and seeing them inevitably fall off a cliff.

 

The central issue was that both Counsel and Judge deluded themselves into believing that CPR 75 (4) referred to warrants and thus the authority to issue them (that is print them) could be transferred electronically to bailiffs. Unfortunately because neither had any experience in parking enforcement neither knew of the existence of Orders For Recovery and therefore had absolutely no inkling that CPR 75 (4) referred only to Orders for Recovery following on as it does from CPR 75 (3) which mentions the word 'order' five times. There is no mention of warrants. CPR 75 (3) outlines the procedure for issuing Orders For Recovery whilst CPR 75 (4) shows how authorisation for the issue (printing) of Orders for Recovery can be obtained from the TEC and that includes the electronic transfer of the relevant documentation from local authority to the TEC.

 

Lord McNally answering a question from Lord Lucas in the House of Lords last July made an even stronger point that bailiffs were not party to CPR 75 and therefore nothing written in it either involved or concerned them.

 

With Kalpna Patel of Marstons attending, the bailiff smoke signals soon had this judgment in circulation with the result that Councils all over the country are foolishly and thoughtlessly distributing this judgment like confetti. Any legally trained mind ought to be able to quickly see that CPR 75 (4) couldn't possibly refer to bailiffs. Nor is the judgment binding on any other judge, or any other court or indeed on another judge within the same court.

 

However in order for councils to use this judgment as a battle cry in subsequent court cases they must also admit that they never issue the warrants they produce in their trial bundle. In short they have to admit that the 'warrant' on file is unlawful and thus severely eroding their defence - as in days gone by they would have argued they they issued the warrant.

 

But then that is what happens when you are short sighted and lack the ability to question whether if what you so desperately want to believe in has any credence at all.

 

Those who believe in this judgment do so at their own peril.

[Fair-Parking]

BN There is no provision in the CPR for PDF copies of 'warrants'

[Fair-Parking]

Its a great pity John Kruse didn't contact me about this judgment before going to print

[brassnecked]

BN There is no provision in the CPR for PDF copies of 'warrants'

 

Thanks FP, but the suggestion was that it would be electronically transferred, and PDF is the accepted exact copy electronically. I was curious as to where in legislation this was expressly permitted.

Your post #9 clarifies this for me, and I can see that their reliance on this as a precedent or point of law is fundamentally flawed, and can be challeged if they rely on it.

[lamma]

";Lord McNally answering a question from Lord Lucas in the House of Lords last July made an even stronger point that bailiffs were not party to CPR 75 and therefore nothing written in it either involved or concerned them"; And how on God's green earth do he work that out ? 75.1 75.10 etc ? Was this a fudge around the issue that they have to use court certified Bailiffs but they merely act as private bailiffs ?if Notice how CCR Rule 26 is used so selectively in CPR part 75. the council issued warrant has no prescribed form, furthermore it is in my view just a pretend warrant. The Council does not have the powers of the Court so the use the well known CPT wprkaround "On receipt of a request that meets the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2), the court officer will order that the amount due may be recovered as if it were payable under a county court order by registering the request and returning it to the authority.". CPR l;eaves the interpretation of the key words in that to the (in house written) Practice Directions for Part 75 . Have a look there and follow the thread of definitions there for "order" into the named parking regs and see if it is talking about a council issued warrant (whatever that is) or a Charge Certificate. It would be good to have others have a look in case I have lost the thread as it were. I think council warrants are effectively just a phantasm.

[brassnecked]

Unless the council has the power to act as if it was a court of law, I cannot see how it could issue a bona fide warrant that would stand up if challenged in an actual court of law.

[lamma]

That is why the use the 'as if' text I quoted. May I ask that you chase through the regulations as I outlined and tell me what you come up with for "order". According to my reading the "warrant"disappears in a puff of smoke. It would be good to be independent confirmation, or even a rebuttal.

[Fair-Parking]

CCR 26 has nothing to do with parking as it is only concerend with County Court judgments .

 

No County Court judgments in parking - only presumptions of guilt by locla uathorities, plus the enforcement administration parking is limited to CPR 75.

[Fair-Parking]

Lord McNally actually stated that bailiffs are not applicant to the proceedings. He's quite right. The proceedings are those outlined in CPR 75 and the applicants described are those who apply for Orders for Recovery and Warrants of Execution. Only local authorities can do either and therefore they are the applicants and the only applicants.

 

As bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings they are not mentioned in CPR 75.

[brassnecked]

Lord McNally actually stated that bailiffs are not applicant to the proceedings. He's quite right. The proceedings are those outlined in CPR 75 and the applicants described are those who apply for Orders for Recovery and Warrants of Execution. Only local authorities can do either and therefore they are the applicants and the only applicants.

 

As bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings they are not mentioned in CPR 75.

 

Well as you have contended before, the whole decriminalised parking enforcement system is a crock, and most councils are acting unlawfully then.

[Fair-Parking]

This debate is open to qualified solicitors and especially those who would quote this judgment as proof of their case. It is also open to the various enforcement organisations including CIVEA who all joyously celebrated he judgment last summer.

 

Are you all sure that you feel that it still can now be relied upon?

[brassnecked]

This debate is open to qualified solicitors and especially those who would quote this judgment as proof of their case. It is also open to the various enforcement organisations including CIVEA who all joyously celebrated he judgment last summer.

 

Are you all sure that you feel that it still can now be relied upon?

 

I wouldn't if I were one of them, but well, they think they know best and will charge a fee first, or rely on that "electronic warrant" to snatch a car, and ask why when their backside is kicked.

[lamma]

pleas read CPR 75.6 Subject to the 1993 Order and this rule the following rules apply to the enforcement of specified debts – (a) Parts 70 to 73; (b) CCR Order 25, rule 1; © CCR Order 26, rule 5; and (d) CCR Order 27, rules 1 to 7, 7A, 7B, 9 to 16 and 18 to 22. (Rule 30.2 provides for the transfer between courts in order to enforce a judgment.)