Traffic Enforcement Centre- Is It Legal????

[green_and_mean]

I have received information regarding the TEC. They seem to be interpreting the law very favourably to their advantage but are not being challenged through the courts unfortunately.

 

How can it be in their favour?

 

The TEC simply registers the debt they do not rule on the validity of PCNs,

 

get any income from PCNs or get any money from baliffs how is anything they decide to their advantage?

[fossn]

The TEC have been created using dodgy legislation and a system totally stacked in favour of their system.

 

They should be unable to register debts and send in bailiffs without checking the validity

of the information they are using to persecute and intimidate people.

 

If they did not receive any money they would be unable to exist, every organisation needs funding.

 

Any other view would be extremely naive.

 

Do you work for them or something?

[green_and_mean]

The TEC have been created using dodgy legislation and a system totally stacked in favour of their system. They should be unable to register debts and send in bailiffs without checking the validity of the information they are using to persecute and intimidate people. If they did not receive any money they would be unable to exist, every organisation needs funding. Any other view would be extremely naive. Do you work for them or something?

 

They receive money because they are a part of the Court system

and they charge a nominal sum to register a debt.

 

The debt is registered after a statutary process of PCN,

 

Charge certificate etc in your case

you went to adjudication and lost

the Council is entitled to enforce the debt why shouldn't they be??

 

The TEC does not send in baliffs if you are going to complain about something it would at least help

if you had a basic grasp of the process involved.

[Jamberson]

The TEC have been created using dodgy legislation and a system totally stacked in favour of their system. They should be unable to register debts and send in bailiffs without checking the validity of the information they are using to persecute and intimidate people.

 

Be careful about who "they" are.

 

TEC may use legislation which you judge to be dodgy

but it is not "they" who are chasing the debt.

It is the local authority.

 

TEC receive a file of data and deliver it back to the council/bailiffs in an auto-approved state.

 

They have abosolutely no interest in whether the debts get paid.

 

Blaming TEC for what the bailiffs do is a bit like blaming the postman for the fact that you have a gas bill.

[Marincor]

Jamberson is right. Upto the point of filing a Witness Statement the TEC are not interested in other aspects of the PCN - only if you had the right of representation which Fossn did and whether any procedural improprieties occurred.

 

However, that doesn't mean the judge that has to make a ruling on the success of a Witness Statement can't be influenced by a local authority to find in their favour.

 

I have an actual case at the moment where exactly that has happened - the WS was refused despite me quoting the actual act of parliament that proved the councils acts were illegal and unlawful!

 

Fossn, as long as you don't mind letters coming through your door I would ignore the bailiff because if he clamped and/or towed your vehicle, make him aware of what laws he's breaking - The Disabilities Discrimination Act 2005, the Traffic Managment Act 2004, The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, The Administration of Justice Act 1970, The Protection from Harassment Act 1997, The Theft Act 1968 & the Fraud Act 2005 (plus more) - and if still doesn't listen, actually file a criminal charge against him knowing you wil be successful!

[Jamberson]

Bad advice in the extreme. If you ignore the bailiff, even if he does not clamp, tow and then sell the car, you will ramp up an unmanageable debt which they will seek to enforce. You really need to find a solution rather than assuming he will be frightened off by this kind of talk - which they hear a hundred times a day.

[Marincor]

Jamberson, they can ramp up their fees to a million pounds - how can they get that money if he doesn't pay?

 

If they clamp/tow/sell his vehicle as a disabled driver - how can Fossn lose in court when there is consumer/traffic/parking legislation that directly forbids this behaviour?

 

I know from personal and 2nd hand experience that the belief and knowledge with which you talk to a bailiff makes a massive difference in their behaviour.

 

Also, threatening and filing a Form 4 against a bailiff - in light of the upsurge of complaints against them - makes them wary.

 

The bullish behaviour displayed by bailiffs is pure bravado - when they KNOW you know what you're talking about and KNOW you will not and cannot be intimidated you will notice an immediate change in their attitude and behaviour!

 

Bailiffs are not fools - I do not know of one who wants to stand up in court to explain why they clamped/towed a disabled driver.

[Jamberson]

If they clamp/tow/sell his vehicle as a disabled driver - how can Fossn lose in court when there is consumer/traffic/parking legislation that directly forbids this behaviour?

 

Which court would that be? Are you saying that the bailiffs will not enforce the debt because they are frightened of being sued, and the best way forward is to call their bluff. Then if they do remove and auction his car, he can start legal proceedings - all this over a tin-pot parking ticket? You think that's the best way to go?

[Marincor]

The very nature of all public policy enforcement is THEM making US believe they can take something valuable away from us. Once you lose that fear then what they do doesn't matter as justice will be yours!

 

So if they're willing to take my vehicle for a parking fine, then why wouldn't I be willng to take them to court for the same?! And as to which court, Civil or Criminal depending on which law you'd want to use.

 

Bailiffs work with fear and doubt all day. They know how to spot it and manipulate it. So don't you think they know when a person has no fear of them or their processes? Do you really believe a bailiff believes he/she is above the law? If you do then you've fallen for "the almighty bailiff" propoganda that most of the public has and if so you shouldn't be giving advice as this site is for fighters!!!

 

And yes, personal and 2nd hand experience has shown that a bailiff knows when they are in above their heads! The only time they initiate aggressive enforcement is if they believe there will be no comebacks. If you don't personally know of anyone who has put a bailiff in their place then you are moving in the wrong circles!

[fossn]

Well said Marincor.

 

I join sites like this to fight the system .

 

I find it strange how many people give advice which is to roll over,

pay up or otherwise give the state exactly what it wants.

 

I will never roll over,

I spend all my time looking for loopholes and fighting the unfair, corrupt, biased system

which is designed to keep the minions in their place and the rich, elitist minority

in the lap of luxury at everyone elses expense.

[Marincor]

Fossn, the reason why is that many people don't realise the programming theyre under

- and I mean that seriously, not in any facetious way

because it was when I woke up I realised this simple mind trick that is played on ordinary members of the public

- the 99% if you will, and that is:

 

We're all taught to believe that when an authoritative body

or someone with authority and the powers of enforcement imposes

a penalty/fine/administration charge on us that is morally bankcrupt if not 'illegal', we should pay up.

 

But if WE are able to find a loophole in the system that allows us to avoid paying for something,

we make ourselves feel guilty i.e. "it doesn't feel right", "I don't want the hassle I'll just pay", "you can't fight them".

 

So what happens next is the system imposes itself so aggressively we stop to look outside

of what they are telling us and work with what they give us instead of looking around it.

 

When you do open your eyes and look where you want to not where you're told to,

more often than not you'll find the Emperor really has no clothes!

 

Fear & Anxiety robs you of Rational Thought. (Tha'ts the state a bailiff puts you in).

Anger makes you think instinctively and decisively.

Anger is good!

 

Try making yourself angry an hour before you have to face something you find daunting if you don't believe me!

[Jamberson]

I agree with about 50% of what you say. But if you mean to imply that I am falling for stuff about bailiff powers which isn't true, then I don't accept that criticism.

 

I worked for my local authority in the bailiff team for about 2 years - we weren't part of the bailiffs but we were the council dept which dealt with cases that had gone that far - eg processing incoming stat decs etc. I know how it works better than most.

 

I love the fighting spirit too. I dislike authority and dislike the punitive way parking is used to fleece motorists. But as much as I hate it, you can't escape the fact that the law is designed to allow this. It is fundamentally on their side, and you can't change that by ignoring them.

 

They can and do take people's property. I have encountered people thousands of pounds in debt over parking tickets - even businesses going bust over it. Like it or not, you cannot wish away the enforcement process. You are better off co-operating. That's a statement in support of the public, by the way, to minimise the degree to which they will be robbed!

 

If the OP in this case can make a payment arrangement somehow, and I think they could, then they will end up losing - what - £80?

 

If the bailiff comes after them, before they know it, that's become hundreds and they are only just starting! It's just not a sensible way to go.

[green_and_mean]

Well said Marincor. I join sites like this to fight the system not kiss their @sses. I find it strange how many people give advice which is basically to roll over, pay up or otherwise give the state exactly what it wants.

 

Make the most of it because unlike your car there is nothing to stop the baliffs taking your PC to pay your debt.

[fossn]

Make the most of it because unlike your car there is nothing to stop the baliffs taking your PC to pay your debt.

 

There's my locked front door!!

 

You must be one of those who ask how high when someone says jump.

 

I will never stop fighting the imposition of morally and legally wrong practices which have no basis in law.

 

The TEC was set up as part of the system of civil parking enforcement.

 

Neither it or the TPT have any legal basis for existing outside of that legislation.

 

TPT adjudicators have no legal standing and cannot make any truely enforceable legal decisions.

 

They hide behind the fact they are not employed within a real legal setting

and keep all their recordings of hearings them selves, refuse to honour the FOI system

and need to be taken to a real court and overturned.

 

The TEC is a collection service for local authorities and again has no real legal basis.

 

Everyone has the right to a hearing in their own local court but the TEC write a load of illegal conditions

on their warrants giving the impression that there is nothing you can do.

 

 

There is. FIGHT

[green_and_mean]

Make the most of it because unlike your car there is nothing to stop the baliffs taking your PC to pay your debt.

 

There's my locked front door!!

You must be one of those who ask how high when someone says jump.

I will never stop fighting the imposition of morally and legally wrong practices which have no basis in law. The TEC was set up as part of the system of civil parking enforcement. Neither it or the TPT have any legal basis for existing outside of that legislation. TPT adjudicators have no legal standing and cannot make any truely enforceable legal decisions. They hide behind the fact they are not employed within a real legal setting and keep all their recordings of hearings them selves, refuse to honour the FOI system and basically need to be taken to a real court and overturned. The TEC is a collection service for local authorities and again has no real legal basis. Everyone has the right to a hearing in their own local court but the TEC write a load of illegal conditions on their warrants giving the impression that there is nothing you can do. There is. FIGHT

 

Like I said before

if you are going to get on your high horse about something

it would help if you knew what you were talking about!!

 

No Court in the land has to answer FOI requests

they are not covered by the legislation so do not have to any more than you do.

 

The TEC doesn't have any 'adjudicators',

 

it is part of the County court system and as for having 'no legal basis' you are just deluded.

 

You are acting like a spolit child you have been found liable for a penalty charge imposed

under several statutes

 

if you refuse to accept that fact or recognise the legal process you are just digging yourself a deeper hole.

 

If you think you are correct put your money where your mouth is

and go for a judicial review assuming you think that the High court is real enough for you to consider 'legal'.

[seanamarts]

Lets keep this civil people OK! we are all entitled to our views, but we should be adult enough to cut out the name calling.

 

Thank you

[Jamberson]

Make the most of it because unlike your car there is nothing to stop the baliffs taking your PC to pay your debt.

 

There's my locked front door!!

You must be one of those who ask how high when someone says jump.

I will never stop fighting the imposition of morally and legally wrong practices which have no basis in law. The TEC was set up as part of the system of civil parking enforcement. Neither it or the TPT have any legal basis for existing outside of that legislation. TPT adjudicators have no legal standing and cannot make any truely enforceable legal decisions. They hide behind the fact they are not employed within a real legal setting and keep all their recordings of hearings them selves, refuse to honour the FOI system and basically need to be taken to a real court and overturned. The TEC is a collection service for local authorities and again has no real legal basis. Everyone has the right to a hearing in their own local court but the TEC write a load of illegal conditions on their warrants giving the impression that there is nothing you can do. There is. FIGHT

 

All of this is your view and your perspective on things.

That's fine, but until your claims are tested in a court they are just words.

 

You can have any opinion you like, but it won't help someone when their car is taken and auctioned off

- which, whatever you assert on here, happens every single day.

 

If you genuinely care what happens to people like the OP, then please don't lead them down that route

- no matter how right you think you are.

[Marincor]

Fossn, the bailiff has right of enforcement for 6 years. If you can put up with letters that have no more power than junk mail coming through your door, then you'll be fine.

 

If you are prepared to read the riot act to any bailiff that attends - making sure you know your legal rights as a disabled driver - you'll be fine.

 

If you are willing to take legal action against them in the event of your car being clamped or towed - you'll be fine.

 

I put penny to a pound that when you make the bailiff aware of your rights under the aforementioned acts - in particular the DDA 2005 - you will only get threatening letters and no physical action will be taken by them - just remember not to give them your phone number!

 

Green&Mean, I have to say I have been following this forum for some years and whilst I have witnessed you giving useful information and I understand the "face the real situation" approach you have to advice, you consistently - unintentionally or otherwise - tell people seeking help how wrong and useless it is for them to be fighting a given issue.

 

It is important to know the implications of ones actions and we know what the authorities say can't be done, but the users of this site are interesred in what CAN be done WITHOUT complying with the system. You should re-consider the negative tone many of your replies have.

[green_and_mean]

Green&Mean, I have to say I have been following this forum for some years and whilst I have witnessed you giving useful information and I understand the "face the real situation" approach you have to advice, you consistently - unintentionally or otherwise - tell people seeking help how wrong and useless it is for them to be fighting a given issue.

 

It is important to know the implications of ones actions and we know what the authorities say can't be done, but the users of this site are interesred in what CAN be done WITHOUT complying with the system. You should re-consider the negative tone many of your replies have.

 

I didn't think this site was here to encourage civil disobedience?

If thats the case then the only advice in all cases is don't bother going to adjudication

or Court and just refuse to answer the door when the baliffs arrive.

 

The OP has been legally judged to have parked in contravention

he may not agree with that but the legal system in place has been followed

and the adjudicator has ruled against him.

 

Maybe the site should also have a forum for advising convicted criminals

how to evade capture and going to prison?

 

Do you also think drink drivers should fight the system by continuing to drive despite a ban?

 

Maybe you can give clamping companies advice on avoiding paying ccjs for unlawful clamping while you are at it.

[Jamberson]

If you can put up with letters that have no more power than junk mail coming through your door, then you'll be fine.

 

This is a dangerous delusion. The bailiffs are legally entitled to pursue the debt and are legally entitled to charge for what they do and are legally entitled to use their powers to enforce payment. Sit back and watch the debt spiral up and up and up - then what? Are you going to send him a cheque if he listens to your advice? Pay for his car to get out of the pound?

 

Being morally right and being legally right are sometimes different. Try and accept that. If you think that all he needs to do is "read the riot act", whatever that means, and nothing will happen to him, explain your statement:

 

If you are willing to take legal action against them in the event of your car being clamped or towed - you'll be fine.

 

Moreover, if this happens, are you going to pay his legal costs? Compensate him if he loses? Buy him a new car to use meantime?

[Marincor]

"Legally Right". How about "lawfully right"? You are aware that because something is 'legal', it doesn't make it 'lawful'.

 

There is NOTHING lawful about a PCN issue! The ONLY thing that gives the process legitimacy is their powers of enforcement!

 

For example, did you know that a PCN must be issued by a local authority employee for the PCN issue to be 'legal'?

 

If I were to go through the PCN case with Fossn, I'm sure I would be able to find illegalities in the enforcement process. However that time has passed. What we are NOW dealing with is their enforcement machine which has F-all to do with the legalities of their process and EVERYTHING to do with their postion of authority.

 

Furthermore, the bailiffs DO NOT have 'legal' entitlement as the very document that 'legitimises' their enforcement - namely the Warrant of Execution from Northampton County Court - is not worth the paper it is written on AND the document that is supposed to enact the WoE does not exist!

 

So much for your belief in 'legal'. Like I said before, if you bother to look behind the screen you will realise the Emperor has no clothes - in other words, what you believe is legal, more often than not does not have any legislation supporting it and many times completely contradicts foundational laws that supercede them.

 

I'll put it to both of you again: Other than his car which the law does not allow them to take, how is the bailiff going to get money from Fossn???

[Jamberson]

"Legally Right". How about "lawfully right"? You are aware that because something is 'legal', it doesn't make it 'lawful'.

 

No I am not aware of that. Can you explain what the difference is?

 

For example, did you know that a PCN must be issued by a local authority employee for the PCN issue to be 'legal'?

 

No, I didn't know that either. Where is that stipulated?

 

the Warrant of Execution from Northampton County Court - is not worth the paper it is written on AND the document that is supposed to enact the WoE does not exist!

 

So you say, but the pound is full of towed cars and the bailiffs make a living out of it - so what use are assertions such as these? We live in the real world. Unless a judge makes a ruling along those lines, you are just wishing for things to be the way you want them to be. Reality is wildliy at odds with your views, and that's just a fact.

 

I'll put it to both of you again: Other than his car which the law does not allow them to take, how is the bailiff going to get money from Fossn???

 

Other than the car? So you know for a fact that they definitely "can't" tow it then, even if they want to? How can they enforce the debt? Tow it anyway... clamp it and demand payment... gain entry and levy on goods... apply for attachment of earnings...

 

None of us has a crystal ball to know what they WILL do, but they have powers whether you like it or not, and the debt will still be there, getting higher and higher, for years. Sometimes people evade bailiffs for years, but it's a last resort and not something which should be advised, let alone with claims of impunity.

[Marincor]

The following is quoted from A Dictionary of Law 1893:

 

Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. “Lawful” properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; “Legal”, a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a “legal” process however defective. See legal. [bold emphasis added]

Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual

 

“Legal” looks more to the letter [form/appearance], and “Lawful” to the spirit [substance/content], of the law. “Legal” is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; “Lawful” for accord with ethical principle. “Legal” imports rather that the forms [appearances] of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; “Lawful” that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. “Legal” is the antithesis of equitable, and the equivalent of constructive. 2 Abbott’s Law Dic. 24. [bold emphasis added]

 

Therefore, it would appear that the meaning of the word “legal” is “color of law,” a term which Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, defines as:

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

[Marincor]

Traffic Management Act 2004

Part 6 Notification, adjudication and enforcement - Section 79

 

(5)The regulations shall provide—

 

(a)that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle;

[Jamberson]

I'm nonthewiser and despite consulting your 19th century dictionary, from your comment "it would appear that..." I don't think you are either. This is a side issue, but for the record, Oxford English Dictionary sitting on my desk:

 

Lawful: "conforming with, permitted by, or recognized by law; not illegal"

 

Legal: "of or based on law... permitted by law; lawful"

 

Big difference.