Traffic Enforcement Centre- Is It Legal????

[green_and_mean]

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.

 

 

If he listens to you clothes will be about the only thing the OP does have!!

[Jamberson]

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;

 

I am aware of that. That's not what you said - you said they could not take the car. Well clearly they can, if there's not a Blue Badge inside, so this is a new condition you've just introduced. I am not aware that you have ever advised the OP that he has to have a current blue badge on display 24/7. You don't even know if he has one. That's why your advice is dangerous. If he followed what you said before, he could have had his car towed if it didn't have a blue badge on show. Why didn't you warn him of that?

[green_and_mean]

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;

 

What relevance is that to the collection of road traffic debts??

[seanamarts]

I am aware of that. That's not what you said - you said they could not take the car. Well clearly they can, if there's not a Blue Badge inside, so this is a new condition you've just introduced. I am not aware that you have ever advised the OP that he has to have a current blue badge on display 24/7. You don't even know if he has one. That's why your advice is dangerous. If he followed what you said before, he could have had his car towed if it didn't have a blue badge on show. Why didn't you warn him of that?

 

If the car is registered disabled it will stipulate this on the tax disc. how ever not every disabled person registers their car as disabled and you can only do this if you claim the high rate mobility. Just thought I would stick my two pence in

[Jamberson]

You're right. And not every disabled person has a blue badge either. I thought Marincor was claiming that the car couldn't be towed because of some legal failing (or should that be lawful failing?) - turns out he was guessing about a blue badge being on show, or something.

[green_and_mean]

Disabled persons are given equal treatment under the law they are not above the law, if a disabled driver stopped paying his HP is Marincor saying a baliff is not entitled to recover the vehicle?

[seanamarts]

Disabled persons are given equal treatment under the law they are not above the law, if a disabled driver stopped paying his HP is Marincor saying a baliff is not entitled to recover the vehicle?

Not disputing that G&M

[fossn]

The TPT is NOT a court. It is a privately funded strong arm enforcer for local authorities.

I have a JR being considered by a high court judge right now.

I don't need your patronising, support the system abuse attitude so will not be debating the matter any further.

[green_and_mean]

The TPT is NOT a court. It is a privately funded strong arm enforcer for local authorities.

 

You keep on telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, lol.

[Jamberson]

The TPT is NOT a court. It is a privately funded strong arm enforcer for local authorities.

I have a JR being considered by a high court judge right now.

I don't need your patronising, support the system abuse attitude so will not be debating the matter any further.

 

Well I just hope the OP has the sense not to follow your advice. You have been challenged on the things you said, eg that a PCN has to be issued by a local authority employee, and you are unable to substantiate them. It's just your imagination and is not in the least bit helpful to this guy, who needs to get into dialogue with them and work out a viable payment system.

[Marincor]

I'm sorry guys, I've been busy.

 

I just quoted the 1st piece of legsilation that I had in mind. I can think of at least 3 other acts of parliament that state a disabled drivers vehicle cannot be towed and a couple of them are traffic/parking related laws and they make it clear alternatives such as moving to another street must be employed - towing/clamping is not an option for disabled drivers - I will paste them for you if I must but I thought you would be aware of them.

 

With regards my other comment,

 

Regulation 76(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 & Regulation 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 & Regulation 63A of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states: “A civil enforcement officer/parking attendant must be an individual employed by the authority”.

 

Spending time down the rabbit hole can yield useful information.

[green_and_mean]

With regards my other comment,

 

Regulation 76(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 & Regulation 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 & Regulation 63A of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states: “A civil enforcement officer/parking attendant must be an individual employed by the authority”.

 

Spending time down the rabbit hole can yield useful information.

 

You seem to like selectively quoting things, if you are going to try and quote something do not do it a way that is deliberately missleading!!

 

(2)A civil enforcement officer must be

 

(a)an individual employed by the authority, or

(b)where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a civil enforcement officer.

[Marincor]

Sorry, I've been busy and it appears my last post didn't go through (maybe Admin checking facts) so here it is again:

 

That law on the disabled is just one that came immediatley to mind but it is just one of a number of laws - a couple of those being parking/traffic laws - that forbid the towing/clamping of disabled motorists. In fact, they stipulate that at worst the vehicle should be relocated to another street.

 

If I must I will find and post the laws on here for you but I find a trip down the rabbit hole a worthwhile journey!

 

With regards my other comment:

 

Regulation 76(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, Regulation 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 & Regulation 63A of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states: “A civil enforcement officer/parking attendant must be an individual employed by the authority”.

[Jamberson]

Yes indeed. And you are still using the phrase "disabled driver" when you mean a vehicle displaying a current blue badge. It is not the case that someone's status as a disabled person stops the car from being towed. By all means paste them up though - I'd like to find out if I am wrong on that.

[tomtubby]

I have only just seen this post and want to comment on the matter of whether TEC is a court and whether they have any legal authority to issue warrants:

On the matter of whether TEC is a “court” you would need to go back to 1993 (shortly after the Road Traffic Act 1991 was established).

In May 1993, a debate took place in the House of Lords leading to the introduction of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993. This amendment provided that sole jurisdiction was given to Cardiff County Court to enforce road traffic debts under the Road Traffic Act 1991. Furthermore, the amendment stated that the admin centre would be known as the PARKING ENFORCEMENT CENTRE.

Before jurisdiction was given to Cardiff County Court, the Lord Chancellor had to consult with the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor of the senior presiding judge.

At this particular time, Cardiff County Court (or the Parking Enforcement Centre) was only permitted to register parking charges issued by the 33 London Boroughs. A further amendment was made shortly after this to include all local authorities that had decriminalised parking and a new location was set up at Northampton which was called the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Previously parking enforcement proceedings came under the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts.

It is worth nothing that during the House of Lords debate the following comments were made by the Lord Chancellor:

· "I should make it plain from these benches that we support the principle of a parking enforcement centre for processing purposes...as distinct from disputed case"

· "I stress that this particular enforcement centre is for administrative work"

· "It will be seen as merely carrying out the necessary administration so that parking charges once properly incurred, are processed fairly"

· "The jurisdiction conferred on Cardiff is very much of an administrative, rather that judicial, character and that if any stage of the proceedings, it is necessary to consider a driver's individual circumstances, this will be done either in London or in the driver's home court, and the driver will be given an opportunity to make representation"

As to whether TEC issue warrants......he simple answer is NO. The local authority will pay a fee of £7 to “register” the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and to “request permission for them (the LA) to issue a warrant. It is therefore the local authority who should issue the warrant of execution.

From the 1993 debate in the House of Lords......the query should be:

Why are “Court Officers” allowed to decide whether the vehicle owner may be allowed to file a Witness Statement LATE!!!!

As can be seen above, the Lords agreed that the Parking Enforcment Centre is for processing and administrative work only and that it does not have judicial functions !!!

 

[green_and_mean]

I have only just seen this post and want to comment on the matter of whether TEC is a court and whether they have any legal authority to issue warrants:

On the matter of whether TEC is a “court” you would need to go back to 1993 (shortly after the Road Traffic Act 1991 was established).

In May 1993, a debate took place in the House of Lords leading to the introduction of the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1993. This amendment provided that sole jurisdiction was given to Cardiff County Court to enforce road traffic debts under the Road Traffic Act 1991. Furthermore, the amendment stated that the admin centre would be known as the PARKING ENFORCEMENT CENTRE.

Before jurisdiction was given to Cardiff County Court, the Lord Chancellor had to consult with the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor of the senior presiding judge.

At this particular time, Cardiff County Court (or the Parking Enforcement Centre) was only permitted to register parking charges issued by the 33 London Boroughs. A further amendment was made shortly after this to include all local authorities that had decriminalised parking and a new location was set up at Northampton which was called the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

Previously parking enforcement proceedings came under the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts.

It is worth nothing that during the House of Lords debate the following comments were made by the Lord Chancellor:

· "I should make it plain from these benches that we support the principle of a parking enforcement centre for processing purposes...as distinct from disputed case"

· "I stress that this particular enforcement centre is for administrative work"

· "It will be seen as merely carrying out the necessary administration so that parking charges once properly incurred, are processed fairly"

· "The jurisdiction conferred on Cardiff is very much of an administrative, rather that judicial, character and that if any stage of the proceedings, it is necessary to consider a driver's individual circumstances, this will be done either in London or in the driver's home court, and the driver will be given an opportunity to make representation"

As to whether TEC issue warrants......he simple answer is NO. The local authority will pay a fee of £7 to “register” the debt with the Traffic Enforcement Centre and to “request permission for them (the LA) to issue a warrant. It is therefore the local authority who should issue the warrant of execution.

From the 1993 debate in the House of Lords......the query should be:

Why are “Court Officers” allowed to decide whether the vehicle owner may be allowed to file a Witness Statement LATE!!!!

As can be seen above, the Lords agreed that the Parking Enforcment Centre is for processing and administrative work only and that it does not have judicial functions !!!

 

 

The lords agreed they were not to decide the merits of the parking ticket that doesn't mean they have no judicial function, if they had no judicial function the Council is wasting its money registering the debt.

[tomtubby]

Green & Mean.

 

Sorry, but I would disagree with your interpretation. The Parking Enforcement Centre ( as it was then) was set up as an admin centre for processing purposes. Therefore, there was no need at all for the PEC to have a "judicial" function.

 

As many will know, the TEC has evolved over the years and worryingly, made its own rules.

 

I have made no secret of my concerns about TEC to MOJ and others and will continue to do so.

 

How is it possible for a "court officer" to be able to make an "impartial judicial decision" when TEC receives funding of approx £13 million from the local authorities?

 

They cannot be "impartial" when their "clients" are the local authorities.

 

An example of how TEC make their own rules can be demonstrated by a further new "rule" as follows;

 

A client had a CCTV contravention on 1st March 2011. He moved address on 3rd March 2011 and advised DVLA on 7th March 2011. He had no idea at all that a PCN had been issued and the LA applied to DVLA for details and naturally this came back with the address where had had lived on the DATE OF THE CONTRAVENTION.

 

As you will know, the VRM appears on the warrant.

 

Debt had been passed to the bailiff and they detected his vehicle by way of ANPR outside of his NEW ADDRESS and clamped and removed the vehicle to the pound. To avoid sale the vehicle owner was forced to pay £1,143. Payment was not made voluntarily.

 

As he had not received the Notice to Owner ( or any other statutory notices) he was deprived of the opportunity to pay the charge at the reduced rate or to make representation and therefore, filed an Out of Time Witness Statement.

 

TEC REFUSE TO PROCESS HIS APPLICATION

 

This is because.....under their NEW rule, you cannot file a Witness Statement if you have paid a bailiff!!!

 

This is a complete and utter abuse of the ECHR as the debtor is being denied access to justice and an "effective remedy". This new "rule" is clearly intended to ensure that local authorities/bailiff companies do not have to repay bailiff fees !!!

[green_and_mean]

Green & Mean.

 

Sorry, but I would disagree with your interpretation. The Parking Enforcement Centre ( as it was then) was set up as an admin centre for processing purposes. Therefore, there was no need at all for the PEC to have a "judicial" function.

 

As many will know, the TEC has evolved over the years and worryingly, made its own rules.

 

I have made no secret of my concerns about TEC to MOJ and others and will continue to do so.

 

How is it possible for a "court officer" to be able to make an "impartial judicial decision" when TEC receives funding of approx £13 million from the local authorities?

 

They cannot be "impartial" when their "clients" are the local authorities.

 

An example of how TEC make their own rules can be demonstrated by a further new "rule" as follows;

 

A client had a CCTV contravention on 1st March 2011. He moved address on 3rd March 2011 and advised DVLA on 7th March 2011. He had no idea at all that a PCN had been issued and the LA applied to DVLA for details and naturally this came back with the address where had had lived on the DATE OF THE CONTRAVENTION.

 

As you will know, the VRM appears on the warrant.

 

Debt had been passed to the bailiff and they detected his vehicle by way of ANPR outside of his NEW ADDRESS and clamped and removed the vehicle to the pound. To avoid sale the vehicle owner was forced to pay £1,143. Payment was not made voluntarily.

 

As he had not received the Notice to Owner ( or any other statutory notices) he was deprived of the opportunity to pay the charge at the reduced rate or to make representation and therefore, filed an Out of Time Witness Statement.

 

TEC REFUSE TO PROCESS HIS APPLICATION

 

This is because.....under their NEW rule, you cannot file a Witness Statement if you have paid a bailiff!!!

 

This is a complete and utter abuse of the ECHR as the debtor is being denied access to justice and an "effective remedy". This new "rule" is clearly intended to ensure that local authorities/bailiff companies do not have to repay bailiff fees !!!

 

 

Ah the old chestnut they are paid for by the Councils so they must be biased often trotted out but never proven and when used at the adjudication level obviously disproven by statistics. Using your logic the entire judicial system is corrupt since the Courts are funded by HM govt who also receive the court issued fines.

[Jamberson]

I can't see any credible motive for TEC to be anything other than disinterested. The issue is between the motorist and the LA - TEC's function is always just a processing role. The outcome doesn't affect them in any way.

 

In the case outlined by Tomtubby, there ought to have been contact from the bailiff prior to the clamping and removal. If there was, then there was an onus on the owner to do something about it, pronto. If there was not, then that does throw up serious questions and could in fact lead to a re-evaluation of the old bill of rights argument, which is always rejected on the basis that there exists a mechnism to defend oneself. Without prior contact from the bailiff, there is no mechanism to avoid the tow.

[tomtubby]

G & M . Not a nice response.

 

The TEC process approx 1.8 million debts at TEC and the local authority have to pay a fee of £7 for each registration. There can be no doubt at all that they are funded by the £13 million from THEIR CLIENTS !!!

 

You will of course know that with PATAS the local authorities are charged a fee of £46.73 per appeal. Congestion charging appeals are recovered on a full cost recovery basis.

 

How can the courts be funded by HM Gov? This in not correct.

 

If I wanted to issue a summons against Mr Green & Mean, I would have to pay a court application fee of £45 and if Mr Green & Mean failed to pay me, I can request that a warrant be issued. It is at this stage that I would be required to pay a fee of £100 !!! to request a warrant.....

 

There is of course a difference with CRIMINAL FINES.

 

Last year approx 3.3 million HOUSEHOLDS could not afford to pay their council tax and Liability Orders were issued at the request of the local authority and passed to bailiffs to enforce. Up until last year, the Magistrate Court charged a fee of 70p to issue each Liability Order and this would generate income to the courts of approx £2.4 million.

 

Last year, the court INCREASED the fee from 70p to £3 which had the effect of generating income of approx £10million !!! However, the local authorities generated income of approx £344 million !!!!

[lamma]

"This is because.....under their NEW rule, you cannot file a Witness Statement if you have paid a bailiff!!!" This is horrific. Does it include any payment at all, even a part payment ? Is this embodied in Part 75 ? If not how does it bind the public at all ? ? The TEC officer thing is wrapped in 'deemed' and 'considered'. i.e. they are NOT and its a pretence. As I understand it there isn't even a prescribed format for a "council warrant", that alone speaks volumes. And I have another question - just where and how exactly in law does a "council warrant" get any judicial (court) power at all ? (What enlivens it ?) I believe there is in fact nothing and that it is just what is called "the colour of law" in other jurisdictions. Hence the Bailiffs operate as private Bailiffs when 'enforcing'. It seems to me to be another flavour of the three card trick played with Council Tax Liability Orders where the court is under contract with the Council to issue the Orders at what passes for a "hearing". After the Council has hired the court and pretended to be the court ! The answer to where a Council gets these purported "powers" may well lie in the foundation documents of the Council. (Powers is a complex subject i should add.) I must admit that I have never seen a set of the foundation documents for a council, but would be very interested to do so as I believe the answer may lie in those Deeds.

[tomtubby]

Lamma.....it gets worse!!!

 

It would seem that TEC have made their OWN rule change so that if you are forced to pay a bailiff you cannot file an Out of Time Witness Statement. HOWEVER, they are allowing you to INSTEAD to submit an N244 to seek a "review" of this decision by a District Judge.

 

First.....the respondent is required to pay a fee of £80 (this is of course after paying a lot of money to a bailiff!!!).

 

If their application is accepted by the District Judge, they will not be refunded the fee of £80!!

 

This is because....under para 6.3 the Practice Directions supporting CPR75 it clearly states the following:

 

Attention is drawn to the limited powers of a District Judge where a request is made to review an order of a court officer refusing an application for further time for filing a statement or witness statement. Any review of that order will only be a review of the decision to refuse the application......

 

Behind the scenes I am aware of a number of people who are considering Judicial Review of TEC and the sooner that this happens the better!!

 

PS: Of great concern is the significant influence that the BPA have over TEC !!!

Edited May 4, 2012 by tomtubby

[green_and_mean]

 

Last year approx 3.3 million HOUSEHOLDS could not afford to pay their council tax and Liability Orders were issued at the request of the local authority and passed to bailiffs to enforce. Up until last year, the Magistrate Court charged a fee of 70p to issue each Liability Order and this would generate income to the courts of approx £2.4 million.

 

Last year, the court INCREASED the fee from 70p to £3 which had the effect of generating income of approx £10million !!! However, the local authorities generated income of approx £344 million !!!!

 

Quite right to, 70p is hardly going to cover the cost why should those that pay Council tax subsidise chasing up those that don't? The £344 million is for spending on public services not spending on debt collection of those that don't bother contributing.

[green_and_mean]

I can't see any credible motive for TEC to be anything other than disinterested. The issue is between the motorist and the LA - TEC's function is always just a processing role. The outcome doesn't affect them in any way.

 

In the case outlined by Tomtubby, there ought to have been contact from the bailiff prior to the clamping and removal. If there was, then there was an onus on the owner to do something about it, pronto. If there was not, then that does throw up serious questions and could in fact lead to a re-evaluation of the old bill of rights argument, which is always rejected on the basis that there exists a mechnism to defend oneself. Without prior contact from the bailiff, there is no mechanism to avoid the tow.

 

Totally agree there never has in fact been any provision for an OOT to turn back the clock, it has always been to suspend enforcement not to travel back in time and reverse payment.

Why would the TEC be biased it serves no purpose even if they peeved off the Councils big time and went out of their way to favour the debtor the Council is only able to collect the debt after paying the fee so the TEC would still get the same fees its not an open market that would lead the Councils to choose a 'nicer more obliging' Court down the road for their business, lol.

[lamma]

"HOWEVER, they are allowing you to INSTEAD to submit an N244 to seek a "review" of this decision by a District Judge. " A review of a decision that never happened - that should be a puzzle to the judge !