Panorama Programme - 7 April - Discussion

[brassnecked]

The NoToMob do a lot of work in the prevention of the issue of tickets as well, but spot on research.

 

The other area is if the ambulance was an exempt vehicle, why did it keep getting the tickets, and why were they not quoshed? It raises the question of how many other exempt vehicles are ticketed for the bus lane contraventions, and whether the bailiffs from Newlyn have visited the police, fire and ambulance service to enforce, or were they quoshed?

 

This is not as silly as it sounds as if a CCTV catches a vehicle the system will likely be automated and issue a ticket..........

[tomtubby]

On the thread regarding 'Third Party Goods' and 'Interpleaders' I made a post a short while ago about the 'swan sanctuary' vehicle. There were rumours going around a few weeks ago concerning this matter and to be fair...I do have concerns about this case.

 

It is my understanding that SOME local authorities do in fact consider the vehicle to be exempt and quash the PCN's. There are different scenarios being 'touted around' that some LA' have 'exempted' the vehicles altogether (in other words that no tickets are actually issued).

 

What however was CLEAR is the importance of APPEALING the PCN's. If some LA's did 'exempt' the vehicle then the debtor could have use this 'exemption' in his appeal to PATAS (the parking Adjudicator).

 

What was extraordinary it that he allowed his £15,000 car to be removed AND SOLD. I would have advised him to do everything in his power to raise the money to pay off the debt and argue afterwards. There was no mention of what happened to the proceeds of the car (if sold for £12,000). We were not told what deductions were made etc.

[tomtubby]

It is 'rumoured' that the same team behind this programme are looking to do ANOTHER TV Programme .....this time concerning the Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations. If this is true, then I can assure anyone that I will offer as much assistance as I can.

 

It is a known fact that the NoTo Mob are currently undertaking a large exercise of FOI requests to many local authorities seeking copies of any agreements /targets/payments/date of operations etc. The local authority have known for a few weeks now that this matter if going to turn nasty. Will they learn? NO.

[ploddertom]

Where Interpleaders are concerned the problem is going to be that the Interpleader Claimant is going to find it difficult as to how to proceed never mind the cost. I think I will be right in saying there are perhaps only 3 or 4 on here who have had any real knowledge of this type of action. Because it is actually quite a rare action you will find most Solicitors know what it is but do not know how to action it.

 

Interpleader action in the past has been mainly to do with HCEO's and heard in the High Court, if memory serves me correct these Hearings were always heard on the first Monday of the month involving only 6 or 8 cases - so definitely not common.

[mikeymack2002]

Spanner time as always, just like the MOJ the Producers were not really covering anything of value, we all know what bailiffs already do via YouTube which has more excitement and various exposes, the only thing of interest was that all it confirmed is EA's (Bailiffs) lie, we knew that we know that, look how they gloated when they got the people with their lies.

 

 

 

The NTM are a great bunch of guys, when they came to Southend it was funny shadowing them, watching them take the micky out of the Spy cars,

 

Already been deleted from the recorder, TBH what did it achieve? nothing, to some it all up it was about as useful as a chocolate wick for a candle.

 

 

MM

[brassnecked]

Where Interpleaders are concerned the problem is going to be that the Interpleader Claimant is going to find it difficult as to how to proceed never mind the cost. I think I will be right in saying there are perhaps only 3 or 4 on here who have had any real knowledge of this type of action. Because it is actually quite a rare action you will find most Solicitors know what it is but do not know how to action it.

 

Interpleader action in the past has been mainly to do with HCEO's and heard in the High Court, if memory serves me correct these Hearings were always heard on the first Monday of the month involving only 6 or 8 cases - so definitely not common.

 

Probably become more common and clog up the High Court when Finance Companies start contesting the Taking Control of their property for the vehicle hirer's debt..

[tomtubby]

If an enforcement agent carries out his role correctly and makes the necessary checks there should be NO NEED for 'Interpleaders". These merely REWARD an enforcement agents for sloppy levies. I will not change my opinion on this and have made this point very clear indeed to the Ministry of Justice.

.

Most importantly, with the exception of just one local authority none of them know about these applications and this is not at all surprising given that many LA's have received their 'training' from the Enforcement Company !!!

 

Ploddertrom...you are correct in that only a few on here are aware of how these work in practice and how the 'interim' Interpleader stage will work. Away from the forum I am working on putting together some 'easy to understand' guidance on all matters to do with the new regs and this will include instructions for the "Interpleaders' and the initial stages. I will be sending this Guidance to all regular posters here on the forum. In that way, the team here will be able to advise visitors with ACCURATE information.

[ploddertom]

Probably become more common and clog up the High Court when Finance Companies start contesting the Taking Control of their property for the vehicle hirer's debt..

 

I think you may find these will be heard in the County Court but then they will have to find a DJ who knows about it. Was there not talk of specific Judges at specific Courts.

[ploddertom]

 

Ploddertrom...you are correct in that only a few on here are aware of how these work in practice and how the 'interim' Interpleader stage will work. Away from the forum I am working on putting together some 'easy to understand' guidance on all matters to do with the new regs and this will include instructions for the "Interpleaders' and the initial stages. I will be sending this Guidance to all regular posters here on the forum. In that way, the team here will be able to advise visitors with ACCURATE information.

 

 

If you need help with Interpleaders I'll help as much as I can. I agree we are going to need a "Dummies Guide to Interpleaders".

[brassnecked]

I think you may find these will be heard in the County Court but then they will have to find a DJ who knows about it. Was there not talk of specific Judges at specific Courts.

 

That is what IS worrying as an adapted High Court procedure is to be disseminated to the County Court, so it is to be hoped that indeed MOJ do make sure DJs are trained up in interpleaders.

 

TT the idiots guide is an excellent idea, as the interim interpleader will be key to countering a sloppy or wrongful taking control of goods. It is important that the advice on this is timely and clear enough for an OP to proceed.

[HCEOs]

To be fair the interpleader process is a fairly simple one. It must be remembered that the onus is on the creditor to dispute the claim prior to any real court action and costs becoming involved.

 

In the past I have seen some bulk issuers of work have a policy of admitting claims when they are made. Personally I think that is wrong and allows abuse of the system but given the quantity of cases issued to the 'bailiff' sector that could well be the case.

 

 

Back to the subject if this thread, whilst the wrongs of the companies involved are all too obvious, I'm surprised that the Councils themselves didn't come in for more criticism.

[brassnecked]

To be fair the interpleader process is a fairly simple one. It must be remembered that the onus is on the creditor to dispute the claim prior to any real court action and costs becoming involved.

 

In the past I have seen some bulk issuers of work have a policy of admitting claims when they are made. Personally I think that is wrong and allows abuse of the system but given the quantity of cases issued to the 'bailiff' sector that could well be the case.

 

 

Back to the subject if this thread, whilst the wrongs of the companies involved are all too obvious, I'm surprised that the Councils themselves didn't come in for more criticism.

The sheer volume could be the nub, but as to the LA's they seem to be oblivious to their own liability if their agents act unlawfully, or indeed as TT indicates some have been trained in the new regs by the bailiffcos, who helpfully for themselves and possibly to the detriment of the LA as creditor, any mention of the interpleader.

[Fair-Parking]

One vital word was missing from last night's Panorama - 'warrant'.

 

Nothing any of these bailiffs did could possibly be legal without one. Not one bailiff apeared to have one.

 

Without a warrant it really doesn't matter who owns the goods taken and thus using an interpleader for their return is a 'red herring' based on a ind acceptance that a warrant exists, even though in the tradition of the best smoke and mirrors tricks - you never actually saw one.

[Fair-Parking]

One vital word was missing from last night's Panorama - 'warrant'.

 

Nothing any of these bailiffs did could possibly be legal without one. Not one bailiff appeared to have one.

 

Without a warrant it really doesn't matter who owns the goods taken and thus using an interpleader for their return is a 'red herring' based on an acceptance that a warrant exists, even though in the tradition of the best smoke and mirrors tricks - you never actually saw one.

 

When is this forum going to return the simple 'edit' button so that embarrassing typos can be corrected simply and quietly

[HCEOs]

Fair-Parking you know full well that bailiffs are issued a warrant with their paperwork. The fact that it was never shown on TV matters not.

 

You have argued the legitimacy of such a warrant previously and lost so as such your comments are irrelevant.

[lamma]

Interpleaders are a weak point for me, I must study them. My current understanding does not match up to this use by an innocent third party. For example how how can the innocent third party whose car has been erroneously seized genuinely expect to be sued by two or more persons ?

Plus the innocent third party is not the creditor, nor the debtor nor the EA and is not carrying any liability in the matter !

I suspect much has changed in CPR in support of these new regulations and admit that I have not 'boned up' preferring to let the dust settle somewhat. I am remiss in that.

I look forward to the 'Idiots guide to Interpleaders' as this does not look to be a plain and simple matter to me. Plus I obviously need to be in the vicinity of the head of the queue of idiots !

[brassnecked]

Don't beat yourself up lamma, we all need to bone up on this, as an innocents property and livelihood could depend on it.

[Fair-Parking]

HCEO - Now there's a typical bailiff reaction. As an HCEO you are not involved in parking to be in any position to comment on how it is abused on a daily basis.

 

'You have argued the legitimacy of such a warrant previously and lost so as such your comments are irrelevant'.

 

Lost to who and when? Certainly not to the 65 different local authorities I have written to and who cannot supply any proof at all that they complied with CPR 75 (7) (3). Certainly not to the Local Government Ombudsman who accepted my observations on more than one occasion and certainly not to more than one county court.

 

Now all you have to do is explain why not one of the baliffs on the programme had a warrant with him as per County Court Rule 26 (7)?

 

Why would a bailiff leave the one document at home that would legitimise their actions beyond question if he had one?

[lamma]

Indeed, all you need to do is park in the street outside a house that a bailiff is visiting and wham !

What taxes me most is this "the innocent third party is not the creditor, nor the debtor nor the EA and is not carrying any liability in the matter"

either I am fundamentally wrong - which would not be a novel experience - or there have been fundamental changes.

[HCEOs]

HCEO - Now there's a typical bailiff reaction. As an HCEO you are not involved in parking to be in any position to comment on how it is abused on a daily basis.

 

'You have argued the legitimacy of such a warrant previously and lost so as such your comments are irrelevant'.

 

Lost to who and when? Certainly not to the 65 different local authorities I have written to and who cannot supply any proof at all that they complied with CPR 75 (7) (3). Certainly not to the Local Government Ombudsman who accepted my observations on more than one occasion and certainly not to more than one county court.

 

Now all you have to do is explain why not one of the baliffs on the programme had a warrant with him as per County Court Rule 26 (7)?

 

Why would a bailiff leave the one document at home that would legitimise their actions beyond question if he had one?

 

Yawn. You've been writing to councils for years and got nowhere because you are wrong. Didn't you get lambasted by a few Judges in recent years too?

 

Anyway, I have no doubt the bailiffs would have had a warrant with them and this would have been shown. Please remember that you are talking about an edited TV show and your issues with the warrant were not the subject of the programme.

 

Whilst this thread has gone off topic a bit, I think there are greater issues to discuss....

[Conniff]

Because the police arrested him, and unlawfully assisted the bailiff he should sue the council for the cost. the other one is Equita were caught charging a van fee when the bailiff turned up in a Corsa, again bet police will do squat.

 

 

I was meaning in the general world of things, not specifically last nights show.

 

 

There are thousands of complaints about lying, cheating and bullying but I have only seen one court case.

[brassnecked]

Indeed, all you need to do is park in the street outside a house that a bailiff is visiting and wham !

What taxes me most is this "the innocent third party is not the creditor, nor the debtor nor the EA and is not carrying any liability in the matter"

either I am fundamentally wrong - which would not be a novel experience - or there have been fundamental changes.

It is merely a continuation of the bailiffs, oops Enforcement Agents presumption backed by Observer v Gordon along with their usual custom and practice that any vehicle parked on, outside or near the debtors premises, is the debtors property therefore they can and will clamp or remove and sell.

 

You can see where this becomes an issue in areas of terraced housing and on street parking wheere the debtor goes to work in their car to a different area and a commuter parks there to go to their work. EA calls and removes innocents car as it is outside the debtor's home. The problem then starts as even if they show good title to the EA company, they push to interpleader as they may stand to gain more fees by doing this in spite of the protocols in place to establish ownership prior to this. The LA lets say have been trained by Equita, and have a Capita infestation, so know nothing about interpleaders and let the EA go down the route. Innocent cannot afford cost of all fees including the £110 sales fee nor the likely £1800 storage fees (a ball park figure uncovered by the NoToMob) on top of the estimated value of the vehicle. Result EA sells innocents car with no comeback possibly.

 

Is there any mileage in an injunction under Human Rights Act to challenge and prevent a sale I wonder?

 

We will have to study the interim interpleader process in conjunction with TT's guide she is preparing and agree a united CAG first response to give consistent and accurate advice irrespective of which one of us is on forum when a desperate poster comes on.

[wonkeydonkey]

This is extremely interesting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10750769/Bailiffs-inflating-fees-for-parking-fines.html

[mikeymack2002]

What would be great is for the EA to carry the warrant as a matter of course every time, this would then be easier to get the debtor to understand by means of "viewing" the warrant, it will also make it simpler if they did because the way things are going the debtors are wising up and want to see it to make sure they are not being conned by unscrupulous people.

 

 

I am not saying EA's are but with the new regs things need to slow down just a tad to allow EVERYONE time to get to grips with it all, especially those that are actually in this terrible position.

 

 

Would any reasonably minded person allow a total stranger access to their home without the proper authority to "see" so to speak? that would be NO

 

 

Also it would add some form of protection for both parties knowing it is "legal" and official, the reason behind this line is some DCA's will/have done tried to pretend they ARE actually EA's correct?

 

 

With the new regs now in place I certainly would need to see that the official document was available for me to read at that point before letting any unknown person in to my home.

 

 

Perhaps the EA's should carry a certified copy of the warrant that can be left with the debtor? does this happen? I ask as I have not been in this position with an EA for many years

 

 

This is just me asking totally random legitimate questions that should now be answered in full

 

 

MM

[brassnecked]

This is extremely interesting http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10750769/Bailiffs-inflating-fees-for-parking-fines.html

Beat me to it I just posted this on the SCOOP thread also