A local authority exposes itself

[bazm]

You seem to be exhibiting a great deal of reliance on rumours and wishful thinking as many people are grateful to Fair Parking for getting their money and vehicles back through taking on local authorities.

 

If I agree about one thing this is taking the thread away from the programme so if you wish to continue with your incorrect accusations including anything about judges then please start a new thread and do try to put some facts before the rest of us and I'll deal with them and indeed any more bile you would like to spit out.

 

Back on thread - you have given no good reason why the baliffs had no warrants with them or why they were not even mentioned in the programme. Although one bailiff was moved to say that he was certificated court officer (rather than certificated BY a court) not one bailiff said he had a court warrant.

 

There can be no greater issues to discuss than baliffs who have no warrants although you can lump in violations of the Data Protection Act ie discussing the matter with any third party who answers the door and then threatening them. Or you could ask why admitted self employed bailiffs were passed personal information from JBW and Newlyn also in violation of the DPA

 

You did notice these didn't you HCEO? You must also know that the Data Proetction Act prevents such information being shared for any reason that involves the collection of an alleged civil debt. If you didn't then maybe you are not a fit and proper person to hold the office of HCEO.

 

Most bailiffs carry blank warrants that they can quite lawfully fill in if sight of one is requested. If a bailiff does over 40 visits a day (and more if debts are multiples) then thats a lot of wasted trees printed as warrants over a period of time.

[Fair-Parking]

Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'.

 

Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really?

 

And did you see any of them doing that?

[bazm]

Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'.

 

Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really?

 

And did you see any of them doing that?

 

Of course they can fill one out! What do you think a printed one is? Its printed from a computer file at the bailiff's office.

All this is doing is showing the warrant details in a readable format provided they have the correct information to copy from. Do you honestly belief that TEC issue warrants in paper format?

[Fair-Parking]

From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors.

 

You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant.

 

You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them

 

How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form?

 

And again did you see any bailiff prepare a wararnt on the programme?

[bazm]

From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors.

 

You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant.

 

You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them

 

How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form?

 

And again did you see any bailiff prepare a wararnt on the programme?

 

Ha Ha!! Rather new to this!! If only you knew.....!

Ok, last time to make it easy for you to understand. The file from TEC is in an electronic format and is received by the local authority. The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant in a readable format for interested parties. This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information.

I hope this helps if not I give up.

[Fair-Parking]

As once again this thread started to drift from its original theme i have started a new thread to deal with basm's last post

[Fair-Parking]

bazm

Most bailiffs carry blank warrants that they can quite lawfully fill in if sight of one is requested. If a bailiff does over 40 visits a day (and more if debts are multiples) then thats a lot of wasted trees printed as warrants over a period of time.

Fair-Parking

Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion

Not in parking enforcement Bazm. There is nothing in the legislation that allows bailiffs to do any such thing. As Lord McNally said in the House of Lords on 19 July 2011 (source Hansard) 'bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings'.

 

Bailiffs with no legal training be allowed to fill out warrants on the spot. Really?

 

And did you see any of them doing that?

· Today, 11:51

bazm

Of course they can fill one out! What do you think a printed one is? Its printed from a computer file at the bailiff's office. All this is doing is showing the warrant details in a readable format provided they have the correct information to copy from. Do you honestly belief that TEC issue warrants in paper format?

Fair-Parking

Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion

From the bailiffs office? - shouldn't that be from the local authority's computer? A warrant must exist BEFORE it is sent to the bailiff company and not just printed out by a bailiff office employee on commercially available software such as that offered by One Step Solutions to bailiff companies anf then transmitted by smart phone - the 21st century equivalent to smoke and mirrors.

 

You appear to be reliant on CPR 75 (4) and its reference to 'readable format' without understanding that this applies to local authorities ONLY. Nor are you understanding what Lord McNally said and why. CPR 75 does not apply to bailiffs who are 'not applicants to the proceedings''. In short CPR 75 does not even mention or acknowledge the existence of bailiffs. But then you also appear to believe that the TEC issues warrants when it merely authorises them. The TEC has never prepared a warrant.

 

You are rather new to all this aren't you? Have you ever written to the TEC? Do you not know that the TEC 9.22 (later 10.3) requires a copy of the warrant to be left with the respondent as does DoT Operational Guide 10.68 - not forgetting CCR 26.7? Now go and read them

 

How exactly do you leave copies unless they are in hard copy form?

 

And again did you see any bailiff prepare a warrant on the programme?

bazm

Re: Panorama Programm - 7 April - Discussion

Ha Ha!! Rather new to this!! If only you knew.....!

Ok, last time to make it easy for you to understand. The file from TEC is in an electronic format and is received by the local authority. The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant in a readable format for interested parties. This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information.

I hope this helps if not I give up.

· Today, 12:49

Well actually I do know you work for a local authority hence the self indulgent sneer.

But as this post rambled on further into its haughty delusion, it not only unravels but from the horse's mouth it exposes why local authorities get parking enforcement completely wrong and why the statutory procedure they are meant to follow breaks down and becomes guesswork, speculation before metamorphosing into an established maladministration where abnormal becomes normal in the eyes of those who are charged with the duty of administering civil parking enforcement.

The file from TEC is in an electronic format.... Yes the file from the TEC is sent electronically as indeed is the file sent to the TEC asking for warrant authorisations. It’s called a 'batch' and it is given a batch reference number. It consists of names, addresses and registration details and could list up to 2000 people.

and is received by the local authority. Well it should be but in most cases ie ALL London boroughs, it is not - the actual form received is a TE8a/b complete with the same names, addresses and registration numbers and is received by the local authority's outsourced company who almost certainly asked the TEC for the authorisations in the first place. However what is missing is any sign of a warrant.

The file to the bailiff company is again in an electronic format, in a csv/text file. I've no doubt about that but from the outsourced company and not the local authority

This is loaded onto the bailiff computor, again using standard computer protocol - I hope you're getting my drift here. I'm ahead of you actually, The outsourced company and not the local authority charged with preparing warrants under CPR 75 (7) (3) has sent people's personal data (without either their knowledge or consent) to a third party for enforcement of a civil debt allegation. This is a violation of the Data Protection Act 1998. The sharing of personal data for the purposes of debt collection is specifically prohibited by the Information Commissioner’s Office. If you wish to argue differently please quote which section of the DPA exempts your council. This personal information is then uploaded into bailiff ANPR vehicles without one warrant ever having been prepared. That means that no ANPR operative will ever have one.

At no stage does anything resembling a warrant get seen by these computers. No and nor should they a) due to the DPA and b) because it is obvious that the local authority is not involved in the process. It is the local authority and local authority only which is authorised to prepare a warrant. Nobody else – not their outsourced company, their bailiffs or anybody else. And yet the local authorities excuse themselves from their statutory duty to do so.

However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC. Format? The word you require here is FORM and not format - CPR 75 (7) (3) reads as follows ‘Within 7 days of the sealing of the request the authority must prepare the warrant in the appropriate form’. No mention of format at all.

This where it all goes wrong - confusing a ‘format’ whose Oxford English Dictionary definition states ‘the style and manner of an arrangement or procedure’ with a ‘form’ ‘a printed document with blank spaces for information to be inserted’. CPR 75 (7) (3) is quite explicit. It requires the local authority to fill the boxes IN a form, to be precise an Annex 9 template warrant provided in the Applicant User Guide supplied by the TEC. TEC Rule 10.3 cements this by adding ‘see Annex 9’. You must know the procedure if you are not new to all this.

Defining whatever passes for the appropriate ‘format’ which is never disclosed by the CPR or TEC is quite impossible and the only way any local authority believing that this is the way forward is to make it up as they go along.

The key word in CPR 75 (7) (3) here is must– as in ‘the local authority must’ – and not the bailiffs. Game, set and match. No bailiff filling in of forms at the roadside is permitted.

However, the information that can be entered into a warrant format has existed ever since the file was sent by TEC Without substituting the word ‘form’ for ‘format’, this sentence makes no sense at all. What format? How can anything be entered into a ‘format’ which defines a procedure and not a document?

It follows that the local authority or bailiff can easily produce the warrant. Not sure how the local authority can because it forfeited its rights to prepare warrants once it let more that seven days slip by after TEC authorisation, but I have dozens of examples of the bailiff companies doing this in order to fool people that they have some power to do so when they have none. To do it at the roadside also means backdating the times and dates on a legal document and pretending that this remains legal.

in a readable format for interested parties. The infamous misreading of CPR 75 (4) (3) which in referring how a local authority can send documentation to the TEC in an acceptable manner or arrangement states ‘Where a document is required to be produced, that requirement will be satisfied if a copy of the document is produced from computer records’. In short the TEC is authorising the electronic transfer of documentary information from the local authority to itself. The TEC confirmed this in an email dated 9th January 2013. As Lord McNally stated – ‘bailiffs are not applicants to the proceedings’.

This includes a bailiff completing a blank format at the scene provided he has the correct information. No comment required except to say that adopting and implementing and unlawful procedure over a long period does not make it any more lawful if the same mistake is endlessly repeated. Even the bailiffs on Panorama weren’t so stupid as to fill in ‘warrant’ forms

 

I hope this helps if not I give up. Perhaps it might be best for everybody if you did, because clearly you advocate an unlawful procedure that extracts money from people who should never have been treated this way.

As I say abnormal has become ‘normal’. It is a short step from local authorities then convincing themselves that if they have always done it this way, it must be right.

[HCEOs]

And the upshot of all the above will be....???

[Fair-Parking]

Is there supposed to be an upshot?

 

This is a forum. If I have said anything factually incorrect the you are invited to criticise it.

 

If you have nothing better to say then please exit stage right

[renegadeimp]

I had a bit of trouble understanding it. And i maintain net-ops code for a living. Is there any chance you can give a brief background to it?

[brassnecked]

One thing that was annoying on the Panorama programme and actually with Bailiffs now EAs enforcing CIVIL parking tickets is the fact they treat the debtor as a criminal as if it was a magistrates fine.

[HCEOs]

My point is that you have raised many serous issues (whether correct or not I do not know personally) with this kind of enforcement.

 

The question is can you really do anything with it?

[Fair-Parking]

Perhaps it might help if I added that this is the continuation of postings originally on the thread about Panorama which for the second time was in great danger of being diverted well away from its original theme concerning the contents of the programme. One bailiff HCEO and one local authority employee thought that personal attacks were fair game.

 

Rather than pollute the original thread, I simply started a new one.

 

What we have here is a local authority employee quite literally boasting about how his council goes about enforcing parking tickets via bailiff and in doing so graphically exposes all the wrong doing that his council thinks are 'normal'.

[brassnecked]

Perhaps it might help if I added that this is the continuation of postings originally on the thread about Panorama which for the second time was in great danger of being diverted well away from its original theme concerning the contents of the programme. One bailiff HCEO and one local authority employee thought that personal attacks were fair game.

 

Rather than pollute the original thread, I simply started a new one.

 

What we have here is a local authority employee quite literally boasting about how his council goes about enforcing parking tickets via bailiff and in doing so graphically exposes all the wrong doing that his council thinks are 'normal'.

Do the council beleive everything the bailiff tells them?

[renegadeimp]

Do the council beleive everything the bailiff tells them?

 

Most of them do as the majority of council staff are very VERY undertrained.

[ploddertom]

I have moved some posts from where they were originally posted so hopefully it is easier to follow.