Parking mad 08/05/2014

[tomtubby]

I was actually more concerned with this episode than the others for so many reasons. I lost count of the number of times that the Whyte & co bailiffs said that the car has outstanding warrants against it !!!

 

The absurdity of this comment can be best demonstrated by considering the following:

 

I could be fined for speaking on a mobile but this does not mean that there is a warrant against the PHONE

 

I could be fined if my dog messed in an open park area but this does not mean that there is a warrant against the DOG

 

I could be fined for overfilling my refuse bins but this again does not mean that there is a warrant against the REFUSE BINS

 

In all cases (including the parking tickets) the warrant is against the OWNER (of the mobile car, the dog, the refuse bins or the motor vehicle).

[tomtubby]

Brassnecked. Your above post is spot on...well done.

 

By coincidence I have written an extensive article on these Bailiff and Police ANPR Roadside Operations for a trade publication that goes to press over the weekend. Once published I will be allowed to post a copy here on the forum. I agree with you that these operations should stop right now and the "Parking Mad" series has highlighted the serious failings of these operations and worryingly, "Debbie" (the female bailiff from Whyte & Co) appears to have little regard for the regulations.

[tomtubby]

Under the new bailiff regulations MOJ are insisting that bailiffs undergo specific training etc. With respect seeing the way in which the bailiffs acted last night it is clear that they will do precisely what THEY want to do and further training will not make any difference. Bearing in mind that the bailiff was aware that he was being filmed I was very angry at what was said to the seriously disabled motorist who was pulled over for ONE parking ticket. This gentleman had lost both his legs and had the use of a vehicle provided under the Motability Scheme. I would assume that given the severity of his disability that the vehicle would have been modified etc.

 

The bailiff quite rightly confirmed that he could not seize a Motability vehicle and tried to insist that the driver had REFUSED to pay his ticket. The driver quickly argued that he was NOT refusing to pay and that instead, he could not AFFORD to pay but could make a payment proposal of £5 per week. This was rejected and on hearing this offer the bailiff was seen taunting the driver by saying that:

 

"You can afford to run a nice car Sir"

 

The driver was quick to respond saying that the vehicle costs £50 per week and the payment is deducted from his Disability Living Allowance.

 

Upon realising that payment would not be forthcoming the bailiff then demonstrated his total lack of compassion by informing this desperately disabled man that he would therefore have to contact Motability Finance to advise them that the driver had broken the terms of his Motability Finance Agreement by failing to pay a parking ticket.

[tomtubby]

Citizen B

 

In answer to your question about Motability, about two years ago a lady contacted the debt charity (where I work one day a week) as her Motability vehicle had been taken back by Motability as she had a LOT of unpaid parking tickets (which from memory was about 20 tickets).

 

At that time I was involved in a lot of discussion with the Motability legal team and it was then that I was made aware that there is indeed a clause in the Agreements. However, the clause (at that time) stated that the driver could be in default if they failed to pay motoring FINES ( which are not parking tickets).

 

In light of last night's programme I will be contacting Motability Finance for further details.

 

If anyone viewing this post has a Motability vehicle I would be pleased to know what clauses are in the Agreement.

[tomtubby]

CitizenB and Mikeymack..... a very big THANK YOU !!!!

[tomtubby]

There was so much wrong in this episode that it is hard to know where to begin:

 

1..Whyte & Co were once again on the verge of taking a vehicle that was clearly a 'tool of the trade" (roofing contractor)

 

2..Once again, Whyte & Co were seen on numerous occasions to state that the vehicle has been stopped as IT (the vehicle) has an outstanding warrant again it.

 

3..Whyte & Co were seen to be SEARCHING the boot space of cars stopped on their instructions.

 

4..Whyte & Co confirmed that their DVLA enquiry had been wrong and that a second DVLA check had indeed proved that the car had changed ownership.

 

5..'Debbie' was not seen in this episode (or indeed any others) to show the debtor a copy of the warrant (for all we know the warrant may have expired)

 

6..Whyte & Co were heard to say that they had been pursuing one vehicle for 'over 12 months'. This statement was worrying given that a warrant expires after 12 months and I am concerned that she may have been charging the debtor for a PCN that was subject to an expired warrant !!

[tomtubby]

The GOOD part from each episode has been the way in which the Adjudicators deal with appeals.

 

It is a well known fact that TPT (Traffic Parking Tribunal) have a far less formal approach than PATAS and this was demonstrated clearly by seeing how expertly (and fairly) Caroline Sheppard dealt with appeals. She is by far the most experienced Adjudicator in the UK and the expression on her face this week when the local authority confirmed that they had provided a wrong document in their appeal pack was a picture. Her displeasure was so evident.