Debtor loses Crown Court appeal for assault and removing a wheel clamp.

[old bill]

This is totally off topic, but I'm going to bite.

 

old bill, that statement is ridiculous! The FPN system isn't incompatible with anything...

 

A) You do not have to accept an FPN, you can if you so choose decide to be reported for consideration and summonsed in the normal way, where you are innocent until (and unless) found guilty.

B) Even if you choose to accept the FPN, you do not have to pay it. You can fill in the back of the ticket and have your day in court, where you are innocent until (and unless) found guilty. And finally..

C) You admit guilt yourself by paying the ticket and not choosing either option A or B.

 

Rank and file police officers I have spoken to have, themselves, voiced concerns about FPNs. A lot of them would prefer to go to court, but are under pressure from above to issue tickets. This is a consequence of target-driven policing.

 

None of which are a presumption of guilt, unless you choose C where you're not being presumed guilty, you're admitting to your own guilt.

 

Admitting your own guilt is fair enough. If you choose to that, so be it. However, the law is that only a court has the power to impose a penalty for an alleged offence, not a police officer or council jobsworth brandishing a book of tickets.

 

Spouting such nonsense as your quoted text above, makes you sound like one of those FMOTL fruitloops. Please don't devalue your usually sensible (and thought provoking) posts with such drivel. Point taken, but you have realise that ECHR is not FMOTL. It was drafted by the British in the aftermath of WWII to ensure the sort of thing that happened in Nazi Germany and which appears to be creeping in again in some countries, never happens again and was signed in Rome in 1953. There are currently 47 countries that are signatories to the Convention, including Russia and Switzerland. I could write an entire thread on the European Convention on Human Rights and how it applies to the English Legal System. As well as being ex-police, I have also studied law, including International Law, and am a very passionate supporter of human rights. Remember that people fought and died to ensure the freedoms we enjoy today and which appear to becoming slowly throttled out of existence. A lot of what British police officers are currently being asked to do is causing rank and file officers anxiety and stress. This is reality, not FMOTL.

 

@@@@

[goodatresearch]

Paying a fixed penalty notice is NOT an admission of guilt, it actually says on the notice "payment of the penalty involves no admission of guilt...", therefore you are not admitting your own guilt at all.

 

You really shouldn't say people are talking nonsense re the law when you don't understand it yourself.

 

 

This is totally off topic, but I'm going to bite.

 

old bill, that statement is ridiculous! The FPN system isn't incompatible with anything...

 

A) You do not have to accept an FPN, you can if you so choose decide to be reported for consideration and summonsed in the normal way, where you are innocent until (and unless) found guilty.

B) Even if you choose to accept the FPN, you do not have to pay it. You can fill in the back of the ticket and have your day in court, where you are innocent until (and unless) found guilty. And finally..

C) You admit guilt yourself by paying the ticket and not choosing either option A or B.

 

None of which are a presumption of guilt, unless you choose C where you're not being presumed guilty, you're admitting to your own guilt.

 

Spouting such nonsense as your quoted text above, makes you sound like one of those FMOTL fruitloops. Please don't devalue your usually sensible (and thought provoking) posts with such drivel.

[tomtubby]

We seem to very quickly be going off the subject (which concerns cutting off a wheel clamp.

[old bill]

I agree with OB to an extent on FPN's

 

The fact is, if you disagree with the assumption of guilt an FPN entails the court proceedings often appear to be a rubber stamp exercise with magistrates talking only "police or EO" and it does appear to be fact as even some magistrates have complained that fellow members of the bench do not view these cases unbiased but from an extremely biased viewpoint that a police officer and council EO is a very special type of human being who is incapable of telling porkies, a belief that would astonish some real judges who regularly see evidence of police porkies and corruption not to mention the LGO.

 

The biggest thing I think is the fact that if you dare to use your right to defend yourself against an allegation then should you lose and there will be many innocent people who do then the FPN is Doubled! So we have an instrument that says either admit guilt now even if innocent or we will make your life a misery for daring to use your rights.

 

It is extremely telling that the main reason behind FPN is to save constables and EO's "hassle and paperwork" it is an instrument that very effectively makes a Constable or EO judge, jury and executioner. Something not supposed to exist in a democracy

 

You've made some very valid points, CF, and ones which reflect what has and still is, to some extent, going on where magistrates court hearings are concerned. And the points you make about the FPN being doubled if you challenge it in court and lose as about police officers and CEOs being judge, jury and executioner is spot-on. They should not be happening in what is supposed to be a democratic society and certainly not in a country that pioneered one of the most important pieces of International Law since WWII.

[brassnecked]

So Commuter parks their car outside debtors house,EA clamps it in error, or assumes under Observer v Gordon commuter comes back argues with the EA shows proof, they own the car, EA says staying clamped, commuter cuts it off, so now they will be done for criminal damage. Nice (not)

[caledfwlch]

Don't forget whilst the 3rd party is down the nick being charged Mr or Mrs Thug will remove the car considering their auction and levy fees to be endangered.

 

Even if Police Statements then back up the 3rd party that the Thugs knew this was not the debtors car it is going to cost the 3rd party up front to take legal action in order to recover the car or its value, but will have no way to make a formal complaint that holds force, as it seems the Judiciary are protecting bailiffs by hitting complainents with many thousands of pounds in costs even though interpreting a form 4 complaint as litigation with lunatic cost orders seems to have come as a shock to just about everyone despite form 4's existing what, decades?

 

Thus in the UK of 2014 parking legally near the wrong house can see you losing your Car, being arrested and charged, being hit with 30,000 grand in costs for daring to complain and as a nice present if the bailiffs storage facility is closed and they leave it where they shouldn't temporarily the victim could end up with parking fines as despite claiming ownership of a vehicle the bailiff has no obligation to pay any fines it attracts in their custody even when their fault.

 

It is clear many county court judiciary and mag's have been bought.

 

 

So Commuter parks their car outside debtors house,EA clamps it in error, or assumes under Observer v Gordon commuter comes back argues with the EA shows proof, they own the car, EA says staying clamped, commuter cuts it off, so now they will be done for criminal damage. Nice (not)

[brassnecked]

Caled, you realise of course that Form 4 died on 5th April, so there is now no formal complaint procedure to lodge against an egregious errant EA.

 

Wonder what charges plod would try to pin on me if i made the EA wear the clamp as a necklace if they clamped my motor for a third party debt?

[tomtubby]

To answer a number of different questions raised above.

 

Form 4

 

The term 'Form 4' is redundant. In its place is a similar procedure much the same as before. The difference this time is that the regulations make clear that the debtor could be ordered to pay costs in specific circumstances. Therefore, there is a court remedy and as long as the complaint is made on good grounds costs should not be an issue.

 

Applications that goods taken into control are owned by a third party.

 

In such cases the court can order that the person making the claim should pay a sum into court that could be equal to the value of the item. It is my understanding that so far....no such cases have reach the court.

 

Before even getting this far the creditor must be forwarded a copy of the 'Third Party Claim' by the enforcement company. The creditor is tasked with making a decision as to wether or not to release the goods. If the creditor disagrees, then the EA can make an application to court. The EA can also apply to the court for 'protection' from a claim being made against them by the debtor. The creditor will not have such 'protection' !!! The court can make any order that it deems fit.

 

Application that goods taken should be exempt etc.

 

Similar to above but the debtor (or person making the claim) will NOT be required to pay a sum into court.

 

Again, the enforcement company are protected from a claim for any wrongdoing. The creditor are not and the court can again make any order that they deem fit.

[tomtubby]

 

The debtor's biggest mistake was refusing to return the clamp, which is Theft, per se.

 

.

.

I will reiterate once more....the debtor was NOT convicted of theft and this was never an issue.

 

However, even if theft had been an issue (which it was not) then this would be for the court to decide and certainly not for the debtor !!!

[brassnecked]

@ TT So if a third party cuts off the clamp when EA refuses to acknowledge the evidence of ownership they will be done for criminal damage whatever?

[goodatresearch]

I agree, this is totally wrong. Your not in debt, someone touches your property and your charged for removing something that shouldn't be there in the first place. Madness.

 

QUOTE=brassnecked;4599790]@ TT So if a third party cuts off the clamp when EA refuses to acknowledge the evidence of ownership they will be done for criminal damage whatever?

[brassnecked]

I agree, this is totally wrong. Your not in debt, someone touches your property and your charged for removing something that shouldn't be there in the first place. Madness.

 

QUOTE=brassnecked;4599790]@ TT So if a third party cuts off the clamp when EA refuses to acknowledge the evidence of ownership they will be done for criminal damage whatever?

The new rules are having a positive effect, but there are still issues to be addressed, as Mr Boast's trainees are still out there, and some are bone headed enough to seize a liveried UPS or DHL van whilst the courier is delivering a parcel to an address near a debtors home, as it was parked outside.

 

Where a Courier is a franchisee, their van is almost always leased through the company so even if they are the debtor, the EA cannot have the brand new Sprinter in company livery, doubtless one EA will be facey enough to push to interpleader. It is only a matter of time. Clamping such a vehicle will prevent the debtor from working and therefore earning to help discharge the already inflated debt. Wonder what redress there is in that circumstance.

[tomtubby]

The reality is that under the new regulations the enforcement agent has far more responsibility than ever before to ensure that goods taken 'into control' are owned by the debtor. The regulations are very specific on this. Goods must be goods of the debtor.

 

The position with motor vehicles has changed significantly in the past 4-5 years with more vehicles than ever being purchased through some sort of 'finance' deal. This has sent sales surging and has reignited Britain's car industry. The types of deals are like nothing before. Borrowing is at close to zero interest rate with five year warranties as standard. The figures are simply staggering. Three-quarters of all new cars are bought with credit and most of them under 'PCP' plans. This has replaced hire purchase. These vehicles of course cannot be taken.

 

Where a problem will arise is that there is little protection for small business owners given the low 'exemption' figure of £1,350.

 

Last week alone I had enquiries from three new owners of vehicles who had been subject to bailiff visits. In each case they were able to provide EVIDENCE that they had properly acquired the vehicles and the matter was concluded.

[brassnecked]

The reality is that under the new regulations the enforcement agent has far more responsibility than ever before to ensure that goods taken 'into control' are owned by the debtor. The regulations are very specific on this. Goods must be goods of the debtor.

 

The position with motor vehicles has changed significantly in the past 4-5 years with more vehicles than ever being purchased through some sort of 'finance' deal. This has sent sales surging and has reignited Britain's car industry. The types of deals are like nothing before. Borrowing is at close to zero interest rate with five year warranties as standard. The figures are simply staggering. Three-quarters of all new cars are bought with credit and most of them under 'PCP' plans. This has replaced hire purchase. These vehicles of course cannot be taken.

 

Where a problem will arise is that there is little protection for small business owners given the low 'exemption' figure of £1,350.

 

Last week alone I had enquiries from three new owners of vehicles who had been subject to bailiff visits. In each case they were able to provide EVIDENCE that they had properly acquired the vehicles and the matter was concluded.

 

 

The popularity of PCP, and lease vehicles makes any seizure of a new or newish vehicle a lottery for the EA. The issue of the low £1350 threshold for tools of the trade will come back and bite the MOJ when people are thrown out of work, or a sole trader petitions for Bankruptcy due to tools being taken preventing them from working.

[caledfwlch]

Surely the right of an EA/HCEO etc to apply to Court for "protection" from their own mistakes is totally and utterly alien to any concept of Justice and the human rights of victims.

 

Imagine if Police Officers were given the right of protection for making mistakes!

 

DM readers esp seem to want Police Authorised Firearms Officers to be given the same protections of a US Cop as they are appalled that when an AFO fires in anger they are effectively treated almost as a murder suspect until the inquiry - gun gets bagged and tagged etc.

 

This is a vital protection and safety net, imagine if all AFO's could gun suspects down like US Cops it would be chaos.

 

But giving EA's a blank slate to act as they wish is totally ludicrous and as it removes a victims right to justice it cannot be compatible - not to mention the rights of a Creditor dropped amongst the wolves by a poor behaving EA!

[tomtubby]

Surely the right of an EA/HCEO etc to apply to Court for "protection" from their own mistakes is totally and utterly alien to any concept of Justice and the human rights of victims.

 

But giving EA's a blank slate to act as they wish is totally ludicrous and as it removes a victims right to justice it cannot be compatible - not to mention the rights of a Creditor dropped amongst the wolves by a poor behaving EA!

 

.

.

As many regulars are here are aware I was outraged to read that the regulations provided the 'Interpleader' provision and I wrote a detailed article for CCR Public Sector to outline my serious concerns. I was delighted to find shortly after my article (and the equally lengthly thread on here) that the government had made substantial changes to this provision. I still not happy with large parts of the new regulations (CPR 85) but I am aware that the Ministry of Justice are monitoring such applications to ascertain how courts will deal with such applications and time will tell whether the procedure works as intended.

 

The matter of 'protection' has been in the High Court regulations for many years and has been modified into the new regs. I DONT like the provision. However, there is a reason for the clause being in the regulations:

 

When either application is made (third party claims, claims that 'exempt' goods have been taken or claims that the excessive goods have been taken etc) the EA must send a copy of the claim (which is merely a letter) to the creditor seeking their view on whether to accept or reject the claim. The decision is made by the creditor. Therefore, if the court decide that the CREDITOR was wrong, then the court may 'make any order that it wishes'. This could include ordering the LA to repay costs etc, etc.

 

It must be stressed that the court will only consider ordering the claimant to pay an amount into court in cases of 'Third Party' claims. This provision is NOT applicable for any other claims.