EAC2 Complaints to court about bailiffs and complainants ordered to pay costs.

[Ruleoflaw]

Highway for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not a person's property (ie drive way). Under the Courts Act 2003's Collection Regs 2006, only a lawful authority can clamp a vehicle otherwise it's a criminal offence: Protection of Freedom Act 2012, and section 6 (1), Security Industry Act 2001. However the officer for the council etc must have a clamp (immobiliser) Order, and must know the person has the means to pay the debt and the vehicle must be in their name: Reg. 14,Collection Regs 2006. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the person clamping a car must have lawful authority, ie working for the courts or the council. Under the Security Industry Act 2001 the bailiff/ security company staff must be licenced (otherwise it's criminal offence), and cannot clamp a vehicle unless if it is on the highway (ie not an anyone's drive, or pathway).

[ploddertom]

Sounds as if there are those who should engage brain before putting mouth in motion.

[Peterbard]

Sounds as if there are those who should engage brain before putting mouth in motion.

 

Not likely to happen any time soon PT. They have a long history of coasting in neutral.

[brassnecked]

Not likely to happen any time soon PT. They have a long history of coasting in neutral.

 

You could get 65 mph downhill out of an old Atkinson Borderer with a Gardner 180 in Silent Ninth.

 

But seriously some advice really is too good to be true.

[Peterbard]

Highway for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not a person's property (ie drive way). Under the Courts Act 2003's Collection Regs 2006, only a lawful authority can clamp a vehicle otherwise it's a criminal offence: Protection of Freedom Act 2012, and section 6 (1), Security Industry Act 2001. However the officer for the council etc must have a clamp (immobiliser) Order, and must know the person has the means to pay the debt and the vehicle must be in their name: Reg. 14,Collection Regs 2006. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the person clamping a car must have lawful authority, ie working for the courts or the council. Under the Security Industry Act 2001 the bailiff/ security company staff must be licenced (otherwise it's criminal offence), and cannot clamp a vehicle unless if it is on the highway (ie not an anyone's drive, or pathway).

 

I do not wish to be rude ROL. But if you are going to comment, you are better reading some of the threads on here and getting used to the relavant legislation , most of what you quote is not.

Start with BAs stickies and then read some of the advice threads, follow links to all information stated, not easy and it takes a while but the only way. Oh and no one will mind if you ask questions.

[ploddertom]

Highway for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not a person's property (ie drive way). Under the Courts Act 2003's Collection Regs 2006, only a lawful authority can clamp a vehicle otherwise it's a criminal offence: Protection of Freedom Act 2012, and section 6 (1), Security Industry Act 2001. However the officer for the council etc must have a clamp (immobiliser) Order, and must know the person has the means to pay the debt and the vehicle must be in their name: Reg. 14,Collection Regs 2006. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the person clamping a car must have lawful authority, ie working for the courts or the council. Under the Security Industry Act 2001 the bailiff/ security company staff must be licenced (otherwise it's criminal offence), and cannot clamp a vehicle unless if it is on the highway (ie not an anyone's drive, or pathway).

 

Sorry to say but I think you have your wires crossed as this has nothing to do with POFA or SIA.

[Ruleoflaw]

What exactly is wrong about t, please be specific and tell me why you believe it's wrong. The information I have presented relates to 'clamping' vehicles and the various persons and the various legal authorities. So, how is this not relevant?

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

Highway for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is not a person's property (ie drive way). Under the Courts Act 2003's Collection Regs 2006, only a lawful authority can clamp a vehicle otherwise it's a criminal offence: Protection of Freedom Act 2012, and section 6 (1), Security Industry Act 2001. However the officer for the council etc must have a clamp (immobiliser) Order, and must know the person has the means to pay the debt and the vehicle must be in their name: Reg. 14,Collection Regs 2006. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the person clamping a car must have lawful authority, ie working for the courts or the council. Under the Security Industry Act 2001 the bailiff/ security company staff must be licenced (otherwise it's criminal offence), and cannot clamp a vehicle unless if it is on the highway (ie not an anyone's drive, or pathway).

 

Wow. Take a read of the relevant legislation before wasting your time.

[Peterbard]

What exactly is wrong about t, please be specific and tell me why you believe it's wrong. The information I have presented relates to 'clamping' vehicles and the various persons and the various legal authorities. So, how is this not relevant?

 

It is not so much wrong but either obsolete repealed or just out of context. The best place to start, if you are wanting to learn about enforcement is the tribunals courts and enforcment act 2007 and associated regulators, these are the only legislation which is relavant since the inception of part three and schedule 12 last year.

[Ruleoflaw]

Sorry to say but I think you have your wires crossed as this has nothing to do with POFA or SIA.

 

 

Thank you, Tom. POFA in fact amends previous statute just like the Enterprise Act 2002 amends Insolvency Act 1986. It was the Lords in Hansard, going by their commentary, who insisted that POFA change relevant legislation such as TCEA 2007 and SIA 2001 to benefit only lawful (ie Council, Inland Revenue, Courts/ Court order etc) immobilisation (clamping) of vehicles. As TCEA was amended so were the relevant secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments, ie Regulations), which made Regulations effective in 2014. SIA is relevant because certain licenced companies or therein agents/ staff are lawful if they were to immobilise vehicles on 'the high way'..ie not on the public path. Every authority in terms of the Council, Inland Revenue, the Courts, ie Magistrates all must have a statutory authority (ie Parliament Act), in which the government/ local government (ie Council) then applies their own regulations to effectively deal with the details that the statute cannot hope to consider every potential scenario etc. However, and this a big but, the Regulations powers cannot go beyond the main statutory power. if this were to happen, it would be beyond the mandate of the executive, as it has not gone through Houses of Common and Lords and royal assent, which is what a Bill (intended Act) requires to make is a Parliament Act.

[old bill]

As Tomtubby and Ploddertom have both said, exhaust all avenues of complaint and resolution with the enforcement agent's employer, the creditor and any statutory regulators first. The EAC2 is a very last resort and, in my view, should only be considered in cases of serious misconduct by an enforcement agent, e.g. assaulting an alleged debtor.

 

I am currently dealing with a case where a pensioner was badly beaten by an enforcement agent who, it turned out, had no lawful authority to be at the pensioner's address and continued regardless when told by the pensioner he should not be at his address. The enforcement agent's client has been unable to come out with a credible explanation, changing its story three times and trying to blame the pensioner for what happened! The matter is currently with the ICO as it involves a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998. The case has also highlighted the training police receive in dealing with bailiff incidents is woefuly inadequate. I am compiling fact sheets for police officers, with corresponding fact sheets they can hand out to alleged debtors, as to how they stand and what they can do to address an enforcement agent turning up on their doorstep, out of the blue, demanding money and throwing their weight around. In the case I have highlighted, the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton have been very helpful and I would like to thank them, on this thread, for their assistance.

 

More recently, this past week, in fact, an enforcement agent called at a residential property and an 11 year-old answered the door. Instead of following the rules and walking away, the bailiff assaulted the 11 year-old, knocking them flying, and proceeded to barge in and bully the child's mother, who has Lupus and was in the bathroom being violently sick. It is my understanding the police are dealing with the enforcement agent's assault on the 11 year-old.

[Peterbard]

This sounds terrible, do you have any more details. Particularly regarding the severe assault which the ICO are investigating. Anyone been arrested ?

[old bill]

Because the incident involving the flying 11 year-old is currently with the police, DB, I cannot comment any further.

 

The case involving the pensioner went to the CPS who won't have it that they have let down the pensioner. They decided not to proceed against the EA because, according to CPS, the pensioner allegedly threw a plastic milk bottle full of rainwater over the EA. "Oh that's assault," the CPS claim. They can't seem to get it into their heads the EA should not have been there in the first place. The ICO, on the other hand, has been very helpful. A file is with them at the moment awaiting allocation to a case officer. I'll come back onto this thread and update when I have more details.

[Bailiff Advice]

As Tomtubby and Ploddertom have both said, exhaust all avenues of complaint and resolution with the enforcement agent's employer, the creditor and any statutory regulators first. The EAC2 is a very last resort and, in my view, should only be considered in cases of serious misconduct by an enforcement agent, e.g. assaulting an alleged debtor.

 

I am currently dealing with a case where a pensioner was badly beaten by an enforcement agent who, it turned out, had no lawful authority to be at the pensioner's address and continued regardless when told by the pensioner he should not be at his address.

 

It's always good to hear back from you Old Bill.

 

Without mentioning any names (or enforcement company) this may possibly be a case that was featured on one of the FB pages last year. I was never able to ascertain the background.

 

Was there a reason why it was considered that the bailiff had no 'lawful authority' to be at the property? For instance, had the debt been paid in full?....was the wrong person being pursued?

[old bill]

It's always good to hear back from you Old Bill.

 

Without mentioning any names (or enforcement company) this may possibly be a case that was featured on one of the FB pages last year. I was never able to ascertain the background.

 

Was there a reason why it was considered that the bailiff had no 'lawful authority' to be at the property? For instance, had the debt been paid in full?....was the wrong person being pursued?

 

Try TEC had not authorised any warrant and no debt registered with TEC. The EA's employer confirmed they received the pensioner's personal details in a digital file two months before. This is why the ICO is now involved.

[Peterbard]

Try TEC had not authorised any warrant and no debt registered with TEC. The EA's employer confirmed they received the pensioner's personal details in a digital file two months before. This is why the ICO is now involved.

When you say the EA s employer do you mean the council ?

[old bill]

When you say the EA s employer do you mean the council ?

 

The enforcement company is the EA's employer. The client is a local authority who sent the pensioner's personal details to the enforcement company without authorisation from TEC. The local authority seems to believe the LGO is a complaints fairy who will wave their magic wand and make the incident and the fallout from it go away. It won't. The LGO can do very little, if anything at all. It is the ICO who has the muscle and can inflict a Civil Monetary Penalty of up to £500,000 on those who breach data protection.

[Peterbard]

The enforcement company is the EA's employer. The client is a local authority who sent the pensioner's personal details to the enforcement company without authorisation from TEC. The local authority seems to believe the LGO is a complaints fairy who will wave their magic wand and make the incident and the fallout from it go away. It won't. The LGO can do very little, if anything at all. It is the ICO who has the muscle and can inflict a Civil Monetary Penalty of up to £500,000 on those who breach data protection.

 

So you are talking about the authority. Actually the authority sends instruction to the EA(enforcement agent (section 62).

 

So you are expecting tbe ICO to take action against the authority for sharing data in relation to a parking offence. Must say OB you never disappoint.

[old bill]

So you are talking about the authority. Actually the authority sends instruction to the EA(enforcement agent (section 62).

 

So you are expecting tbe ICO to take action against the authority for sharing data in relation to a parking offence. Must say OB you never disappoint.

 

Not quite like you portray it, DB. The LA shared personal data with a civil enforcement company and no record of any authority to do so held by TEC. The enforcement company then passed the pensioner's personal details to the EA who then attended the pensioner's address and behaved like a neanderthal. The enforcement company has confirmed the LA sent them the pensioner's personal data and when. The screenshot TEC sent to me clearly shows the LA had not registered any debt and there was no authority to issue a warrant either.

 

Who are you saying should be stuck on the sheet for this, DB, the pensioner?

[Peterbard]

Not the EAin respect of commencing the action. Did the person receive any statutory notices in this regard?

[unclebulgaria67]

Perhaps the government needs to reduce enforcement fees significantly, so there is no incentive for EC's to pressure their agents to act agressively. Enforcement becomes too profitable for those involved and standards start to drop.

 

I think it would be much better to look at other options, so there is as little enforcement action as possible. You wait for when driverless cars just park anywhere and as soon as the onboard camera sees a traffic warden, they drive off.

[Bailiff Advice]

Try TEC had not authorised any warrant and no debt registered with TEC. The EA's employer confirmed they received the pensioner's personal details in a digital file two months before. This is why the ICO is now involved.

 

I am probably going back about 8 years ago, but I had an incident where a warrant had not been authorised by the Traffic Enforcement Centre. I remember very well that the Ministry of Justice took the local authority to task. It was an extremely serious case.

 

In the complaint that you are assisting in, what has been the response from the local authority? Have they apologised to the individual and if not....WHY !!!!

[old bill]

Not the EAin respect of commencing the action. Did the person receive any statutory notices in this regard?

 

The LA is the data controller for data protection act purposes. It is the LA the ICO is investigating. However, at some point, the enforcement company will need to provide an explanation as to when they received the pensioner's personal details from the LA. I am also privy to information which is currently with the ICO which relates to the actions of the LA.

[old bill]

I am probably going back about 8 years ago, but I had an incident where a warrant had not been authorised by the Traffic Enforcement Centre. I remember very well that the Ministry of Justice took the local authority to task. It was an extremely serious case.

 

In the complaint that you are assisting in, what has been the response from the local authority? Have they apologised to the individual and if not....WHY !!!!

 

The only response the pensioner has had from the LA is along the lines of "We do not condone violence, but tough titty." The LA has changed its story three times and cannot seem to get its story straight. They have even tried to blame the pensioner for the assault! The ICO is not impressed with the LA and has made it clear that, had it not been for the LA's improper disclosure, the incident would not have happened, TT.

[Bailiff Advice]

The only response the pensioner has had from the LA is along the lines of "We do not condone violence, but tough titty.".

 

Something is not right here OB. In the case that I dealt with (albeit, quite a few years ago) the Ministry of Justice became involved and I would expect nothing less.

 

If it is the case that a local authority have instructed their contracted enforcement company to enforce a warrant that does not exist, then MOJ should be doing something.

 

What has been the response from TEC?

 

Have you taken your complaint to a senior person at TEC?