Six year old disabled boy being threatended with bailiff enforcement.

[Bailiff Advice]

A SIX year old disabled boy from Swindon is receiving letters from the courts and the threat of bailiffs – for not paying a penalty charge notice.

 

Brandon Blades, is autistic and can’t cope with crowds, public transport or unfamiliar spaces – he has been provided with a car as part of his disability allowance to help him get around.

 

The car is registered in his name and displays a blue disabled badge which exempts his family from needing a permit to park outside their home.

 

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/14506018.Courts_chase_Swindon_six_year_old_in_parking_ticket_fiasco/

[brassnecked]

This illustrates issues around the Registered Keeper, and Data Protection A Motability car is usually registerd in the name of the recipient of the benefit, if the boy is RK then they will go after him, but as he is a minor they cannot lawfully enforce against him, nor take him to court. TEC wouldn't deal with the mother on DPA grounds, the council are being very silly and it looks like Common Purpose (pursuit of Revenue) has won over Common Sense yet again. This will probably end up with a bailiff at the door, after all the council will want their money. Issue is would the enforcement against a 6 year old end up with bailiffs being arrested if police were called as it would be unlawful to try to seize his goods? They would probably try to "Take Control" of the parents belongings. The EA would be in a sticky situation as they would be acting in good faith on instructions from the council.

 

The whole sorry mess could have been sorted if TEC and the council had looked at what was in front of them properly. Would make a great comedy skit on Can't Pay.

 

One for Grumpy would the EA know the age of the debtor before they turned up at the door?

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Brandon Blades, is autistic and can’t cope with crowds, public transport or unfamiliar spaces – he has been provided with a car as part of his disability allowance to help him get around.

 

The car is registered in his name and displays a blue disabled badge which exempts his family from needing a permit to park outside their home.

 

I am not familiar with the rules and regulations regarding Motability, but surely it cannot be the case that parents can register the vehicle in the name of their six year old austic child?

[unclebulgaria67]

This illustrates issues around the Registered Keeper, and Data Protection A Motability car is usually registerd in the name of the recipient of the benefit, if the boy is RK then they will go after him, but as he is a minor they cannot lawfully enforce against him, nor take him to court. TEC wouldn't deal with the mother on DPA grounds, the council are being very silly and it looks like Common Purpose (pursuit of Revenue) has won over Common Sense yet again. This will probably end up with a bailiff at the door, after all the council will want their money. Issue is would the enforcement against a 6 year old end up with bailiffs being arrested if police were called as it would be unlawful to try to seize his goods? They would probably try to

Take control of the parents belongings.

 

The whole sorry mess could nave been sorted if TEC and the council had looked at what was in front of them properly. Would make a great comedy skit on Can't Pay.

 

This is all about money and nothing else really.

 

Parking tickets were originally a way of stopping cars causing disruption to other road users or to ensure fair usage. But it has now become a huge industry, with Councils, TEC and Enforcement companies. TEC can't handle the volume and many appeals just seem to get rejected. They also don't appear to help people with enquiries. Councils don't appear that interested in taking ownership of complaints, as to them it is a numbers game, in trying to gain the revenues while avoiding admin costs.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

The whole sorry mess could have been sorted if TEC and the council had looked at what was in front of them properly.

 

The Traffic Enforcement Centre are free of blame in this respect. They merely 'register the debt' on behalf of the local authority. One of their other roles is process Witness Statements. In this respect, it would seem that the mother filed a witness statement and signed it with her name. As this name did match the name on the registration, her application has been rejected.

 

The solution would be for the local authority to use their discretion to cancel the penalty charge notice. The mother needs to change the V5c to avoid such a thing happening again.

[unclebulgaria67]

I am not familiar with the rules and regulations regarding Motability, but surely it cannot be the case that parents can register the vehicle in the name of their six year old austic child?

 

Presume with Motability, that the car must be registered to the person it is provided to. But surely a person aged under 16, can never be in control of a vehicle and cannot therefore be its keeper ?

 

Question for Motability and DVLA

[brassnecked]

Presume with Motability, that the car must be registered to the person it is provided to. But surely a person aged under 16, can never be in control of a vehicle and cannot therefore be its keeper ?

 

Question for Motability and DVLA

 

They could solve this by Parent being RK with "on behalf of XXXXX".

 

I agree with UB, it's all about the money.

 

As it stands there seems to be nothing preventing a vehicle being registered in the name of a cat, dog or any pet.

 

This one will probably end with a bailiff attending and pressuring the parent to pay.

[unclebulgaria67]

Found this info from a DVLA FOI response.

 

"The register maintained by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)is based on vehicles and the registered keepers who are responsible for their use and taxing on the roads.

 

Vehicle registration and licensing is governed by the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended). The Act does not impose any age restrictions for the purposes of vehicle registration.

There is no legal requirement for the person purporting to keep a vehicle to provide evidence of age. This information is provided on a voluntary basis and it is therefore possible for a minor to register a vehicle. However, if the Agency is made aware that a minor is applying to be a registered keeper, the application, as you can appreciate, would be refused on policy grounds.

 

If a parent or guardian has registered the minor as the registered keeper because the vehicle is used to transport/aid the minor, this is incorrect. If the parent or guardian, is the person who is responsible for taxing and using the vehicle on the road then it is the parent or guardian details that must be shown as the registered keeper. "

[Bailiff Advice]

Found this info from a DVLA FOI response.

 

If a parent or guardian has registered the minor as the registered keeper because the vehicle is used to transport/aid the minor, this is incorrect. If the parent or guardian, is the person who is responsible for taxing and using the vehicle on the road then it is the parent or guardian details that must be shown as the registered keeper. "

 

Thank you UB.

 

As I suspected, the parents seems to be responsible for this mess up.

 

I would not think for one minute that the local authority would apply for a warrant of control, so bailiff enforcement will not be an issue. As I have said above, discretion seems to be the order of the day.

[brassnecked]

Thanks for that UB.

[silverfox1961]

This is a new one for me having not considered it before.

 

The DVLA state that if the registered keeper is a minor then the application would usually be refused however, there is no obligation on the applicant to state their age so the DVLA would not know.

I found this slightly frivolous item

http://tinyurl.com/zvpj8ux

 

This is a grey area as I can't find anything on the Motability site about this however, it looks like they are the keeper as they keep the V5 for tax/ insurance purposes but as the lease may be in the minors name, this cannot be legal. This is either a cock up by the parents or Motability as a minor cannot enter into a contract

[unclebulgaria67]

Silverfox

 

I suspect parent/guardian sign relevant contract including terms of usage with Motability.

 

There is reference to new rules on the Motability site about the usage of their vehicles, to prevent them mainly being used by other people, when not for the assistance of the disabled person.

 

Does seem to be a loophole that there is no specific law preventing a child being registered with DVLA and parents using the car avoiding any PCN's.

[GrumpyToSayTheLeast]

The company/council issuing the ticket wouldn't know the age of the keeper.

The courts wouldn't know the age of the keeper.

The bailiff wouldn't know the age of the keeper.

A simple phone call without proof wouldn't be believed by any of the above.

It may end up with bailiffs until proof of age seen.

 

Yes, it does appear to be a loophole, but the parents/guardians should be ones to deal with this correctly by accepting the ticket it THIER name and then disputing ir paying it.

 

Leaving it until bailiffs arrive would be no one but the parents/guardians fault.

 

Yes, we would attempt to take control until proof has been sighted that the individual named on the warrant is under age.

[Coughdrop]

Found this info from a DVLA FOI response.

 

"If the parent or guardian, is the person who is responsible for taxing and using the vehicle on the road then it is the parent or guardian details that must be shown as the registered keeper. "

 

I think you'll find that Motability is an exception to this. With Motability the RK has to be the person in receipt of the benefit, but there are two named drivers, with a third who can be added for an additional cost.

 

Entitlement to a blue badge does not mean you can park where you want however. Exceptions vary between authorities, but whilst you can park on double yellow lines for up to 3 hours, for example, you cannot park if there are hatches denoting a loading area, in a bus stop, by a dropped kerb, on a bend or brow of a hill etc... etc...

 

I mention this, as many think blue badge holders can park anywhere, and it is quite possible for a badge holder to be given a PCN even when displaying a blue badge.

 

Pursuing the child because they are the RK is stupid. Common sense will prevail in the end, but the legal machinations have to be followed.

[brassnecked]

I think you'll find that Motability is an exception to this. With Motability the RK has to be the person in receipt of the benefit, but there are two named drivers, with a third who can be added for an additional cost.

 

Pursuing the child because they are the RK is stupid. Common sense will prevail in the end, but the legal machinations have to be followed.

 

They are stupid enough to pursue the child, as the DPA supposedly prevents the TEC and council dealing with the parents as they are third parties. So as Grumpy says the bailiff will call and go after the parents goods until they see proof the RK is indeed a minor.

[ploddertom]

It used to be with Motability vehicles that the "hirer" was listed on the V5 c/o Motability Finance - not sure if this si still the case. If it is then any Bailiff attending would be forewarned they are dealing with a potentially vulnerable person who has a motability vehicle. It also allowed easy processing of any PCN's or motoring offences.

 

As far as the parents are concerned then they will have had to sign the finance docs as the child is not of age to do so. It has only made the press because of the boys age and no doubt the family have been dealing with some outsourced employee of a private company who cannot deviate from the script. They should have contacted their local Councillor and am sure this would have been resolved much quicker.

 

Of course it could be that the ticket was issued correctly in which case the driver should be taking responsibility for it.

[Bailiff Advice]

It used to be with Motability vehicles that the "hirer" was listed on the V5 c/o Motability Finance - not sure if this si still the case. If it is then any Bailiff attending would be forewarned they are dealing with a potentially vulnerable person who has a motability vehicle. It also allowed easy processing of any PCN's or motoring offences.

 

Another 'safety net' is that if the debt is for an unpaid penalty charge notice, and the vehicle involved in the contravention was provided under the Motability Scheme, then the warrant of control contains a specific code identifying the VRM as being related to a Motability vehicle.

 

Accordingly, all enforcement companies are 'pre warned' of the likelyhood that the debtor may be 'vulnerable',

[Peterbard]

Does the piece say this is a motability car ?

 

Also of course enforcement cannot take place against a six year old as he would be a child under the TCE (the piece mentions bailiffs) s child is defined as someone under 16.

[Bailiff Advice]

Does the piece say this is a motability car ?

 

DB:

 

The following is copied from the news article:

 

A SIX year old disabled boy from Swindon is receiving letters from the courts and the threat of bailiffs – for not paying a parking fine.

 

Brandon Blades, of Old Town, is autistic and can’t cope with crowds, public transport or unfamiliar spaces –

he has been provided with a car as part of his disability allowance to help him get around.

 

The car is registered in his name and displays a blue disabled badge which exempts his family from needing a permit to park outside their home.

[brassnecked]

Does the piece say this is a motability car ?

 

Also of course enforcement cannot take place against a six year old as he would be a child under the TCE (the piece mentions bailiffs) s child is defined as someone under 16.

looks like it might be Motability, if not the "Beneficial Interest" judgment might be used, the Bailiffs might ignore the rules take the car and/or go after the parents anyway. Looks like it might be a Residents parking permit argument, and the ticket was for not displaying a permit:

 

"The car is registered in his name and displays a blue disabled badge which exempts his family from needing a permit to park outside their home. "

 

The whole affair is ludicrous. Perhaps the bailiffs might want his toys even though they are exempt.

[Coughdrop]

I've read a few of these today hunting around the internet. All have been long, drawn out affairs, but all have been resolved eventually. It is an area which needs addressing as it must be relatively common.

[stu007]

What springs to mind on reading this thread is the Article actually mentions "Permit" but for what?

 

Could it be that the Local Authority have imposed a residents permit scheme? we don't know.

 

Something to be aware of with Motability now is the Hirer does not see a V5 as this is all held electronically with Motability.

Edited May 31, 2016 by stu007

[brassnecked]

Residents Parking schemes are another cash cow operation for the council, say £50 - £500 plus per permit, there may be a concessionary FREE Permit for Blue badge holders, but the Permit would still have to be displayed, so no display equals ticket even with badge on show.

 

Perhaps this is what happened to the unfortunate family.

[Peterbard]

What springs to mind on reading this thread is the Article actually mentions "Permit" but for what?

 

Could it be that the Local Authority have imposed a residents permit scheme? we don't know.

 

Something to be aware of with Motability now is the Hirer does not see a V5 as this is all held electronically with Motability.

 

Yes it is. Does the mobility section of the payment have to be used via motability. For instance I am aware that MB do not provide HP since earlier this year. So could the component not be used to buy a vehicle elsewhere ?

 

Perhaps this why it did not flag on the DVLA check.

[Coughdrop]

Does the mobility section of the payment have to be used via motability.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

So could the component not be used to buy a vehicle elsewhere ?

 

Yes it could.