So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

[Monkey Drunk]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Any bailiff who seizes a vehicle without have first conducted a check with DVLA is going to have more than the loss of their certificate to worry about.

If the bailiff has good reason to believe a vehicle is owned by the debtor named on the court order (such as when the debtor is seen driving the vehicle), they have every right to seize the vehicle to ascertain who it belongs to without first checking with the DVLA. Cars are no different from any other assets, especially when parked within the grounds of the warrant address. It is simply good practice to check with the DVLA first.

That is surely your best joke yet.


Bailiffs seize first and - maybe - think later. Even the useless "guidelines" and "best practice" twaddle only suggests checking DVLA data when the bailiff wants to lift a vehicle - which could have been clamped for days or weeks by then.




It must be truly wonderful to have such a delightfully innocent and naive view of the world.

The world I live in is certainly not innocent and my view of the world certainly isn't naive. I've been working in the industry for a decade now so I like to think I've got some experience with these matters. Of the 700 or so certificated bailiffs operating in England and Wales that attempt to execute thousands of warrants on a daily basis, this website along with the other established help forums get maybe a handful of new threads on a daily basis if they're lucky. If you think what you read on here is a fair reflection of the "norm" then I suggest it is you who has a naive and innocent view of the world.


Considering how long you've been a member here and the number of posts you've amassed, maybe it's about time you got out more into the real world instead of spending so much time putting the world to rights in here? It's easy to get wrapped up in an online world and unfortunately, when you constantly read the same old anti-establishment mantra from the same people every day, it's understandable that you start to think the same as your peers.

Monkeydrunk - re the bit I bolded above - can you elaborate please - are you saying that if a bailiff did a DVLA check on a vehicle he could be in no doubt if it had a disabled nil rate tax disc? As in that info would automatically be supplied without him having to ask about it specifically? Does anyone have a link/document showing that? Pretty pretty please - it would go a long way to dropping a certain bailiff even deeper in the excrement :-)

The DVLA reports I see on a daily basis are very clear when it comes to motability vehicles. The registered keepers name is followed by a series of random numbers which clearly denote a motability interest.

Vehicles which are just registered "disabled" are not so obvious as the motability cars. The report simply contains the word "Disabled" on a section of the report but to be honest could easily be missed if not paying proper attention.

Unfortunately, I couldn't post an example due to data protection.

[bluebottle]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

MD,

As I am sure you are well aware, a court would expect a certificated bailiff to carry out sufficient checks to establish they had a right in law to seize a motor vehicle. Seizing a third party vehicle without conducting sufficient checks and then expect nothing to happen is, if I may say, being a little too optimistic to say the least. Jacobs, a certificated bailiff operation, found out just how expensive seizing a third-party vehicle without conducting sufficient checks can be.

Any certificated bailiff who fails to carry out sufficient checks as to the ownership of a motor vehicle before attempting to seize it for whatever reason should not be surprised if it comes back and bites them hard on the backside. Bailiffs who claim they can seize third-party goods, knowing very well they cannot, deserve to lose their certificates as this clearly raises questions as to their fitness to act as a bailiff.

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

If the bailiff has good reason to believe a vehicle is owned by the debtor named on the court order (such as when the debtor is seen driving the vehicle), they have every right to seize the vehicle to ascertain who it belongs to without first checking with the DVLA. Cars are no different from any other assets, especially when parked within the grounds of the warrant address. It is simply good practice to check with the DVLA first.

When I was in the business it took at least 3/4 days to get a reply from DVLA, and one was restricted to no more than a couple of searches at the time for the same address, so I used to do a bit of a recce first, and if I spotted a vehicle on warrant address I would look at the tax disc to make sure it did not state "nil" on the bit where the VEL had the cost of it on it.

Without a tax disc it is going to cause a few useless enquiries which cost time and money.

If this bunch of muppets that runs the Country think that they are going to save money by doing away with the tax disc then they really are in cloud coockoo land, because it would mean fitting every single Police vehicle with ANPR facilities, and that ain't cheap!

[Fair-Parking]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Sorry but there are NO court orders or debtors in alleged parking and minor traffic contraventions. Those subject to allegations of owing money should not be considered to be a debtor until a court of law decides that after giving the accused every chance to explain themselves.

My post also clearly stated that no bailiff has the lawful right to receive personal information from the DVLA. I did quote several statutes and rules. If my interpretation of any those is wrong or I have failed to quote a relevant statute, then it would benefit us all to learn just where it says a baliff is entitled to other people's private personal information over civil debt allegations.

The essence of my post is that there are far too many assumptions and presumptions about laws and rules that do not exist which then metamorphose into 'facts'.

The points I made seem to have been overlooked.

[dementedfeline]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

If the bailiff has good reason to believe a vehicle is owned by the debtor named on the court order (such as when the debtor is seen driving the vehicle), they have every right to seize the vehicle to ascertain who it belongs to without first checking with the DVLA. Cars are no different from any other assets, especially when parked within the grounds of the warrant address. It is simply good practice to check with the DVLA first.




Vehicles which are just registered "disabled" are not so obvious as the motability cars. The report simply contains the word "Disabled" on a section of the report but to be honest could easily be missed if not paying proper attention.

Monkey Drunk - I accept that we shouldn't tar all bailiffs with the same brush - BUT my friend recently had an unpleasant experience with one who a) did NOT have a valid warrant and b) despite having done a DVLA check AND being told about blue badge/disabled tax disc AND being shown the V5 CLAMPED her car and threatened her with tow truck, etc. He also breached National Standards like it was going out of fashion.

Quite frankly, he couldn't give a toss about anything except his money.

When people have experiences like this, plus the routine overstating of their powers, do you wonder why bailiffs are a maligned species? (With apologies to those who don't overstep the mark and do their job according to the rules.)

[Monkey Drunk]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Sorry but there are NO court orders or debtors in alleged parking and minor traffic contraventions. Those subject to allegations of owing money should not be considered to be a debtor until a court of law decides that after giving the accused every chance to explain themselves.


My post also clearly stated that no bailiff has the lawful right to receive personal information from the DVLA. I did quote several statutes and rules. If my interpretation of any those is wrong or I have failed to quote a relevant statute, then it would benefit us all to learn just where it says a baliff is entitled to other people's private personal information over civil debt allegations.


The essence of my post is that there are far too many assumptions and presumptions about laws and rules that do not exist which then metamorphose into 'facts'.


The points I made seem to have been overlooked.

The points you made were overlooked because they weren't worth commenting on. To accept what you say is to accept that all bailiff and parking companies have no legal right to check data with the DVLA. As such you further suggest the DVLA breaks the law on a daily basis by supplying such data. Comments worthy of ridicule to the highest degree if I was that way inclined.


In addition, if bailiffs are involved, a Court of Law has decided that a "person" (if you prefer that term) has had ample opportunity to defend themselves. Until further information or appeals prove otherwise, the "people" I chase are debtors or "defendants" (if HMCTS fines) if you want to split hairs....

Monkey Drunk - I accept that we shouldn't tar all bailiffs with the same brush - BUT my friend recently had an unpleasant experience with one who a) did NOT have a valid warrant and b) despite having done a DVLA check AND being told about blue badge/disabled tax disc AND being shown the V5 CLAMPED her car and threatened her with tow truck, etc. He also breached National Standards like it was going out of fashion.


Quite frankly, he couldn't give a toss about anything except his money.


When people have experiences like this, plus the routine overstating of their powers, do you wonder why bailiffs are a maligned species? (With apologies to those who don't overstep the mark and do their job according to the rules.)

It's complete idiots like this that give the entire industry a bad name. Hopefully, this kind of illegal behaviour will be a thing of the past once all bailiffs companies adopt body worn cameras. CCTV is an amazing behaviour regulator!!

[bluebottle]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

[QUOTE=Monkey Drunk;393423]

The points you made were overlooked because they weren't worth commenting on. To accept what you say is to accept that all bailiff and parking companies have no legal right to check data with the DVLA. As such you further suggest the DVLA breaks the law on a daily basis by supplying such data. Comments worthy of ridicule to the highest degree if I was that way inclined.

In addition, if bailiffs are involved, a Court of Law has decided that a "person" (if you prefer that term) has had ample opportunity to defend themselves. Until further information or appeals prove otherwise, the "people" I chase are debtors or "defendants" (if HMCTS fines) if you want to split hairs....

Not so, I'm afraid. The Northampton TEC is not a court of law in the normal sense of the word. It is a star chamber where the defendant is not allowed to even defend themselves. As for Council Tax, there is hard evidence that a high percentage of Liability Orders aren't worth the paper they are written on. This brings into question the legality of the enforcement of CT Liability Orders. As for HMCTS fines, a high percentage of fines originated by Capita/TV Licensing are either fraudulent or No Case. Explain why a number of TV Licensing goons are serving community or custodial sentences for Fraud and Perverting the Course of Justice? DVLA have been caught trying to register fines the courts have ruled are unlawful.

It's complete idiots like this that give the entire industry a bad name. Hopefully, this kind of illegal behaviour will be a thing of the past once all bailiffs companies adopt body worn cameras. CCTV is an amazing behaviour regulator!!

It's complete idiots in the civil enforcement industry who lie, cheat, bully and behave like two-bit gangsters who give the civil enforcement industry a bad name, not internet advice forums. Your arguments and rants might be taken more seriously if it was aimed at those in the civil enforcement industry who are a menace to debtors, defendants and creditors alike.

[Tools]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Several posts edited/removed.

Both sides of the debate are welcomed, offensive comments are not, please keep to the topic guys/gals.

[Tools]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Just my personal opinion.

I think the phasing out of tax discs makes sense in todays world. However, I agree that there could be/will be problems arising from this, one of them being Bailiffs who do not carry out the correct checks.

I also see many other issues with it and they need to be identified now and addressed before they become a problem. One quite major one is the registration online, not everyone has online access. I assume as you pay for your tax, whether it be online, at the Post Office or via Direct Debit, there will be a trigger/marker placed on DVLA`s database which instantly shows the vehicle is taxed.

If so then this would be easily accessible to those that need to know, DVLA, Police, Insurers and yes.....even Bailiffs. With todays technology I am sure that a Bailiff can quickly see the status of tax on a vehicle and need not have to wait 3? days to hear back from the DVLA.

MD ( and others ) does it cost a Bailiff to carry out a check with the DVLA? I genuinely do not know.

[CleverClogs]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

I think the phasing out of tax discs makes sense in today's world.

Why?

As far as I know, we do not (yet) have bionic or actually robotic policemen; some might behave like automata, but I believe they are still fully biological.

However, I agree that there could be/will be problems arising from this, one of them being Bailiffs who do not carry out the correct checks.

That is only one of the problems. Another is spotting untaxed vehicles, whilst another is the propensity for the DVLA to make mistakes.

I also see many other issues with it and they need to be identified now and addressed before they become a problem. One quite major one is the registration online, not everyone has online access. I assume as you pay for your tax, whether it be online, at the Post Office or via Direct Debit, there will be a trigger/marker placed on DVLA`s database which instantly shows the vehicle is taxed.

If so then this would be easily accessible to those that need to know, DVLA, Police, Insurers and yes.....even Bailiffs. With todays technology I am sure that a Bailiff can quickly see the status of tax on a vehicle and need not have to wait 3? days to hear back from the DVLA.

The police may be able to tell quickly - by means of a call to HQ - whether a vehicle is insured or taxed, but it would still be a lot slower than looking along a line of parked vehicles to see which either had the wrong colour of tax disc or no disc displayed at all. The Mark 1 eyeball is still a lot faster than a manually operated computer check.

The stated reason for this silliness by the kakistocracy is that it would "save" £7,000,000 a year in admin costs. The sensible answer to that is to increase Vehicle Excise Duty by £1 per year for motor-bikes and motor-cars, and by £3 per year for lorries and heavier vehicles.

MD ( and others ) does it cost a Bailiff to carry out a check with the DVLA? I genuinely do not know.

It would cost the company, in the same way that data from the DVLA is sold to the private parking parasites.

[charitynjw]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

It's digital, or IT or summat

What could poffibly gu wrennnggggggggggggggggg........................... ..........?

[Fair-Parking]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Monkey Drunk - you did comment on the post where I quoted a number of statutes and rules which you were unable to dispute and nor could you suggest a statute that supported your comments, the one where unwitting contradiction formed part of your reply.

Any fool can pour scorn on others without explaining themselves. All you have to do to show I am wrong is to show the statute that does allow the DVLA to send personal information to private bailiff companies. However you did hit the nail on the head when you showed exasperation at the thought that bailff companies cannot contact the DVLA for information. Spot on! And yes the DVLA does act unlawfully every day when it sends out personal information for parking.

Which part of the Data Protection Act 1998 do you think allows the DVLA to share personal information with a third party for an alleged civil 'debt' without either that person's knowledge or consent and with a view to doing them some harm? What on earth do you think the DPA is for if not to protect people from the irresponsible and unlawful divulgence of their personal data by organisations entrusted with its safety?

There is no court of law involved in parking, only the Traffic Enforcement Centre which has no judges, no barristers, no solicitors, no hearings and no public attendance. In short it is not a judicial court and nor does it pretend to be. Its staff will tell you that they are not legally trained.

[wales01man]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Monkeydrunk
Are you a Bailiff or Ex Bailiff

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

[QUOTE=bluebottle;393432]

It's complete idiots in the civil enforcement industry who lie, cheat, bully and behave like two-bit gangsters who give the civil enforcement industry a bad name, not internet advice forums. Your arguments and rants might be taken more seriously if it was aimed at those in the civil enforcement industry who are a menace to debtors, defendants and creditors alike.

I think Monkey drunk was referring to rougue bailiffs

[Sir Vere Brayne d'Emmidge]

Re: So, the government's doing away with tax discs ...........

Monkey Drunk - you did comment on the post where I quoted a number of statutes and rules which you were unable to dispute and nor could you suggest a statute that supported your comments, the one where unwitting contradiction formed part of your reply.

Any fool can pour scorn on others without explaining themselves. All you have to do to show I am wrong is to show the statute that does allow the DVLA to send personal information to private bailiff companies. However you did hit the nail on the head when you showed exasperation at the thought that bailff companies cannot contact the DVLA for information. Spot on! And yes the DVLA does act unlawfully every day when it sends out personal information for parking.

Which part of the Data Protection Act 1998 do you think allows the DVLA to share personal information with a third party for an alleged civil 'debt' without either that person's knowledge or consent and with a view to doing them some harm? What on earth do you think the DPA is for if not to protect people from the irresponsible and unlawful divulgence of their personal data by organisations entrusted with its safety?

There is no court of law involved in parking, only the Traffic Enforcement Centre which has no judges, no barristers, no solicitors, no hearings and no public attendance. In short it is not a judicial court and nor does it pretend to be. Its staff will tell you that they are not legally trained.

Just in case somebody missed something

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/section/29

29Crime and taxation.

(1)

Personal data processed for any of the following purposes—

(a)

the prevention or detection of crime,

(b)

the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or

(c)

the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or of any imposition of a similar nature,
are exempt from the first data protection principle (except to the extent to which it requires compliance with the conditions in Schedules 2 and 3) and section 7 in any case to the extent to which the application of those provisions to the data would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in this subsection.

(2)

Personal data which—

(a)

are processed for the purpose of discharging statutory functions, and

(b)

consist of information obtained for such a purpose from a person who had it in his possession for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1),
are exempt from the subject information provisions to the same extent as personal data processed for any of the purposes mentioned in that subsection.

(3)

Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions in any case in which—

(a)

the disclosure is for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), and

(b)

the application of those provisions in relation to the disclosure would be likely to prejudice any of the matters mentioned in that subsection.

(4)

Personal data in respect of which the data controller is a relevant authority and which—

(a)

consist of a classification applied to the data subject as part of a system of risk assessment which is operated by that authority for either of the following purposes—

(i)

the assessment or collection of any tax or duty or any imposition of a similar nature, or

(ii)

the prevention or detection of crime, or apprehension or prosecution of offenders, where the offence concerned involves any unlawful claim for any payment out of, or any unlawful application of, public funds, and

(b)

are processed for either of those purposes,
are exempt from section 7 to the extent to which the exemption is required in the interests of the operation of the system.

(5)

In subsection (4)— “public funds” includes funds provided by any [F1 EU] institution; “relevant authority” means—

(a)

a government department,

(b)

a local authority, or

(c)

any other authority administering housing benefit or council tax benefit.