Parking eye

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking eye

Ah ... that explains why they are now so economical with the actualité.

PE were economical with the actualities before Capita took them over, Enquirer. But I do agree with you that it is likely to get worse. However, that could work to the motorists' advantage as a proven history of being disingenuous could help contribute to Capita/PE being put on the Vexatious Litigants' List or changes in the law. All they are doing is proving the private parking industry is no better, if not worse, than the clamping firms PoFA outlawed.

[bizzybob]

Re: Parking eye

It would be better if Capita were wound up, they are too powerful and entrenched in government for our good. There must be enough evidence of corruption, fraud and perverting the course of justice to stick something on them.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Parking eye

But where should one start with Crapita?

• There's the shemozzle of the NHS patient database, which cost millions of pounds in taxpayers' money and ended up going nowhere
• There's Council Tax, with Crapita taking over admin functions up and down the land, and being all too eager to use their same group bailiffs - Ross and Roberts, or Equita - to enforce Council Tax debts
• Then there's TV Licensing, which is now run by Crapita and which secures scores - if not hundreds - of wrongful convictions every year.

[bizzybob]

Re: Parking eye

But where should one start with Crapita?

• There's the shemozzle of the NHS patient database, which cost millions of pounds in taxpayers' money and ended up going nowhere
• There's Council Tax, with Crapita taking over admin functions up and down the land, and being all too eager to use their same group bailiffs - Ross and Roberts, or Equita - to enforce Council Tax debts
  
• Then there's TV Licensing, which is now run by Crapita and which secures scores - if not hundreds - of wrongful convictions every year.

Those two should be the starter for ten The bailiff scenario would be insider dealing in any other type of finance industry, and would be jailtime

I am eagerly awaiting the next Crapita TVL Goon who comes a knockin, having got the wrong street name yet again, he will be gazing into my camcorder lens, to go with the CCTV camera on the wall filming his plight when I offer to make him eat my TV License on camera and then dare him to try to do me for not having one, they having called at the wrong house one too many times.

One for bluebottle, If I burned the paper document in front of the tw*t would he be able to actually do me, as it is bought and paid for, and what would the beak make of the case when I went in and submitted a defence?

[enquirer]

Re: Parking eye

One for bluebottle, If I burned the paper document in front of the tw*t would he be able to actually do me, as it is bought and paid for, and what would the beak make of the case when I went in and submitted a defence?

I doubt that a lack of evidence would stop either them or Colonel Blimp from going for a conviction.

[bizzybob]

Re: Parking eye

I doubt that a lack of evidence would stop either them or Colonel Blimp from going for a conviction.

As I thought, of course the License I burn would be a photocopy, the original being swiftly exchanged, and the evidence in court would be the correct TV License handed to the beak it would not look good for Crapita in the same way when they gain convictions against people who don't even own a TV, they claim "The property is unlicensed" the fact there is no TV or evidence of any other device capable of receiving or displaying a live programme is of no consequence, the magistrates are brainwashed into believing the Crapita goon, so an appeal makes Crapita and the beak look bad.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking eye

The following corporate bodies are known to carry out functions on behalf of the State (including local and national government, police forces, etc..) -

ATOS
Capita
Chandlers
Collectica
Equita
Excel
G4S
Jacobs
JBW Enforcement
Liberata
Marstons
National Car Parks
Newlyns
NSL
Ross & Roberts
Rossendales
Serco
Swift
Task Enforcement
Vehicle Enforcement & Anciliary Services (VEAS)

And these are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. The point I am making is that they are all liable under the Human Rights Act 1998 to comply with its Articles and Protocols and can be pursued for civil damages under the Act. From what I have seen on the various LB forums, the most frequent breaches of the Act are -

Article 6 - Right to Have the State Deal with a Citizen's Affairs in a Timely Manner
Article 6 - Right to A Fair Hearing Before A Legally-Convened Tribunal (which includes a court of law)
Article 1 of Protocol 1 - Right to Enjoyment of Personal Possessions and Prohibition of Deprivation of Property

These are sticks to beat the buggers with a give those on the above list something to think about.

Bizzybob,

The most practical way to deal with Capita's apparent incompetence is to send them a Cease and Desist Notice along the lines of -

"Dear Chief TVL Goon,

NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST - UNWARRANTED VISITS BY CAPITA EMPLOYEES TO [ADDRESS]

Despite my repeatedly informing your company and its employees that I have a current television licence, your employees are still persisting in calling at the above address, the last visit being on [date].

These repeated and unwarranted visits have now reached the point where they amount to Harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1998. Your company is, therefore, now put on notice that should there be any further visits by its employees to my home, it is my intention to apply to the county court for a Prohibitory Order under Section 3, Protection from Harassment Act 1998, restraining your company and its employees from making further visits, and to seek such costs, damages and expenses as the court shall see fit, including but not restricted to court costs, financial loss and anxiety arising from your company's unwarranted visits. Your company is further put on notice that as it is carrying out a function on behalf of a government department, namely, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), it is subject to the terms and provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and proceedings may also be considered against your company under the Act.

In addition to Capita acknowledging this email/letter by return, I shall also expect it to give a written undertaking that all unwarranted visits to my home by Capita employees shall cease forthwith.

This notice is final.

Yours faithfully,

Bizzybob"

It's much less hassle than burning your tv licence or giving the TVL goon a slap and, probably, more satisfying to know you've given Capita the rope to hang themselves with.

[bizzybob]

Re: Parking eye

Bluebottle, thanks for that I will log all future visits and will send the notice, as the scrumbags from Crapita are clueless and arrogant in the extreme no doubt they will continue to call, then it's GOTCHA.

If we examine Article 1 of Protocol 1 - Right to Enjoyment of Personal Possessions and Prohibition of Deprivation of Property

This would appear to prohibit and outlaw Distress as a remedy, along with bailiffs and HCEO/Sherrifs, except it doesn't as a rider in there allows for fine enforcement.
However there are many sticks contained in there to beat them with.


As to OP if there is no consequential loss beyond a trifle, I feel PE are stuffed.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking eye

Bluebottle, thanks for that I will log all future visits and will send the notice, as the scrumbags from Crapita are clueless and arrogant in the extreme no doubt they will continue to call, then it's GOTCHA.

If we examine Article 1 of Protocol 1 - Right to Enjoyment of Personal Possessions and Prohibition of Deprivation of Property

This would appear to prohibit and outlaw Distress as a remedy, along with bailiffs and HCEO/Sherrifs, except it doesn't as a rider in there allows for fine enforcement.
However there are many sticks contained in there to beat them with.


As to OP if there is no consequential loss beyond a trifle, I feel PE are stuffed.

Absolutely correct where fine enforcement is concerned, BB. This fits in with other Articles governing crime and law. But, as you correctly state, distress, as a means of civil debt collection, is outlawed by the HRA.

[bizzybob]

Re: Parking eye

Absolutely correct where fine enforcement is concerned, BB. This fits in with other Articles governing crime and law. But, as you correctly state, distress, as a means of civil debt collection, is outlawed by the HRA.

It would seem to stuff bailiffs and HCEO with County Court, but as Council Tax isn't criminal per se, even though a LO is obtained in a kangaroo fashion at Magistrates Court, might the use of distress also breach HRA, unless there is something that expressly permits it. Either way a Parking Eye default CCJ would be suspect, and open to challenge on the ground of no consequential loss, I don't think Amanda72 has much to worry about if she ignores them for the present, as they rarely do court.

[bluebottle]

Re: Parking eye

It would seem to stuff bailiffs and HCEO with County Court, but as Council Tax isn't criminal per se, even though a LO is obtained in a kangaroo fashion at Magistrates Court, might the use of distress also breach HRA, unless there is something that expressly permits it. Either way a Parking Eye default CCJ would be suspect, and open to challenge on the ground of no consequential loss, I don't think Amanda72 has much to worry about if she ignores them for the present, as they rarely do court.

If CT was administered and enforced, as per the law, the allowances under Article 1 of Protocol 1 would apply. However, as we all know, the way in which CT is administered and enforced is ultra vires and the use of distress where correct procedures have not been followed, including breaching a citizen's rights under Article 6, would, in all probability, be unlawful, if not, illegal.

Insofar as the attempts by PPCs to extract money from motorists goes, at the end of the day, they are the wheelclamping firms PoFA outlawed operating under another guise. Will 2014 be the year PPCs are legislated out of existence? We can but wait and see.

[enquirer]

Re: Parking eye

... the magistrates are brainwashed into believing the Crapita goon ...

Capita run sinister 'training sessions' for magistrates.

Incredibly, a recent FOI to the Court Service revealed that they have absolutely no idea what Capita get up to in these sessions.

See here:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reque...#comment-46047

... so an appeal makes Crapita and the beak look bad.

Yes - when wrongly convicted at magistrates level, most people let it go. If more people took it to appeal, they would be in real trouble.

And best of all, as you say, would be the possibility of nailing a bent magistrate.