Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

[bluebottle]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

It would need to be high tensile boiler plate or inscribed on a stone tablet as carried by Moses. as da babylon may try to melt it

Knowing the Met they'd probably borrow a breaking hammer from somewhere.

[bluebottle]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

PMSL At your last line Bluebottle Nice One!

Topical and just too delicious to not make a reference to it.:evil:

[bizzybob]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

It would need to be high tensile boiler plate or inscribed on a stone tablet as carried by Moses. as da babylon may try to melt it

[wales01man]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

PMSL At your last line Bluebottle Nice One!

[bluebottle]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

How do I go about doing that?
thanks

Reporting miscreants to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is relatively straightforward. Go to www.ico.gov.uk, find the telephone number for their helpline - it is prominent - and speak to one of the ICO's staff. The helpline does get busy at times so do keep trying. On the whole, the ICO's staff are helpful.

As for Southwark Council/Newlyns, the letter you have reproduced appears to have been written by the same individual, save for the letterheadings, and I have a pretty good idea who wrote it if the tone and 24-carat bovine excrement contained within it is anything to go by.

Try something along the lines of -

"I refer to your email/letter dated [date] in response to my email/letter to you dated [date.

On comparing the emails/letters received from yourselves and Newlyn PLC/London Borough of Southwark, it is clearly evident that they are identical in every respect, save for the letter headings and footings. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have to conclude that both letters were written by the same person.

It is noted that a number of claims have been made by yourselves in the email/letter, but at no point has any evidence been produced that proves -

a. a police officer has statutory power to stop a motor vehicle for reasons other than those provided for by law;

b. a statutory power exists for a public authority to collaborate with a police force for the purposes of stopping motor vehicles in connection with the alleged non-payment of de-criminalised Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) which are, in themselves, civil debts, not criminal fines;

c. a police officer has the statutory power to demand a motorist hands over the keys or to physically remove the keys from a vehicle the officer has stopped for a reason other than that provided for by law;

d. that the vehicle registration mark [VRM] is not privileged goods; and

e. that the provision of personal data to the Metropolitan Police was, in the circumstances, in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998, under what provision and relevant case law.

In respect of d, the burden of proof falls upon yourselves, having now made that claim. You will need to produce more substantial evidence than you have.

You have quoted the judgement in the case of Toseland Building Supplies Ltd -v- Bishop t/a Bishop Groundworks. However, on reading through the judgement in this case, I find the circumstances of that case to be somewhat different to the circumstances of the matter to which this correspondence refers. I therefore require that you provide proof that Toseland Building Supplies Ltd -v- Bishop t/a Bishop Groundworks is the relevant case law.

Unless the evidence requested is produced to me with [?] days of Newlyn PLC's/London Borough of Southwark's receipt, I shall take steps to have the warrant of execution revoked."

Warrants - whether civil or criminal - must be complied with to the spirit and letter of the law and the conditions attached to the warrant complied with strictly in accordance with what is endorsed thereon.

Give both Newlyns and LB of Southwark the opportunity to prove the lawfulness of their actions before deciding on the next step.

You may wish to write to the Metropolitan Police and ask them to explain the actions and lawfulness of the actions of their officers. However, I would suggest you print such a letter on metal sheet just in case they decide to shred it. :grin:

[Sweeneyblue]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Put both Newlyns and Southwark Council to strict proof. This should draw out just how strong or weak their case is. Certainly report Newlyns and the Met to the ICO.

How do I go about doing that?
thanks

[bluebottle]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Put both Newlyns and Southwark Council to strict proof. This should draw out just how strong or weak their case is. Certainly report Newlyns and the Met to the ICO.

[Sweeneyblue]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Judgement
Sir Michael Ogden, QC, gave an admirably concise and incisive judgment. He
posed the following question:
"What I have to do is to say to myself: 'Is this JCB necessary to the
defendant for use personally by him in his employment?'"
He then answered that question as follows:
"I have come to the conclusion that the JCB was not something 'for use
personally by him'. The idea behind the legislation in my view is and always
has been to protect the tools of the trade of the individual worker. In this
type of case, involving as it does a vehicle, I can well understand that if, for
example, a motorcycle courier of the kind that one sees so frequently these
days, who owns his own motorcycle and hires himself out to go and deliver
documents in various places, then that motorcycle will be protected. So too
would a van owned and driven solely by a person in which he drove about making
deliveries in the course of his work as a delivery man."
However, the judge found that the present case is a different one and he
rested his judgment on the fact that from time to time the Appellant allowed
employees to drive the vehicle.
There are before us a number of grounds of appeal. The first two grounds of
appeal assert that the Judge erred in law in misconstruing the statutory
provision which he had to apply to the facts of the case. These grounds of
appeal that has not been pursued before us. The suggestion that the Deputy High
Court judge erred in the interpretation of Section 138 is plainly unsustainable.
The relevant words of Section 138(a) are "necessary to that person for use

[Sweeneyblue]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Re. The judgement I will post a copy

[Sweeneyblue]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Re. The judgement I will post a copy

[Sweeneyblue]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Sorry had to take this letter. For legal reasons

[bizzybob]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Fingers crossed for a U turn can only see trouble ahead

Most likely the MOJ, like the late Maggie are not for changing

[wales01man]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

Fingers crossed for a U turn can only see trouble ahead

[bizzybob]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

I have a feeling it will be the Human Rights Act 1998 that will sink the new regulations or, more likely, the provisions that are incompatible with the Articles and Protocols contained within Schedule 1 of the Act. Don't forget that a court can strike down (bring to an end) any secondary legislation - and the new regulations are secondary legislation. The interpleader provision is, I suspect, ripe for strike-down.

We can hope so, as MOJ are still stumbling on still releasing more details and the deadline is coming up fast.

[bluebottle]

Re: Stop by police during routine check baliff took my pco reg.taxi

I have a feeling it will be the Human Rights Act 1998 that will sink the new regulations or, more likely, the provisions that are incompatible with the Articles and Protocols contained within Schedule 1 of the Act. Don't forget that a court can strike down (bring to an end) any secondary legislation - and the new regulations are secondary legislation. The interpleader provision is, I suspect, ripe for strike-down.