Hello all,
I have currently been fighting Camden Council over a PCN issued for
''Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (no motor vehicles)''
at this notorious lobster trap created by inadequate and confusing signage at this location. My case unfortunately resulted in Camden Council's bailiffs removing my vehicle, which I had transferred previously to my company as I use it for my work. They have held onto it for over 8 months now due to the following reasons:
1. They required proof of ownership in the form of the V5 document and my insurance details.
Both of these requests are bogus as they are fully aware that the V5 doc, since August 2010, only shows the 'registered keeper' and the insurance details don't prove anything. Even though this has been pointed out to them they would prefer to look incompetent than devious, even when asked by Emily Thornberry, shadow Attorney General, who is dealing with other cases relating to this location.
2. Task Enforcement stated that the vehicle was 'bound' to them on issue of the Warrant of Execution.
This is untrue as my vehicle is exempt under County Court rules as it is a vehicle used in the course of my self employed business. I have checked this and it seems the rules for collection of Council Tax are the same for all County Court bailiff actions.
Fortunately, as the bailiffs/Council have been too scared to sell the vehicle, it seems I am able to reclaim it as 'Abandonment of Distraint' (many thanks to Sheila at
www.bailiffadviceonline.co.uk), but as the vehicle has been in storage for over months and was fully working and taxed and MOT'd when they took it I am not in a position to receive it back until they pay compensation for loss of earnings, damage and loss of use of vehicle.
There are numerous points of argument in the way the Council operated by for now I just want to put forward one piece of information that I located on another site. It is a PATAS ruling, stating that the signage at the location was incorrect and therefore tickets issued are unenforceable. Initially I thought it was in relation to the signage at the Camley St junction and therefore not relevant to my situation, the approach from Pancras Road, but now I am so sure, so I'm going to get further information. If it applies to both signs stating 'except taxis' then all tickets issued here should be void, and will show that Camden where knowingly issuing tickets in the same way as the situation with the 'tampered' sign that was moved yet they failed to rectify for a further six weeks.
There are numerous other details which may be relevant and I will post more up when I get the chance. One issue is that the bailiff knowingly added £200 to the statute fees and when asked to provide a breakdown of the charges by myself and the shadow Attorney General Camden avoided providing them and miraculously reduced the fees to the statutory limit, stating it was an offer of reduction. How kind of them. When also asked to provide the bailiffs certification, Matthew Little (Parking Services Manager) forgot his legal requirements and provided only his ID card. Again, despite being asked numerous times by both myself and the SAG Emily Thornberry MP. The reason for asking was that the bailiff in question is not certified with Task Enforcement, but with his own company. I would like to know if sub-contracting is allowed.
I'm also curious to know if all of Camden's spy cars are legal too, as I noticed they only have the words 'CAMDEN CCTV' on them, which isn't a clear identification. I do recall reading specification details for devices, which I am sure included something in relation to vehicle markings. I'll try and find it, but if anyone else can assist that would be helpful.
That's it for the moment, any comments would be welcome. I can provide information that may help others too (I have numerous correspondence and recorded phone calls with Camden Parking Services) and will be sharing knowledge with Emily Thornberry to assist others and myself.
I'll keep you updated.
Best wishes
Darcus
