Police and Bailiff ‘ANPR Roadside Operations’...response at last from the Metropolitan Police !!!

[old bill]

To keep this thread in order I will be posting full details later today so could viewers wait until then to post comments.

 

In the meantime, what has been revealed in the Metropolitan Police's response is that their reply has confirmed that these 'operations' should be in conjunction with Civilian Enforcement Officers ( who are employees of the Magistrates Court. They are not private sector bailiffs).

 

The response also appears to indicate that the operations (in conjunction with Civilian Enforcement Officers) are to enforce criminal warrants (distress warrants etc).

 

Crucially, under Part 3 the Metropolitan Police outline the legal position and it is here that they 'drop their bombshell' by stating as follows:

 

 

Relevant Legislation & Police Powers

 

The following pieces of legislation appear most relevant in relation to police and civilian enforcement officers powers in relation to warrants and are provided as a guidance:

 

Section 125 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

 

This provides for the issue and execution of warrants and provides constables with a power to execute warrants acting within their own police area. It also provides powers under Section 125A(1) for Civilian Enforcement Officers.

 

The warrants referred to will generally be Non-Payment of Fines warrants issued by magistrate’s courts.

 

By virtue of S.125D(1) and S.125D(2) there is no longer a requirement to be in possession of the warrant. However by virtue of S.125D(4) the warrant must be produced on demand of the person arrested or as soon as practicable

 

This section therefore provides police officers with a power to execute these warrants but would not necessarily allow for the person to be detained by police in order that CEOs execute the warrant.

 

 

Section 85 County Courts Act 1984

 

This relates to the execution of judgements or orders for payment of money.

 

It has been often quoted that police officers have a duty to assist officers of the court executing these warrants by virtue of Section 85(4), which states “It shall be the duty of every constable within his jurisdiction to assist in the execution of every such warrant”

 

However this section has been restricted by virtue of Statutory Instrument 1993/2073 - The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 (article 6)

 

This section does not afford police officers with a power to execute the warrant and there is no power for police officers to detain a person in order for CEOs to execute the warrant.

 

Police officers powers in relation to these warrants would be limited to the common law power to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

Note:

 

This is where they then try to explain their reason for relying upon their 'get out of jail' card of using the 'old chestnut': Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act !!![/QUOTE]

 

It is all very well police forces trying to rely on Section 163, Road Traffic Act 1988 to get them off the hook. They have to be able to justify stopping someone. They cannot stop someone for the sheer hell of it or for some private sector bailiff chasing a civil debt. Notwithstanding, the old chestnut bailiffs use about warrants being enforceable anywhere, anyone with knowledge of the law, especially where it applies to warrants, knows that if you do not comply with the conditions on a warrant, regardless of whether it is civil or criminal, it will come back and sink its teeth into your buttocks.

[old bill]

Old bill.

 

Thank you for copying my post and in so doing.....highlighting once again that the police are NOT supposed to be involved in these operations. I have written an extensive article for a public sector trade editorial which should be published this evening and I will then be permitted to post a copy here on the forum.

 

You are most welcome, Tomtubby. I feel you have nothing to lose by approaching the Police Federation and Superintendents Association as to the lawfulness of their members becoming involved in these operations. I know this may sound terrible, but, sometimes, you have to get personal, that is, highlight the consequences for individual officers of their taking part in these illegal operations. The Police Federation represents police officers of the ranks of Constable, Sergeant, Inspector and Chief Inspector. The Superintendents Association represents officers of the ranks of Superintendent and Chief Superintendent. ACPO represents officers of the ranks of Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Chief Constable and, in the Metropolitan and City of London forces, the ranks of Commander, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner.

 

I have said this on another forum where I post, but I feel the Police Federation and Superintendents Association are more likely to be receptive and listen than ACPO. You may wish to approach the respective chairs of the two staff associations I have mentioned within the Metropolitan Police Service.

 

Hope this helps.

[old bill]

Oldbill and tomtubby,doesn't the police officer, have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence or moving traffic violation, and unfortunately for the EA, their ANPR going "Achtung debtor" or whatever is not a reasonable cause to stop under S163 RTA. The nub is S163 is related to criminal, and a private certificated EA is not entitled to rely on S163. All ANPR roadside ops are challengeable imho.

 

Hi BN,

 

Below is taken straight from Section 163, Road Traffic Act 1988 -

 

163 Power of police to stop vehicles.

 

(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].

 

(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].

 

(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

 

(4)F4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Whilst the provision does not specify any reason, my gut-feeling is that a Constable would have to have a lawful reason to stop a vehicle, e.g. suspicion of involvement in a criminal or road traffic offence, or in order to prevent an accident because the road had subsided. Lawful reason would not, in my opinion, include stopping a motorist to facilitate the execution of a warrant for a civil debt or de-criminalised Penalty Charge Notice. Notwithstanding, a warrant for non-payment of a magistrates court fine would be lawful reason for stopping a vehicle, but only for a Civilian Enforcement Officer (CEO) employed directly by HMCTS who holds a formal warrant, not a private-sector bailiff.

 

It is my understanding that the use of ANPR by those other than law enforcement agencies is currently under review and may well be outlawed, which would cause problems for civil enforcement companies and private parking companies.

[old bill]

Would individual officers be liable or would it be the force they work for ? These roadside operations are arranged at a high level, presumably assistant Chief Constables. They could be aware that they receive part of their funding indirectly from PCN's. Councils pay money towards the Police and some will be from revenues from PCN's. So if there are millions of pounds worth of PCN's outstanding, this would mean less money that councils could give the Police. Or is the amount councils give Police set by government, so it would only be the council and residents that would suffer from not having this missing PCN revenue ?

 

The police are funded partly by central government and partly by an element within Council Tax. Revenue obtained from PCNs does not enter the equation or argument. My suspicion is that malevolent individuals - aka disrupters - have been repeatedly chanting the mantra that those who do not pay de-criminalised PCNs are criminals and then push what are known as "nudge" policies to facilitate these illegal roadside operations. To give an example of these individuals, an individual at a meeting connected with the protest camp at Barton Moss Fracking Site, near Manchester, was repeatedly calling protesters at the site "economic terrorists". It is my understanding this is individual is now being monitored.

[old bill]

Having read through the FOI request, it must rank as the most comprehensive admission of unlawful conduct by police officers I have ever seen. CEOs employed directly by HMCTS can lawfully take part in these operations as they are Crown Servants, as are police officers, and hold a formal warrant. Others who hold formal warrants include -

 

Environmental Health Officers/Practitioners (EHO/EHP)

Preventive Officers (aka Customs Officers)

United Kingdom Borders Agency Enforcement and Investigation Officers

Trading Standards Officers

County Court Bailiffs

 

Any police officer who has stopped a motor vehicle during one of these operations, simply because it has an outstanding de-criminalised PCN, which is a civil debt, and has then allowed a private-sector bailiff to seize it or extract money from a motorist has acted unlawfully and outside their powers as a police officer.

 

Could motorists who have lost their vehicles through these operations sue Whyte & Co and the Metropolitan Police Service for the return of their vehicle or the money extracted from them, notwithstanding a civil debt existed? In all probability, yes, they could. Warrants, whether civil or criminal, must be executed correctly and in accordance with the law, not on the principle of "Let's try this and see if we can get away with it," which, essentially, is what private-sector bailiffs engaging in these roadside operations are doing. If a warrant is not executed in accordance with the law and conditions applicable to it and endorsed thereon, it will come back and bite you hard on the backside. It is futile private-sector bailiff companies bleating that a civil warrant can be executed anywhere in order to extricate themselves from legal action. Whilst some civil warrants may state they can be executed anywhere in England and Wales, this is only to allow the address on a warrant to be changed.

 

Should Paul Whyte and Bernard Hogan-Howe be quietly crapping themselves at the thought that motorists who have been targeted by these unlawful operations seeking legal redress and retribution against their respective organisations? In my view, yes, they should. Ignorance of the law is neither a defence or an excuse. And the local authorities who gave Whyte & Co the warrants or Liability Orders to execute and which now appear to have been unlawfully executed, should be held to account also. Those council officers who allowed it to go by unchecked or turned a blind eye to it should pay with their jobs at the very least and restrictions placed on the sort of alternative employment they may seek. Legal provision already exists to enable this.

 

Tomtubby is to be commended for her hard work and dedication to seeing that the public are treated fairly where civil enforcement is concerned and long may she do so.

[old bill]

Thanks TT hopefully civilian ANPR will be severely limited in the future, It is obnoxious that the ANPR is being used with incorrect out of date data that results in innoocents risking using their car because an EA insists the vehicle has an outstanding warrant against it., rather than the previous owner.

 

It is my understanding, BN, that there is a review currently in progress with regard to the use of ANPR by those other than law enforcement agencies. If the outcome of the review is that legislation is enacted restricting the use of ANPR to law enforcement agencies only, the civil enforcement industry and private parking industry will have their activities seriously disrupted.

[old bill]

Agree wholeheartedly oldbill, I wonder how many of those stopped and deprived of their car, due to not having the money were third party as in new owner in the last 3 months, who were told that as the Warrant was to the car reg no xxx123, pay up or lose it, couldn't pay so lost it, could sue for all the actual and consequential losses including loss of income if they lost their job as a result? The bailiffs police and council officials should stock up on immodium, or some other way of corking their orifices

 

If the civil enforcement companies, local authorities and police forces involved have any sense, they will not attempt to fight any such claims and settle out of court. Jacobs know just how expensive non-compliance with the law can be. If a motorist wanted to be awkward - and they would have every right to be - Whyte & Co could be forced to recover any vehicles they seized and sold unlawfully. I can see this becoming very messy and sending a chill through the civil enforcement industry.

[old bill]

This will kill the golden goose for the likes of Parking Eye, whose ANPR on shopping mall car parks leads to taxi drivers being bombarded with invoices as the ANPR logs them on and off once rather than on every visit they make to pick up or drop a fare say 20 times a day. PE also like to threaten Norwich Pharmacals on a keeper to disclose the driver, taxi bosses and courier firms have had letters threatening one of those before now

 

The use of ANPR by PPCs needs curbing - and the sooner the better. There is evidence emerging that images used as "evidence" are being selected to give the impression of breach of an alleged contract. Also, images of a vehicle entering and leaving a car park are NOT evidence that the vehicle has parked.

[old bill]

From another site I frequent..

 

To detail all of the abuses involved with this state sanctioned carjacking would make Wikipedia look like a post it note. But here’s a few we’ve listed just to be getting on with:-

 

A couple of corrections to the text from another site -

 

Item 6

 

A police officer has to have lawful reason to detain a person. If a police officer detains or attempts to detain a person, against their will, without lawful reason, they commit a civil tort and criminal offence, that of Unlawful Detention.

 

Item 8

 

Whilst the new regulations state that a Constable should assist a bailiff, in practice, this is only where the bailiff is acting completely within the law. If a bailiff is acting in contravention of the conditions attached to a warrant and/or they are acting unlawfully/illegally, whatever the case may be, and a police officer assists them, the police officer not only commits a breach of Police Conduct Regulations, most likely, Abuse of Authority, they commit the criminal offence of Misconduct In Public Office, which is a further offence, under Police Conduct Regulations, of Criminal Conduct.

 

See how easy it is for a police officer to drop themselves in the brown and smelly stuff getting involved with bailiffs.

 

Tomtubby has done a lot of good work in highlighting the dubious legality of these roadside operations and "Parking Mad" is the icing on the cake. My suspicion is that the management of Whyte & Co may want to go and hide somewhere once it becomes public knowledge that the company and its bailiffs have acted outside the bounds of the law with their roadside operations. I also suspect the CEOs of local authorities who employed Whyte & Co will be baying for their blood after they get hit with damages claims from motorists whose vehicles Whyte & Co have seized in contravention of the conditions attached to warrants and the law, in general.

 

Remember what I said back along about the civil enforcement industry hurtling toward the edge of a precipice and the danger of them plunging over the edge and into the abyss of no return?

 

After "Parking Mad" and the recent ruling by Lord Tugendhat when he refused Jamie Waller an injunction to prevent a Panorama programme, showing one of his bailiffs behaving in the most appalling manner from being aired on the grounds it would jeopardise JBW's tender for a major contract worth some £260m, I would think the civil enforcement industry is now pretty close to the edge of the precipice.

[old bill]

Think we should all do the same, but I cant't see Whyte & Co letting them do that, as i seek injunctions etc.

 

It's a bit late for that, BN, as "Parking Mad" has already gone out showing the unlawful/illegal actions of Whyte & Co and its bailiffs.

 

Turning to the poster who suggested a programme showing the illegal acts of bailiffs, a programme called "Exposure", featuring the odious Mr John Boast and Julie Green-Jones doing her Violet-Elizabeth number - "I was thick when I thaw that" - was broadcast a few years ago and, more recently, the BBC broadcast Panorama on the day the new regulations came into force, showing JBW in a less than favourable light. The fact that Lord Tugendhat told Jamie Waller "No way, Jose" when he tried to obtain an injunction to prevent the programme going out says an awful lot about the lawfulness of the manner in which the civil enforcement industry operates and the view the judiciary takes of it. On another forum where I post, at a recent hearing into a bailiff's behaviour, in addition to lying through their teeth, the bailiff even shocked their own solicitor. Although the judge hearing the matter did not suspend or cancel the bailiff's certificate, the bailiff walked out of the court with a legal bill to pay.

[old bill]

Email sent.......holding breath starting from..................NOW!!! gulp

 

If you turn a strange colour, would you like us to call the paramedics? Lol.

[old bill]

In the case of the Metropolitan Police, "very senior" is going to mean an officer of the rank of Commander, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or Commissioner.

 

The fact is, the police should NEVER have allowed private sector bailiffs to become involved in roadside operations in the first place, though, I have a sneaking suspicion that describing PCNs as "fines" may have skewed the police's thinking. From FOIA disclosures posted in this thread, it is pretty clear the penny has dropped and the Metropolitan Police has finally realised they have acted unlawfully and aided and abetted private sector bailiff companies to act in an unlawful and, possibly, illegal manner, albeit, I suspect, unwittingly.

 

Where does this leave the Metropolitan Police?

 

If they have arrested motorists for trying to stop private sector bailiffs taking their vehicles during these roadside operations and those people now have a criminal record, the hierarchy of the Metropolitan Police, along with the Borough Commanders of the Boroughs in which these operations took place, may well be looking at proceedings for Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution. They may well be liable for any other losses or damage suffered.

 

The damage to the Metropolitan Police's already heavily-tarnished reputation is going to pale into insignificance.

 

And what about Newylns and Whyte & Co.?

 

If their directors have any sense, they will recover the vehicles they have unlawfully/illegally seized PDQ or replace the vehicles PDQ and pay appropriate compensation. The bailiffs involved should, if they have an ounce of common decency and conscience, surrender their certificates to the courts that issued them.

 

What if money was taken from motorists at these roadside operations?

 

Newlyns and Whyte & Co. should be made to repay the bailiff fees in full with Statutory Interest added.

 

And the local authorities involved?

 

Those local government officers who knew this was going on and turned a blind eye to it should be dismissed or required to resign as an alternative. The local authorities should also be required to repay court fees and the difference between the discounted rate and increased rate.

 

It is no good the Metropolitan Police, local authorities, Newlyns, Whyte & Co. and individual bailiffs pleading ignorance. Ignorance of the law is neither a defence or an excuse. If individual bailiffs have any sense, they will keep a low profile. Police officers do not like being taken for fools or being put in a position where their job could be on the line. The police is like an extended family. You hurt one, you hurt them all. Newlyns and Whyte & Co. have done significant harm to police-public relations and may well have put the civil enforcement industry on a collision course with the police who are likely to be more circumspect about dealing with incidents involving bailiffs and not be so ready to believe what they say. As a retired policeman, I feel sad that my former colleagues have had to find out the hard way that the civil enforcement industry is not The Good Guys, but an industry that has grown fat on bullying, intimidation and deceit.

 

Just before the new regulations came into force, I wrote a number of posts in which I warned that if the civil enforcement industry did not mend its ways, it would find itself hurtling over the edge of a precipice and into an abyss of no return. The issues this thread relate to may well prove to the civil enforcement industry that it is perilously close to the edge of the precipice and slamming on the brakes is going to be a case of too little, too late.

[old bill]

In truth nothing will be done about the stops that have happened, because I can't see anyone going through an expensive court process, unless someone it willing to do this, with backing.

 

Sorry, but I disagree with you strongly, UB. The stops were unlawful, if not, illegal, ab initio (from the outset) and to force those affected by such actions to which the Metropolitan Police has now admitted were unlawful would be perverse in extremis. It is pointless the local authorities involved, the Metropolitan Police, Newlyns and Whyte and Co burying their heads in the sand, hoping it will go away, or toughing it out. The proverbial has hit the air-conditioning and the stench is overwhelming. Civil procedures Rules require that going into court is the very last resort. Those involved in the unlawful roadside operations need to sort this out and put right what they have done quickly, otherwise I have a feeling karma is going turn round, bite them hard on the bum and draw blood.

[old bill]

To be honest this only goes to prove that this industry is rotten to the core. Now with this information the real matter in the long run will come to bear.

In as much the EA will probably lose all help from the Police in any future events. I.E preventing a breach of the peace. Not only this, it is a wake up call for every force in the UK.

This is very true. However, I have an awful feeling it will be the police who will be committing a breach of the peace by beating the crap out of bailiffs for almost costing them their jobs.

Not only have the Met set a precedent that will haunt them for many years to come. Credit where credit is due, they have admitted they have got this wrong, Now the time has come to bear for all the Forces within the UK will now do the same.

I agree that credit should be given where it is due and all due credit to the Met for putting their hands up and saying, "Yes. We know. We have seriously f****d-up." However, Northumbria Police have already learned that assisting bailiffs has its dangers. In the last 12 months, 11 officers of the Northumbria force have been formally reprimanded for facilitating a bailiff to gain entry to someone's home when the bailiff had no lawful authority to do so. Giving Northumbria Police their due, they came to the person whom they wronged and asked for help with formulating a training programme for their frontline officers to ensure no citizen or police officer was ever put in an identical or similar situation involving bailiffs again.

Repercussions will now be felt right up to the MoJ. All they have done in the new regs is to show this has failed big time. The EA's surely need to rethink what they do from today onwards, they really NEED to bring themselves in to this day and age. this could set a whole new look on things. Maybe the EA's will change but most likely not, the customer is a cash cow for them.

This thread should be compulsory reading for all MPs. Their attempt to allegedly regulate the civil enforcement industry is an abject failure. The civil servants who should have made sure the new regulations were balanced and effective should pay with their jobs. They are equally at fault as the MPs as they are the ones who advise the MPs.

The next stage in this event is the wholesale rethink of the enforcement of a Council PCN. Will this happen lets see what this mess will bring. As far as the PCN goes the rules now really need looking at and the whole structure having a major rethink as well. Not only that but the whole enforcement agency rules on how a debtor can seek redress from such wrong doings. The rules need to be changed sharpish and chase the ACTUAL debtor not the new owner. The debt is against the owner of the vehicle at the time of the offence occurred not the owner at the time of stopping.

I have a feeling the police will be getting in plenty of practice for the National Arse-Kicking Championships after this. And I have a feeling it will be bailiffs whom they will be using for practice. The civil enforcement industry has now shown itself for what it truly is and it would come as no surprise to learn that the industry was facing formal investigation.

To be honest I think that the Council must now use a DVLA check EVERY TIME before the debt is sent to the EA for enforcement. They should (COUNCILS AND EA's) as a point of LAW make immediate redress for those debtors that were wrongfully had goods taken control of in these situations.

Should? Try must. Their contractors acted unlawfully/illegally and, no doubt, local government officers ignored what was going on as long as the PCN revenue was coming in. Some years ago, Plymouth City Council illegally charged its council house tenants for gas servicing and safety checks. It had to repay some £2 million as soon as the blunder came to light.

 

@@@@

[old bill]

I am trying to convert the letter to a PDF. In the meantime the 'word' version is as follows:

 

Dear xxxx

 

Thank you for your letter dated 17th March regarding the recent ‘Parking Mad’ documentary. I have been asked by Chief Superintendent Matt Bell, OCU Commander for Roads and Transport Policing Command, to respond on his behalf.

 

My apologies for the delay in response, your letter was only passed to me on the 21st May and there has been a lot of discussion in the last few days over these issues.

 

The current MPS policy on working with CEOs was written to comply with all aspects of relevant legislation. This includes the Human Rights Act, ensuring our actions are proportionate, legal, appropriate and necessary for the discharge of warrants issued under Section 125 of the Magistrates Act. This policy included of safeguards such as the range of checks that must have been completed by the CEO and how recently they must have been done before we would consider stopping that vehicle.

 

However a number of concerns have been raised about the MPS working with Civil Enforcement Officers (CEO) and this has been debated at a senior level. As a result, the involvement of CEOs at roadside operations has been suspended until the MPS can fully explore the issues.

 

In regards to the officer’s actions as seen during the programme, I have taken steps to identify the officers concerned in order to obtain their version of events and details of how they were briefed. Once I have this information I will consider whether any further action should taken.

 

Please contact me if I can be of further assistance.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

XXXX

 

 

 

T/Chief Inspector (HQ and Operations)

 

By the sound of it, the Chief Superintendent has delegated it down to his staff officer, who is usually an Inspector or Chief Inspector. What the Met need to explain - and quickly - is why they are referring to certificated bailiffs as "Civilian Enforcement Officers". CEOs are civil servants, holding a warrant that authorises them to discharge the duties of their office. As we all know, the bailiffs who took part in these roadside operations as known as "Enforcement Agents".

[old bill]

Thanks OLD BILL for the input, these issues are just the start of the next cluster ****, as far as Councils charging for gas most do so already, it will be in their T&C's most of which was rewritten in my area last November, Till I stuck my two penny worth in and they had to make some serious adjustments.

 

Any T & Cs not compliant with prevailing legislation are unenforceable and potentially unlawful or illegal.

[old bill]

A half good result then, what was not addressed ar appareently recognised by the MET was that their officers have been stopping and assisting the removal of third party vehicles, so information of how many new owners have had vehicles taken at the roadside with the assistance of police, because the EA has avowed the "Warrant is to the car" the index number being on it, then further how many of these third party owners were arrested for public order offences when they objected.

 

I agree with old bill that the polce will have difficulty wiith these cases as ab initio the whole process from stop to seizure was unlawful.

 

Will be emailing this thread to my MP, they should all see that the Civil Enforcement Industry is so out of control, and the new Regulations a chocolate fireguard.

I have to agree with you, BN. These roadside operations raise serious questions of police accountability and their working with so-called "partner agencies". I feel that it is senior officers who should take the rap for all unlawful activities by junior colleagues, including Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution. The CPS will not exactly be blameless in such instances as they should have checked the legal status of such activities and the lawfulness of the arrests. And it doesn't stop there. Any recovery operator who has provided tow trucks to remove seized vehicles to pounds and has benefited from either receiving fees or the proceeds from the sale of vehicles may well find themselves on the receiving end of more hassle than they want or can cope with, including litigation, possible seizure of their tow trucks, as any vehicle used in the commission of an illegal act can be seized, and, at worst, criminal prosecution. And it goes on. Motor auction houses and any other business involved in the sale or disposal of vehicles could find themselves attracting some unwanted attention from the police.

 

I have read of cases on this and another forum where I post of bailiffs reaching into cars, whilst the driver is still in the car and forcibly taking the ignition keys, using violence to do so in some cases. This is the equivalent of a bailiff using violence against a person standing in the doorway of their home and the bailiff pushing them aside or knocking them over in order to gain entry. It is totally illegal and bailiffs found to have done so should suffer the immediate suspension of their certificate, pending an investigation into how many other cases they have used violence to seize vehicles or gain entry to homes, followed by cancellation. In no way should a bailiff who has used unprovoked violence or unlawful or illegal force against either a householder or motorist be permitted to continue to work as a bailiff. In such cases, suspension of their certificate should be a precursor to cancellation, not retraining.

 

Once word of this case gets out, it will be around all police forces like wildfire. Yes, it is quite likely officers in other police forces will be calling the Met "muppets", but I have a feeling it will have officers of chief officer rank - Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Chief Constable - asking themselves and their junior colleagues some serious questions as to the conduct of certificated bailiffs and the police service's relationships with the civil enforcement industry. Will this lead to HMCTS reviewing their relationships with the likes of Marstons, Collectica, Pelham Excel and Proserve Swift as regards the collection of court fines? I would not rule this out.

[old bill]

I notice that the letter is dated 6th June. There is evidence that joint operations were still being held close to Tower Bridge on Monday 9th June. Not only does it seem that somebody lost his car after the police took his keys from the ignition, but his partner was threatened by the police that if she did not vacate the car, social services would be called to take her 3 month baby who was travelling with them.

 

If true it would appear that these operations are not only unlawful, but that insanity may be contagious

 

Oh dear. One officer who is going to find his backside being kicked from one end of Victoria Street, London SW1 to the other end and around Parliament Square for an encore by a senior officer. The only instances in which a police officer may do what you have highlighted, F-P, is -

 

a. if the vehicle is stolen or suspected of being stolen or taken without the owner's consent; or

b. the driver is unfit to drive through drink or drugs or is suspected of being under the influence of drink or drugs; or

c. the vehicle is suspected of being involved in the commission of a crime.

 

Other than these instances, a police officer has no power to reach into a car and remove the keys from the ignition. It is, at best, abuse of authority, at worst, criminal conduct. As to the police ordering the occupants to vacate the vehicle to facilitate seizure by a certificated bailiff for an unpaid de-criminalised PCN, the officer involved has acted ultra vires ab initio and could face disciplinary action leading to dismissal from the police service.

[old bill]

Old Bill,

 

Thank you for your input. It is most helpful.

 

Over the past 10 days there were a number of rumours being heard to the effect that the Met Police had indeed suspended these operations but 2 days later one bailiff co were seen operating a Police & Bailiff Roadside Operation in London. It was thought that possibly only some police had made the decision to suspend the operations.

 

To my knowledge the letter that I have exhibited is the first official document confirming the suspension.

 

It is my understanding that CIVEA are writing to all their members regarding this matter.

 

You are welcome, TT.

 

Turning to your query about operations continuing, the letter that has been posted on this thread has come from the Met's Traffic and Roads Policing Operational Command Unit (OCU), hence why officers referred to in the letter have their ranks shown as "T/Chief Inspector". The "T" indicates "Traffic". The Traffic and Roads Policing OCU is a completely separate OCU from Borough OCUs and can initiate its own operations, as can Borough OCUs. It looks like this is going to have to be pursued at a much higher level than Borough Commander, who holds the rank of Chief Superintendent. I would suggest the Assistant Commissioner responsible for operational policing of London Boroughs would be a good place to start, escalating to Deputy Commissioner and, ultimately, Commissioner, if necessary.

 

Hope this helps.

[old bill]

Will this lead to HMCTS reviewing their relationships with the likes of Marstons, Collectica, Pelham Excel and Proserve Swift as regards the collection of court fines? I would not rule this out.

 

Old Bill,

 

In reply to your above comment Magistrate Court FINES are NOT enforced by either Penham Excel or Proserve. The four companies that are permitted under contract to enforce such fines are Marston Group, Collectica, Excel Enforcement (Wales) and Swift Credit Services (also in Wales).

 

On a separate matter Proserve have severe problems regarding their access to DVLA records (for private parking). Penham Excel are trying to get into the council tax and parking sector but in the main they mainly deal with unpaid rent cases on behalf of commercial landlords.

 

As I had said elsewhere on the is thread the right of police to assist enforcement agents pursuing criminal court FINES is legal. However, very few cases are enforced by way of ANPR.

 

Agreed. However, cases on this and other forums have highlighted that EAs collecting unpaid court fines are not beyond stretching the truth or misquoting or misrepresenting the law in order to achieve their objectives. This is not good for justice or the police. CEOs directly employed by HMCTS are fully accountable, being civil servants, and, in my experience, use their commonsense when dealing with fine defaulters, not the sort of behaviour that has become evident amongst private sector EAs. Whoever advised MPs to allow court fines collection and enforcement to be outsourced to the private sector should be sacked, if a civil servant or on the public payroll in any capacity or receiving remuneration from public funds. The fraud committed by G4S and SERCO over offender tagging should have set alarm bells ringing at 102 Petty France as well as other places in Westminster. It clearly did not and it is now for electors to put MPs on the spot and make them earn their salaries and gilt-edged pensions.

[old bill]

I have been lurking round here for ages. I know very little about the law, but reading this post thought that if this happened close to the north of Tower Bridge the chances are it was City of London Police.

 

Ah. The criminal cabal's private police force. The sooner City of London Police is disbanded the better.

[old bill]

As I said before, the 'state' will always excercise their power against the public and the only slight protection people have is to get a helpful Judge in a judicial review of the matter. This is the type of situation that would end up in the European court of Human Rights, as UK powers will try to stop any chance of this all being unwound. There would be many millions of pounds involved and probably government ministers/mayor of London called to explain what has happened. This is not going to happen at any point in the near future. They will dig their heels in, suspend activities for awhile and hold a review, giving them time to think how they are going to cover up the mess, plus ensure that they can continue to collect unpaid PCN's.

 

Cases under the Human Rights Act 1998 can be pursued at county court level, UB. Before a human rights case can go to ECHR, it has to be heard by the county court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Most cases are resolved at county court level.

 

However, out of the 47 countries who are signatories to ECHR, the UK has the worst record for human rights abuses. Other countries may have only one or two cases a year end up before ECHR or the Grand Chamber of ECHR jn any one year, but the UK has, on average, at least 10 cases a year going before the court or Grand Chamber.

 

Another matter that needs to be remembered is that a judge has the power to attach a Certificate of Incompatibility to any provision contained within an Act of Parliament that breaches the Articles contained in ECHR and strike down (bring to an end) any provision contained within a Statutory Instrument or the Statutory Instrument itself that is incompatible with the Articles.

[old bill]

There is an increasing number of judges who are putting their heads above the parapet and questioning what is going on, often putting civil and public servants to strict proof which pees them off no end. Also, High Court and Appeal Court judges are not beyond putting Secretaries of State firmly in their place as happened to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Home Secretary Mad Madam Mim May.

 

The reason why certain factions in the UK want the UK out of ECHR is because some MPs have prostituted themselves to a globalist and corporatist agenda. And, no, this is not a conspiracy theory; this is cold, hard fact.

 

Google "Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals" and download the PDF version. Read it and it will become crystal clear why what is going on is going on.

[old bill]

Yes I share some of these concerns. I think the most concerning is the concentration of wealth and power that comes with it. This is going to get worse in the years ahead and is partly behind some of the problems we currently have. Corporations love having a world with too many humans, as labour becomes cheaper and they can easily get governments to accept reduced rights of workers. e.g zero hours contracts. Oxfam recently highlighted some of the issues, which are going to get far worse during the next 30 years. World human population is due to peak at over 10 billion by 2050. Of course when you have debt issues caused by uncertainty in terms of income and increased living costs, there are DCA's, bailiffs etc, who will come along trying to earn a living, provide return for investors.

 

I think you would do well to download and read the publication I have mentioned, UB. What the politicos are trying to rush through is getting out into the public domain. Also, don't forget the saying, "Before the Gods destroy you, they first turn you mad."

[old bill]

The actual decision to suspend these operations came from a senior Commander and was given in the last month of May. as I have said earlier there is a lot going on in the 'background'.

 

Thank you for that, TT.

 

For those unfamiliar with ranks in the Met Police, the rank of Commander is equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable in a county force. Borough Commander is an operational title, not an actual police rank, and is held by an officer of the rank of Chief Superintendent, which is the rank immediately below a Commander/Assistant Chief Constable.