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

[tomtubby]

Another one here:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/powers_to_stop_vehicles_used_in#comment-49973

[tomtubby]

This one is very serious indeed:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/cy/request/bailiff

 

PS: Sorry, I think that this is a copy (in welsh) of the original FOI request that led to me starting this thread.

[brassnecked]

I would think that Whyte & Co may well regret following the British Parking Association's (BPA) suggestion to participate in this TV series. Over the weekend I counted seven Freedom of Information requests on the What do They Know website. I would assume that there are a lot more FOI requests that are not made on the public website. A complete disaster for the enforcement companies and the police involved:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/powers_to_stop_vehicles_used_in#incoming-511641

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_from_whyte_and_co#incoming-511306

 

 

They have let the genie out of the bottle, Whyte & Co are already lower than a snakes belly in the public perception after their purile comments and treatment of the disabled man on Motability " But you can afford a nice car sir" only via Motability and DLA, tantamoubt to Direct Discrimination under the EA 2010. I wonder what happened to him, as he offered to pay by instailments and to let then seize all his goods from his home but the lead bailiff still put him down as a wilful non payer. Disgusting.

[tomtubby]

Duplicate post

[brassnecked]

The Met are going to regret being involved with the likes of Whyte & Co and JBW in the light of Parking Mad

[tomtubby]

The Met are going to regret being involved with the likes of Whyte & Co and JBW in the light of Parking Mad

 

 

Brassnecked.

 

In fact...you are only partly correct.

 

In a recent trade article there is an interview with Paul Whyte (Director) of Whyte & Co where he confirms that his company were approached by the BPA to take part in this programme.

 

The programme has finally highlighted that such operations are UNLAWFUL and with thanks to the British Parking Association ALL enforcement companies may now find that they operations will CEASE and there is the real and distinct prospect that the entire matter of using ANPR vehicles will now come under the spotlight.

[Horsen]

Apologies if I appear to be asking stupid questions, BUT, having read the FoI requests and the answers given.

1. If the MPS are saying that the vehicles were stopped under S163, can you ask for the officers specific reason under the FoI, do they write this down in a notebook or recorded verbally?

2. Are these joint operations taking place elsewhere in the country?

[silverfox1961]

I know this might sound like a dumb idea (having not watched the program-my blood pressure wouldn't stand it) but can we not do an FOI to the BBC asking:

 

How many vehicles stopped during filming were for actual offences rather than just assisting the CEOs.

[tomtubby]

Horsen,

 

Firstly, this is not my FOI request so I cannot ask any further questions but no doubt others may wish to do so.

 

Secondly, there is now very little reason to ask any further questions given that from the FOI reply and what has been seen on the TV screen it is now CLEAR that the police are in fact not using their powers under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act. The specific reason for this being simply that IF they are to rely upon Section 163 then the police must stop the vehicle and such vehicle will be stopped in accordance with information available to the police on the Police National Database.

 

As was clearly show on the Parking Mad series, the police do not rely upon the information on their database. Instead, they are told which car to stop by a private sector bailiff companies using their own database.

 

There appears to be no legal basis for doing so.

[brassnecked]

Brassnecked.

 

In fact...you are only partly correct.

 

In a recent trade article there is an interview with Paul Whyte (Director) of Whyte & Co where he confirms that his company were approached by the BPA to take part in this programme.

 

The programme has finally highlighted that such operations are UNLAWFUL and with thanks to the British Parking Association ALL enforcement companies may now find that they operations will CEASE and there is the real and distinct prospect that the entire matter of using ANPR vehicles will now come under the spotlight.

 

 

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.

[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.

[brassnecked]

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

[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.

[brassnecked]

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.

 

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

[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.

[brassnecked]

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.

 

Jacobs must cringe when it is brought up, and no doubt are following this thread, they know I have had a run in with a bailiff of theirs so no love lost there, but here we go they were really screwed on Volksworld with the VW camper they took that was third party. As to Whyte & Co, they had better hoipe that some savvy pro-bono lawyer engaged by a charity for the disabled doesn't go after them for the treatment of the disabled driver marked as a wilful non payer.

 

I think many in the Enforcement Industry wish they were into payday loans about now.

[brassnecked]

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.

 

Taxis and delivery vehicles are usually in and out pretty quickly, certainly within any grace time where if there is no space a user would be in and pout

[Satterthwaite]

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.

 

I have just seen a Parking Charge Notice for a vehicle that was on the top deck of a Car Transporter, it was on the way to be being delivered to someone I know. The driver of the transporter had obviously parked up for a break.

 

The photo's on the PCN clearly show the vehicle on the top deck, yet some idiot at the PPC saw fit to send out an invoice for £100.

[Bazooka Boo]

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:-

 

1. Unpaid parking fines are not a criminal offence. Any police officer waving down a vehicle solely for a bailiff to reclaim a debt is abusing his authority and is in direct opposition to Police Standard Operating Procedure CO15 ANPR 2.3 which states:- “Police officers must ensure that they are acting impartially and not be seen to be acting as civil debt recovery agents.”
   
2. Under the Road Traffic Act 1988, the police need a valid reason to stop a vehicle. Stopping a vehicle for an unpaid civil court fine is not a valid reason. Nor is stating that they pulled you over because “they can” a valid reason. Without a valid reason, the police are acting outside the boundaries of their authority.
   
3. A bailiff cannot seize a vehicle without prior notification to the debtor of not less than 7 days as per notice 6.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013
   
4. A bailiff cannot seize a vehicle that is in use by any person at the time at which the enforcement agent seeks to take control of it, if to do so could cause a breach of the peace. As per section 10.—(1) of the The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013
   
5. An enforcement officer cannot use force to enter a debtors premises. Nor can they push past you if you block his way. Any police officer that arrests you as a result could potentially be prosecuted for wrongful arrest.
   
6. A bailiff has no right to detain you or question you. There is no power for police to pursue a person or vehicle just because they refuse to speak to an enforcement officer. Any police officer that attempts to detain you on behalf of a bailiff or instructs you to comply with his request has committed the tort of vicarious liability.
   
7. Enforcement Agents are not registered data controllers. The dataset that they are using to locate vehicles has in all probability been handed to them unlawfully by the local authority. Therefore, the stopping of vehicles in relation to such data is unlawful and in breach of the Data Protection Act.
   
8. Any officer that assists bailiffs in mugging the public in this manner can be charged with misconduct under the Police Reform Act. They are also in violation of the Police Code of Conduct which states:- “Officers should be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity.”
   

[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.

[Satterthwaite]

I have e mailed Century Films the makers of Parking Mad.

 

I have suggested they do a special one off showing the illegal acts of the bailiffs and MPS.

[brassnecked]

I have e mailed Century Films the makers of Parking Mad.

 

I have suggested they do a special one off showing the illegal acts of the bailiffs and MPS.

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

[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.

[Satterthwaite]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/whos-who/tv/knowledge/documentaries-1/maxine-watson.shtml

 

This is the commissioning editor at the Beeb for this program. I can't see how Whyte & Co can get an injucntion against the BBC or Century Films for something they have agreed to do.

 

If the program makers are serious journalist then I would have thought they would want to make a program that millions would want to watch.