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

[brassnecked]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, they have unpaid Penalty Charge Notices, not criminal fines, yet she chirruped on about fines, that of itself might give the coppers present the impression these are criminal penalties they are stopping the cars for.

[mch1991]

I watched both episodes of parking mad and a few things made me feel really angry.

 

- From my understanding, the bailiff company would utilize ANPR technology which would flag up a motor vehicle which passes by which has an outstanding parking penalty attached to it.

 

- How can the police pull over a vehicle which a private bailiff company acting on behalf of a penalty charge has told them to? Surely under s.163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a constable only has the power to stop a vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion a road traffic offence has or is taking place. To do so on behalf of a private bailiff would be considered misuse of police powers?

 

- I noticed the bailiffs basically black mailed the people into paying, with comments such as "if you do not pay we'll be seizing your car", in fact, one bailiff starts to rummage around the boot of someones car. Surely a bailiff acting on behalf of a parking fine can not enter into your private property (vehicle) without your permission, and under what law or powers would a bailiff stop you from leaving a public place should you not wish to deal with them on the road side? How could they seize your vehicle in a public place?

 

Thanks.

[brassnecked]

I watched both episodes of parking mad and a few things made me feel really angry.

 

- From my understanding, the bailiff company would utilize ANPR technology which would flag up a motor vehicle which passes by which has an outstanding parking penalty attached to it.

 

- How can the police pull over a vehicle which a private bailiff company acting on behalf of a penalty charge has told them to? Surely under s.163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 a constable only has the power to stop a vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion a road traffic offence has or is taking place. To do so on behalf of a private bailiff would be considered misuse of police powers?

 

- I noticed the bailiffs basically black mailed the people into paying, with comments such as "if you do not pay we'll be seizing your car", in fact, one bailiff starts to rummage around the boot of someones car. Surely a bailiff acting on behalf of a parking fine can not enter into your private property (vehicle) without your permission, and under what law or powers would a bailiff stop you from leaving a public place should you not wish to deal with them on the road side? How could they seize your vehicle in a public place?

 

Thanks.

The whole ANPR set up with bailiffs/EA asking the police to pull cars over is unlawful from the minute the CIVILLIAN ANPR shouts Achtung and the EA asks the copper to pull it over. As tomtubby and others have p[ointed out many times, the fundamental issue here is people have fallen into the EA trap as in presented by the bailioff with the statement that the vehicle has an outstanding parking penalty attached to it. they pay up or refuse and not knowing their rights and the law, pay up or let the bailiff have the car. The owner of the car AT THE TIME of the contravention is liable not the car, otherwise a subsequent owner could then lawfully have the car taken by bailiffs for the previous owners debt. The problem is DVLA is unfit for purpose and some former owners not scrupulous about returning V5 for change. It is wrong that a vehicle registration nhumber is on the warrant/collection order, as innocents have lost their cars when a bailiff at the roadside quite unlawfully and blatantly lying through their teeth, has told them their car has the fine attached to it so they must pay.

[tomtubby]

In responding to the FoI request (see page one of this thread) the Metropolitan Police (after 5 months) confirm that they are not supposed to be offering any 'assistance' to private sector bailiffs in these 'Police and Bailif Roadside Operations:

 

As a reminder the following is a copy of the relevant quote from their FoI response:

.

.

 

"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 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.

[tomtubby]

Taking the above into consideration, it will be very interesting indeed whether the Metropolitan Police have continued to give their 'assistance' to bailiffs since the publication of their FOI response.

[brassnecked]

Taking the above into consideration, it will be very interesting indeed whether the Metropolitan Police have continued to give their 'assistance' to bailiffs since the publication of their FOI response.

 

We need to find out if these Roadside Checks are still ongoing then, perhaps the NoToMob might know.

[HCEOs]

The new regulations must cause some significant issues for ANPR roadside operations, not least that fact that a car now has to be clamped for a minimum of 2 hours on the highway. The Notice of Enforcement must also have been served on the debtor at an address where they reside or, if a business, work.

 

Given all the comment on here, has there ever been a formal complaint to the DPS or IPCC?

[Fair-Parking]

Yes the IPCC and others are viewing it right now

[brassnecked]

The new regulations must cause some significant issues for ANPR roadside operations, not least that fact that a car now has to be clamped for a minimum of 2 hours on the highway. The Notice of Enforcement must also have been served on the debtor at an address where they reside or, if a business, work.

 

Given all the comment on here, has there ever been a formal complaint to the DPS or IPCC?

In the case of the new owner who is pulled up by bailiff ANPR on out of date info, they will not of course have had the Notice to their address all the correspondence will go to the previous owner, that of itself makes a mockery of the ANPR as a car registration number should not be on the warrant, the car doesn't owe the money, the driver at the time does. Imaging the furore with 20 or so cars clamped at the roadside possibly in a bus stop or on yellow lines, with council wardens walking along the line issuing tickets to the clamped cars...... Would look great on a YouTube video in a Monty Python way.

[tomtubby]

'Behind the scenes' there is a lot happening right now and as I understand it new 'guidance' has been given to the Police but I believe that this is only an 'interim' document given that stakeholder groups need to be consulted. All in all.....the police are in a real mess and I am sure that they are now left wondering how they could have been 'persuaded' into participating with private sector bailiff companies in the first place.

[brassnecked]

'Behind the scenes' there is a lot happening right now and as I understand it new 'guidance' has been given to the Police but I believe that this is only an 'interim' document given that stakeholder groups need to be consulted. All in all.....the police are in a real mess and I am sure that they are now left wondering how they could have been 'persuaded' into participating with private sector bailiff companies in the first place.

 

The police may well be looking at damage limitation, as they have been caught "in-flagrante" breaking the law assisting non warranted civilian bailiffs to seize cars, even quite likely in some cases from a new owner who did not incur the fine. All in all a real mess

[tomtubby]

UPDATE:

 

In my above post number (110) I stated that "behind the scenes" there was a lot happening regarding police 'assisting' bailiffs with these "Roadside Operations".

 

About an hour ago we received CONFIRMATION by way of a letter from a very senior person at the Metropolitan Police that the involvement of CEOs at Roadside Operations has been SUSPENDED !!!

 

I will post more details (together with a copy of the letter from the Met Police) later today.

[mikeymack2002]

This is great news for those affected, but no more re-runs of Whyte & Co and their arrogant methods. Well done for the info update

[mikeymack2002]

The outcome of this will maybe allow the debtors to now seek redress is this a possibility? If so then this truly is a cluster F***

[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.

[unclebulgaria67]

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.

[mikeymack2002]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

[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.

[tomtubby]

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)

[tomtubby]

There are a couple of errors in the letter. Firstly in the opening line it refers to a letter written on 17th March. In fact the letter to the Metropolitan Police was written in April.

 

In the 3rd paragraph of the letter reference is made to Section 125 of the Magistrates Act. This should actually have been section 125 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

[mikeymack2002]

There are a couple of errors in the letter. Firstly in the opening line it refers to a letter written on 17th March. In fact the letter to the Metropolitan Police was written in April.

 

In the 3rd paragraph of the letter reference is made to Section 125 of the Magistrates Act. This should actually have been section 125 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

 

 

 

 

PDF attached and edited for you TT

[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.

 

@@@@

[mikeymack2002]

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.

[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".

[tomtubby]

Official PDF below:

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51531[/ATTACH]