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

[brassnecked]

The bailiff is pretty good at Lower Gastro-Intestinal Ventriloquism as is the police officer. Whenever a bailiff/EA acts in contravention of the conditions applicable to a warrant, they are not acting as a bailiff/EA. Their legal protections only apply where they can prove they have acted in accordance with the conditions applicable to a warrant and the law. This is not dissimilar to the situation where a police officer arrests someone or attempts to issue a ticket where they have no lawful authority or grounds for doing so. They are not acting in the execution of their duty. If anyone knows differently, please post up.

 

I think the bailiff gave the order to stop as the index was on the bailiff ANPR, the warrant was to the previous owner, and the copper was trying to frighten the car owner, the bailiff was trying to face it out and but for the camera in their faces I feel the copper would have arrested and dragged the owner from the car for obstruction, then let the bailiff take the car. Just my gut feeling from the attitude shown by them on camera.

 

Imo the stop was unlawful f ab initio as the bailiff anpr was out of date and plods check showed a change of keeper and clear on PNC. This appears to be systemic perversion of the course of justice perhaps.

[old bill]

If I understood it correctly, the 15% was to cover their costs in the operation. Unless the Police are on overtime surely there is no extra cost involved since these stops and

searches are part of their job.

 

Which makes this 15% look more and more like a consideration or an inducement. This is very serious indeed. Bernard Hogan-Howe needs to start kicking backsides and quickly, starting with whoever has overall responsibility for operational policing matters, followed by the Borough Commander responsible for the London Borough of Hillingdon and the Superintendent responsible for the Hounslow area. After that, he needs to make the directors of Newlyns and Whyte & Co an invitation they cannot refuse.

[old bill]

I think the bailiff gave the order to stop as the index was on the bailiff ANPR, the warrant was to the previous owner, and the copper was trying to frighten the car owner, the bailiff was trying to face it out and but for the camera in their faces I feel the copper would have arrested and dragged the owner from the car for obstruction, then let the bailiff take the car. Just my gut feeling from the attitude shown by them on camera.

 

Imo the stop was unlawful f ab initio as the bailiff anpr was out of date and plods check showed a change of keeper and clear on PNC. This appears to be systemic perversion of the course of justice perhaps.

 

I feel you are probably right in what you say, BN. I've taken a look at the video on YouTube and gain the distinct impression the police and bailiff realised, very quickly, they had stopped a legally-savvy motorist who could cause them major grief and, as you have pointed out, tried to face it out. The manner in which the bailiff and police officer behaved was, perhaps, the worst thing they could have done.

 

The stop was unlawful ab initio and if the owner of the vehicle who captured the footage wants to cause major problems for the Met, bailiff and Newlyns, all he has to do is to press for those involved to face indictment for Misconduct in Public Office and Incitement to Commit Misconduct in Public Office.

 

What is in the FOIA disclosure is very serious indeed and those involved need to be in no doubt that this could lead to people facing prosecution and, possibly, receiving custodial sentences.

[brassnecked]

The stop was unlawful ab initio and if the owner of the vehicle who captured the footage wants to cause major problems for the Met, bailiff and Newlyns, all he has to do is to press for those involved to face indictment for Misconduct in Public Office and Incitement to Commit Misconduct in Public Office.

 

What is in the FOIA disclosure is very serious indeed and those involved need to be in no doubt that this could lead to people facing prosecution and, possibly, receiving custodial sentences.

 

What it does show is thet the Enforcement Industry has no place in the 21st Century, it should be abolished as per Lord Denning's intentions all those years ago. He must be spinning in his grave at the absolute chaos and lawbreaking endemic in enforcement.

 

I feel the Government will try to bury this issue by saying the squeaky new TCGA is the answer to our prayers, and this sort of thing cannot happen under the new rules yada ydda, but of course it could on steroids with vehicles taken control of and clamped on the highway,causing an obstruction.

 

As I posted before, I would expect the Met and Newlyn to try to take this video down, but it has been downloaded by many no doubt and will nod go away

[Fair-Parking]

I see the ANPR bureau is also implicated. Some here have been invited to attend ameeting in late July. Should make an interesting meeting.

 

I can hear HHJ Cryan's wording echoing in the background.

 

'Had it occured to you at any stage that what was happening could be of doubtful legality?' and the classic

 

'Some people might be skeptical that what you are describing to me is the real world or not?'

 

I can see this becoming a widespread scandal where heads will roll, possibly to cheering crowds.

[EDW2000]

I feel you are probably right in what you say, BN. I've taken a look at the video on YouTube and gain the distinct impression the police and bailiff realised, very quickly, they had stopped a legally-savvy motorist who could cause them major grief and, as you have pointed out, tried to face it out. The manner in which the bailiff and police officer behaved was, perhaps, the worst thing they could have done.

 

The stop was unlawful ab initio and if the owner of the vehicle who captured the footage wants to cause major problems for the Met, bailiff and Newlyns, all he has to do is to press for those involved to face indictment for Misconduct in Public Office and Incitement to Commit Misconduct in Public Office.

 

What is in the FOIA disclosure is very serious indeed and those involved need to be in no doubt that this could lead to people facing prosecution and, possibly, receiving custodial sentences.

 

 

 

 

 

Video -

 

The bailiff says he is looking for Ali Hayder (spelling?) that is against data protection, surely?

 

Look at how PC ST2219 tries to bully the man in to not asking questions saying "listen, listen" to make him shut up.

 

There is quite a bit of case law about s.163 stops.

 

Beckett, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court [2004] EWHC 100 (Admin) (22 January 2004)

"

 

1. Accordingly, whether it be under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or under a duty at common law, a police officer has the power, provided he or she does not act capriciously or in bad faith, or provided there is no malpractice or oppression or opprobrious behaviour, to stop a motorist on the road. If thereafter there is a reasonable suspicion of drinking, a breath test may be administered."
   

[brassnecked]

Video -

 

The bailiff says he is looking for Ali Hayder (spelling?) that is against data protection, surely?

 

Look at how PC ST2219 tries to bully the man in to not asking questions saying "listen, listen" to make him shut up.

 

There is quite a bit of case law about s.163 stops.

 

Beckett, R (on the application of) v Aylesbury Crown Court [2004] EWHC 100 (Admin) (22 January 2004)

"

 

 

1. Accordingly, whether it be under section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or under a duty at common law, a police officer has the power, provided he or she does not act capriciously or in bad faith, or provided there is no malpractice or oppression or opprobrious behaviour, to stop a motorist on the road. If thereafter there is a reasonable suspicion of drinking, a breath test may be administered."
   

 

 

The bailiff and copper are screwed then as he has acted oppressively, and breached Data Protection, as soon as he was aware the car was in the hands of a new owner as a result of his checks on the pretext of the stop he should have stopped the bailiff going anywhere near the car and let the driver go

[EDW2000]

"In respect of the 15% donation, I would like to draw your attention to the text in my response which states "Please note, I have been asked to make it clear that while there is reference to a 15% donation in one of the disclosed emails no such financial benefit was received or sought by the MPS in Croydon." I can confirm that the donation was offered by a bailiff company. Again I reiterate that Croydon did not seek this donation and did not accept this donation."

 

So we know that bailiff offered the money but was declined by Croydon MPS, but where did the figure of 15% come from? Seems likely this was discussed in the past. I have FOI'd MPS to see if they have ever accepted 'donations' from bailiffs in the last 5 years.

[old bill]

I see the ANPR bureau is also implicated. Some here have been invited to attend ameeting in late July. Should make an interesting meeting.

 

I can hear HHJ Cryan's wording echoing in the background.

 

'Had it occured to you at any stage that what was happening could be of doubtful legality?' and the classic

 

'Some people might be skeptical that what you are describing to me is the real world or not?'

 

I can see this becoming a widespread scandal where heads will roll, possibly to cheering crowds.

 

Do we apply to you for tickets?

[old bill]

What it does show is thet the Enforcement Industry has no place in the 21st Century, it should be abolished as per Lord Denning's intentions all those years ago. He must be spinning in his grave at the absolute chaos and lawbreaking endemic in enforcement. It should have been broken up years ago.

 

I feel the Government will try to bury this issue by saying the squeaky new TCGA is the answer to our prayers, and this sort of thing cannot happen under the new rules yada ydda, but of course it could on steroids with vehicles taken control of and clamped on the highway,causing an obstruction. TCGA is the elephant in the room. It is 'not fit for purpose'. It is no more than a sop to the civil enforcement industry. Ask yourself the question as to why there are no criminal sanctions for EAs breaching protections for debtors?

 

As I posted before, I would expect the Met and Newlyn to try to take this video down, but it has been downloaded by many no doubt and will nod go awayIt's a bit late to take it down now enough people have seen it to make others aware of the Met and Newlyns' actions

 

Responses in red text.

[brassnecked]

I forsee major problems ahead when the new crop of Liability Orders on people who have never had to pay council tax are passed to EAs, adding to those from last year, and more as IDS rolls out the seriously broken Universal credit. Truly the EA will have his Berlingo on bricks down the Cockcroft or Jasmine Allen type of estate as shown on the Bill.

 

One thing is certain, the secondhand car industry will go under from all the cheap motors going through the auction for a carpet or a ton for debts of £1,000 or so

[old bill]

I forsee major problems ahead when the new crop of Liability Orders on people who have never had to pay council tax are passed to EAs, adding to those from last year, and more as IDS rolls out the seriously broken Universal credit. Truly the EA will have bricks thrown at him down the Cockcroft or Jasmine Allen type of estate as shown on the Bill.

 

One thing is certain, the secondhand car industry will go under from all the cheap motors going through the auction for a carpet or a ton for debts of £1,000 or so

I fixed your post for you.

 

Seriously, IDS and the DWP have recently taken a kicking from the High Court who slapped a Declaration of Incompatibility under the HRA on the now discredited Workfare Scheme otherwise known as the Slave Labour Scheme.

[brassnecked]

I fixed your post for you.

 

Seriously, IDS and the DWP have recently taken a kicking from the High Court who slapped a Declaration of Incompatibility under the HRA on the now discredited Workfare Scheme otherwise known as the Slave Labour Scheme.

The problem they have is that the Civil Enforcement industry have shot themselves in the foot with Parking Mad, and the youtube video will soon be viral i feel. All it needs now is a few extreme enforcements to get in the press and there will be calls for a Public Inquiry just like the Westminster paedos.

[mikeymack2002]

For crying out load! What the hell do the Met think they are playing at?

 

Private sector bailiffs are not permitted to be provided with any data from police or PNC indices. That, alone, is serious.

 

I will put my neck out and say that the misuse of Section 163, Road Traffic Act 1988 in order to stop vehicles for the likes of Newlyns and Whyte & Co is, potentially, Misconduct in Public Office. This together with the accepting of "donations" from Newlyns may well be sufficient to indict senior officers within the Met on charges of Misconduct/Malfeasance/Misfeasance in Public Office.

 

 

I had said this many posts ago on a different thread the EA is far to big for his boots what goes around comes around that includes the MET or any other service if you spend time looking on that site you will see loads of this and the way they think they control the Police is beyond a JOKE.

I am still waiting to hear back from the MOJ on this and the local PCC. I contacted the SoS for Justice on this very matter it has been referred to the MoJ

[brassnecked]

I had said this many posts ago on a different thread the EA is far to big for his boots what goes around comes around that includes the MET or any other service if you spend time looking on that site you will see loads of this and the way they think they control the Police is beyond a JOKE.

I am still waiting to hear back from the MOJ on this and the local PCC. I contacted the SoS for Justice on this very matter it has been referred to the MoJ

The genie is out of the bottle MM and they will have great difficulty getting it back in.

[old bill]

The problem they have is that the Civil Enforcement industry have shot themselves in the foot with Parking Mad, and the youtube video will soon be viral i feel. All it needs now is a few extreme enforcements to get in the press and there will be calls for a Public Inquiry just like the Westminster paedos.

 

In a perverse sort of way, Parking Mad has exposed the civil enforcement industry as corrupt and rotten to the core. However, it has also shown the police as complicit in unlawful activity that has the potential to backfire on them in a way I suspect they would prefer it not to. The offence of Misconduct in Public Office does not apply to police officers of chief officer rank only; it applies to all ranks. Will the police turn on the civil enforcement industry? After finding out what has really happened and what could happen, almost certainly. Will this result in it being open season on bailiffs? No, but it will most likely result in police officers being more inclined to challenge bailiffs' words and actions and check any claims they make in the future.

 

It has probably come as something of a revelation to the police that certificated bailiffs are not the "good guys", as they have believed them to be, but greedy, selfish and corrupt individuals who will go as far as to seize and sell their own grandmothers. As a former policeman, I am saddened that my former colleagues have had to find out the hard way, but, sometimes, it takes a hard lesson to make us realise that things are not what they seem to be.

[tomtubby]

I have nearly downloaded each document and should have the new thread ready in the next hour or so.

[brassnecked]

I have nearly downloaded each document and should have the new thread ready in the next hour or so.

 

Great stuff TT. Will check it out soon as.

[spamheed]

Wow, just watched the Youtube video, It looks to me like they've been caught bang to rights, but then I am not a corrupt copper or deviant Bailiff and not used to wriggling my way out of lies I have already told, so nin all probability this will end up with yet another cover up, an excuse for an inquiry and will result in someone in the warrants office having their hand slapped for the "Admin error"

 

 

However, on the off chance that justice does actually prevail, I can't wait to hear the arrogant PC say "well what I actually meant when I said We were helping the bailiffs was........." and "the reason I actually said that was............

 

 

The guy did well, I have been screaming at my TV every time someone was stopped on Parking Mad, complaining why no-one knew their rights or how these things are supposed to work, at last someone who had a clue and stopped this sham dead in its tracks

 

 

Want to see the Bailiff in court answering a case, he was bang out of order, didn't even know the details of the car or driver and was reliant on the ignorance of the public - OOPS!!!

 

 

This goes a lot higher than those bods in the trap though, this was an authorised activity, so senior officers must have approved it, these people are paid a lot of money to know their stuff.

[brassnecked]

The whole joint operations were unlawful in their entirety ab-initio on several heads including most likely Data Protection, there was a clear breach in the linked video where the copper named the debtor to the victim., probbaly breach European Convention Articles , and human Rights Act regarding the attempts to, and documented on forum threads where an innocent has lost their car to the bailiff for the previous owners ticket with the connivance of the Met. If one of those victims decides to take action, the guano will drop onto the ceiling fan.

[old bill]

The whole joint operations were unlawful in their entirety ab-initio on several heads including most likely Data Protection, there was a clear breach in the linked video where the copper named the debtor to the victim., probbaly breach European Convention Articles , and human Rights Act regarding the attempts to, and documented on forum threads where an innocent has lost their car to the bailiff for the previous owners ticket with the connivance of the Met. If one of those victims decides to take action, the guano will drop onto the ceiling fan.

 

I have a feeling the guano will hit the ceiling fan once MPS get letters from motorists who fell victim to these unlawful roadside operations demanding compensation or assistance in recovering the money and/or their vehicles. It really is one big mess the MPS is going to have to clear up if it is to restore any public confidence in the MPS and the police, in general.

[unclebulgaria67]

As I have said before on a couple of occasions, not much is going to happen. The Police were legally able to stop motorists using section 163 as part of operation Cubo, which apparently is to do with getting uninsured vehicles removed from the road. Where it was wrong, was for the Police to then refer drivers to a civil enforcement agent about unpaid PCN's. But no Judge is going to accept claims for this as unlawful in most situations, where the driver did owe an unpaid PCN. Yes technically the Police got it wrong, but is this enough to make the Police stop and CEA actions as unlawful, therefore meaning compensation would be due ? Not in most situations in my opinion.

 

Where a driver was forced to pay a PCN, when they did not legally owe the PCN, because for example there had been a change of ownership, then in that situation the CEA company and Police will be liable. Also the Police Officer who stopped the vehicle and the CEA could be subject to criminal prosecution/disciplinary actions. However, I suspect that this won't happen.

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428516&p=4571631#post4571631

 

This is the link to the new thread.

[old bill]

As I have said before on a couple of occasions, not much is going to happen. The Police were legally able to stop motorists using section 163 as part of operation Cubo, which apparently is to do with getting uninsured vehicles removed from the road. Where it was wrong, was for the Police to then refer drivers to a civil enforcement agent about unpaid PCN's. But no Judge is going to accept claims for this as unlawful in most situations, where the driver did owe an unpaid PCN. Yes technically the Police got it wrong, but is this enough to make the Police stop and CEA actions as unlawful, therefore meaning compensation would be due ? Not in most situations in my opinion.

 

Where a driver was forced to pay a PCN, when they did not legally owe the PCN, because for example there had been a change of ownership, then in that situation the CEA company and Police will be liable. Also the Police Officer who stopped the vehicle and the CEA could be subject to criminal prosecution/disciplinary actions. However, I suspect that this won't happen.

 

I'll address some points you have raised in your post -

 

The Police were legally able to stop motorists using section 163 as part of operation Cubo, which apparently is to do with getting uninsured vehicles removed from the road.

 

Stopping someone for not having valid motor insurance in force is legitimate. However, the reality is - and the police admit this themselves - the Motor Insurers' Databse (MID) is not 100% accurate and even where the police have contacted insurers who have insisted the vehicle is not insured, it has been subsequently established the insurer gave out inaccurate information to the officer(s) who made the enquiry/enquiries and that a vehicle is, in fact, insured. The other issue with the MID is insurers cancelling direct debit payments without good reason and then cancelling insurance policies and not informing the motorists. This has been put down to incompetence on the part of the insurers who cancel the wrong policy or stop DD payments from the wrong person. The seizing and selling/destruction of vehicles is questionable under Article 1 of the First Protocol of ECHR and Section 6, Human Rights Act 1998. I am also aware of calls for responsibility for running and managing of the MID to be taken away from the insurance industry and be put into public hands. Therefore, using that as an excuse to stop motorists is a red herring.

 

Where it was wrong, was for the Police to then refer drivers to a civil enforcement agent about unpaid PCNs. But no Judge is going to accept claims for this as unlawful in most situations, where the driver did owe an unpaid PCN.

 

This doesn't make a lot of difference. The warrant has an address on it and is against the person named thereon, not the vehicle. Warrants for civil debts may only be executed at the address shown on the warrant, not in a lay-by or Little Chef site some miles away. The conditions attached to the warrant and the law must be complied with and, if not, the EA is acting without lawful authority. Consequentially, the EA's legal protection conferred by the warrant is void and he/she is vulnerable to civil litigation, criminal prosecution or both. If a case was to be properly pleaded and argued, only a judge who was totally incompetent or compromised in some way would find in favour of the EA, creditor and/or police.

 

Yes technically the Police got it wrong, but is this enough to make the Police stop and CEA actions as unlawful, therefore meaning compensation would be due ?

 

Technically and legally the police got it wrong and so did the EAs. The most the motorist would be liable for at most, in the circumstances, would be the PCN and court fee.

 

Where a driver was forced to pay a PCN, when they did not legally owe the PCN, because for example there had been a change of ownership, then in that situation the CEA company and Police will be liable. Also the Police Officer who stopped the vehicle and the CEA could be subject to criminal prosecution/disciplinary actions. However, I suspect that this won't happen.

 

In the circumstances, the civil enforcement company would be required to reimburse all monies, or recover a seized vehicle, or pay compensation, or a combination thereof. The police have facilitated the wrongdoing. I would say the most likely offence committed, under such circumstances, as far as the police would be concerned, would be Misconduct in Public Office. Where the EAs are concerned, that could be more serious as I have no doubt they mislead the motorists into believing they were acting within the law when, in fact, they were not. The civil enforcement companies and their management are not out of the frame either. There may be grounds for proceeding against them for Inciting or Conspiracy to Commit Misconduct or Misfeasance or Malfeasance in A Public Office. Be in no doubt, these roadside operations involving EAs chasing unpaid PCNs could have very serious consequences for the police, the civil enforcement companies and EAs.

[brassnecked]

Might even sound the death knell of seizure and sale of goods. Well we can hope.