notomob.co.uk
General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: EDW2000 on 18 April, 2014, 10:48:09 PM
-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff?unfold=1#incoming-465312 (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff?unfold=1#incoming-465312)
I am now taking an interest.
The attached Standard Operating Procedure states at 2.4.15. ‘The officer
dealing with the vehicle will:
o Explain clearly to the occupants that police enquiries are complete.
o Explain clearly to the occupants the role of the CEO who would like
to speak to them.
o Explain clearly to the occupants that if necessary, officers may use
power of arrest for 'breach of the peace' and detain those who are
obstructing the bailiff.
Def of 'obstruction'? Drive off and see what they can do - nothing.
Only warrants that have been issued under S125 of the Magistrates
Court Act 1980 will be uploaded onto the MPS database as these are the
only warrants that both CEOs and police have a power to execute, therefore
giving police officers a lawful power to stop a vehicle to execute these
warrants.
-
2.4.24. Police will only pursue a person or vehicle if there is a
power to do so. There is no power for police to pursue a person or vehicle
only by virtue of them declining to speak to the CEO.
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.
:idea:
-
I'm not quite sure where we're going with this, since none of the Police Officers in that program attempted to execute any warrant?
-
If they are not helping execute a warrant then why are they inviting bailiffs to attend roadside operations?
How does this 'help does this make London safe'?
-
If they are not helping execute a warrant then why are they inviting bailiffs to attend roadside operations?
How does this 'help does this make London safe'?
So long as they are not actually executing the warrant and are only there to prevent breach of the peace, then I don't see an issue. AFAIK the bailiffs are not "invited", they ask if they can attend.
-
if they are not invited then how are they there?
the roadside stops are not advertised in advance are they?
do you think the bailiff just drives past and sets up shop?
-
I know one thing for definite about this. If I was stopped by the police on one of these unlawful detentions, and if I was invited to engage with Bailiffs, I would politely decline, would get in my car and drive away REGARDLESS OF ANY BAILIFF WARRANT.
And if someone like the daft bint (Debbie) from Parking Mad got in my car in an attempt to stop me driving away, they would be invited to get out and if they didn't, I would approach the police and ask for the bailiff to be removed from the vehicle.
The bloke in this video (below - fast forward to 4 minutes 50 seconds) got it exactly right. He even got police officers to admit that they stopped him because of his vehicle appearing on the bailiff's anpr database and that the police were helping the bailiffs.
THAT'S PLAIN WRONG! :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI)
-
If they are not helping execute a warrant then why are they inviting bailiffs to attend roadside operations?
How does this 'help does this make London safe'?
So long as they are not actually executing the warrant and are only there to prevent breach of the peace, then I don't see an issue. AFAIK the bailiffs are not "invited", they ask if they can attend.
You should go and look at some council/bailiff contracts Dick. It is written into them that the bailiffs MUST organise a certain number of these events in conjunction with the police. The police love them because it is all done on overtime.
These illegal operations have been going on for years and should be stopped with immediate effect. Some time ago, the NoToMob wrote to the appropriate authorities about this, and we hope that now it is being highlighted on Parking Mad, those authorities will do something about it.
-
If I see one of these am I will inform every victim of there lawful right to drive away from 'Debbie'
I have an FOI request and a complaint pending with MPS.
It's a shame we dont know where these are going to be or I would gladly park and inform victims of their right to drive off.
-
If I see one of these am I will inform every victim of there lawful right to drive away from 'Debbie'
I have an FOI request and a complaint pending with MPS.
It's a shame we dont know where these are going to be or I would gladly park and inform victims of their right to drive off.
which station is PC ST 2219?
Is this whetstone?
-
If they are not helping execute a warrant then why are they inviting bailiffs to attend roadside operations?
How does this 'help does this make London safe'?
So long as they are not actually executing the warrant and are only there to prevent breach of the peace, then I don't see an issue. AFAIK the bailiffs are not "invited", they ask if they can attend.
You should go and look at some council/bailiff contracts Dick. It is written into them that the bailiffs MUST organise a certain number of these events in conjunction with the police. The police love them because it is all done on overtime.
My understanding is that the Bailiff companies ask the Police when/if they are doing roadside stops and if they can attend as well. You're absolutley right about the overtime.
I still don't quite understand why you think this is illegal, as the Police are using their existing powers under the Road Traffic Act?
If I see one of these am I will inform every victim of there lawful right to drive away from 'Debbie'
I have an FOI request and a complaint pending with MPS.
It's a shame we dont know where these are going to be or I would gladly park and inform victims of their right to drive off.
which station is PC ST 2219?
Is this whetstone?
The letters ST denote Safer Transport Command. They are funded by TfL. AFAIK nobody denies the motorist their right to drive away from the Bailiffs.
-
If police are stopping vehicles for the sole reason that the bailiff ANPR indicates and outstanding WoE for that VRM then the stop is unlawful.
63 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.
The stop can only be carried out for legitimate purposes of policing, debt collection is not policing.
It may be that cars are pinging the police ANPR for no insurance etc. in which case the bailiff is entitled to approach a stopped motorist (who can they drive away of course).
The question is whether stopping the vehicle with the citizen having no choice becomes oppressive.
There is also the ECHR to consider.
-
My understanding is that the Bailiff companies ask the Police when/if they are doing roadside stops and if they can attend as well.
I still don't quite understand why you think this is illegal, as the Police are using their existing powers under the Road Traffic Act?
No. It's the other way around Dick. The bailiffs contact the police and offer them the use of their anpr databases to identify cars they suspect are being driven by the person named on a CIVIL warrant. The two parties then collude to set up a sting operation like the one we saw in this week's Parking Mad.
As was demonstrated in the programme, when the driver is stopped, neither the police or the bailiffs can possibly know whether the driver is the owner of the vehicle. Hence the belated checks with the DVLA, which incidentally only establishes KEEPER details. Therefore, you must conclude that if the police detain just one person from going about his/her lawful business based on information supplied by bailiffs in relation to a CIVIL matter, that person has been detained illegally/unlawfully by police whose duties can only extend to CRIMINAL activity.
If the police were to use their own anpr databases to detain motorists based on possible CRIMINAL activity, then I would have no problem with it. When conducting this type of operation however, there can be absolutely no doubt that the only reason drivers are pulled over is so that they can be processed by the police to establish the driver's name and address, at which point they are handed over on a plate to the bailiffs to allow them to execute a CIVIL warrant. In fact, in the video I posted previously there is a clear admission by a police officer of this fact.
Driver to police officer: "Are you helping the bailiffs Sir"
Police officer: "Yes we are"
And you can bet your sweet bippy that at no point will the police officer offer up the information to the driver that they are perfectly within their rights to drive away once they have satisfied the police that there is no criminality to be investigated. On the video the driver is only allowed on his way because he knew his rights and the police officer was proper pissed off because of that. Why? <_>
The police must remain impartial at all times and yet on many occasions they are seen to actively assist bailiffs. That is the most distasteful aspect of all of this in my opinion.
-
My understanding is that the Bailiff companies ask the Police when/if they are doing roadside stops and if they can attend as well.
I still don't quite understand why you think this is illegal, as the Police are using their existing powers under the Road Traffic Act?
No. It's the other way around Dick. The bailiffs contact the police and offer them the use of their anpr databases to identify cars they suspect are being driven by the person named on a CIVIL warrant. The two parties then collude to set up a sting operation like the one we saw in this week's Parking Mad.
As was demonstrated in the programme, when the driver is stopped, neither the police or the bailiffs can possibly know whether the driver is the owner of the vehicle. Hence the belated checks with the DVLA, which incidentally only establishes KEEPER details. Therefore, you must conclude that if the police detain just one person from going about his/her lawful business based on information supplied by bailiffs in relation to a CIVIL matter, that person has been detained illegally/unlawfully by police whose duties can only extend to CRIMINAL activity.
If the police were to use their own anpr databases to detain motorists based on possible CRIMINAL activity, then I would have no problem with it. When conducting this type of operation however, there can be absolutely no doubt that the only reason drivers are pulled over is so that they can be processed by the police to establish the driver's name and address, at which point they are handed over on a plate to the bailiffs to allow them to execute a CIVIL warrant. In fact, in the video I posted previously there is a clear admission by a police officer of this fact.
Driver to police officer: "Are you helping the bailiffs Sir"
Police officer: "Yes we are"
And you can bet your sweet bippy that at no point will the police officer offer up the information to the driver that they are perfectly within their rights to drive away once they have satisfied the police that there is no criminality to be investigated. On the video the driver is only allowed on his way because he knew his rights and the police officer was proper pissed off because of that. Why? <_>
The police must remain impartial at all times and yet on many occasions they are seen to actively assist bailiffs. That is the most distasteful aspect of all of this in my opinion.
Spot on.
MPS need stopping in court like they were with the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillan_and_Quinton_v_United_Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillan_and_Quinton_v_United_Kingdom)
case.
-
If you look at that FoI request, it says that the Bailiffs supply their database to the Police to use in the Police ANPR vehicle.
The reason for the "belated checks" is that 'live' ANPR is not being used, therefore the information may be out of date, so a PNC check is made to determine who the current Registered Keeper is.
I'm not sure how you work out that the police officer looked "proper pissed off" when they all had their faces obscured by the BBC?
In my experience, it is the Bailiffs who ask about upcoming ANPR Operations, not the Police asking them, and it's the Police who decide the location, times etc., and drivers are informed when the Police have completed their checks.
-
If you look at that FoI request, it says that the Bailiffs supply their database to the Police to use in the Police ANPR vehicle.
The reason for the "belated checks" is that 'live' ANPR is not being used, therefore the information may be out of date, so a PNC check is made to determine who the current Registered Keeper is.
I'm not sure how you work out that the police officer looked "proper pissed off" when they all had their faces obscured by the BBC?
In my experience, it is the Bailiffs who ask about upcoming ANPR Operations, not the Police asking them, and it's the Police who decide the location, times etc., and drivers are informed when the Police have completed their checks.
and the MPS which has a mission statement of 'Making London safe for all the people we serve' has no business helping scum like that.
-
I'm not sure how you work out that the police officer looked "proper pissed off" when they all had their faces obscured by the BBC?
I was referring to the video below. The interesting stuff starts at 4 minutes 50 seconds. No faces obscured here and that is one pissed off copper who walks away at the end. He knows the bloke has a valid legal point and that he had been caught on camera admitting they were helping the bailiffs.
Check out the sick look on the copper's face at 6 Minutes 38 seconds when the bloke asks him why he is helping the bailiffs with a civil matter. The copper took a proper spanking from the driver and was proper pissed off about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI)
-
I'm not sure how you work out that the police officer looked "proper pissed off" when they all had their faces obscured by the BBC?
I was referring to the video below. The interesting stuff starts at 4 minutes 50 seconds. No faces obscured here and that is one pissed off copper who walks away at the end. He knows the bloke has a valid legal point and that he had been caught on camera admitting they were helping the bailiffs.
Check out the sick look on the copper's face at 6 Minutes 38 seconds when the bloke asks him why he is helping the bailiffs with a civil matter. The copper took a proper spanking from the driver and was proper pissed off about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI)
I am going to ask the MPS for their comment on the utube video. We have a shoulder number, this should be enough to start foi'ing etc.
In the meantime, I have asked mopac for their policy position on assisting bailiffs.
The purpose of roadside checks is to disrupt criminality, how do pcn's fit in to this?
-
It's up to you of course, but you might be better off asking the Met. what their Policy is rather than MOPAC, who will probably say something along the lines of 'Operational matters are decided by the Metropolitan Police, not MOPAC'.
I believe the theory is that people who evade payment of 'fines' are usually involved in other criminal activity - before I get flamed, I personally don't agree with this.
-
I'm not sure how you work out that the police officer looked "proper pissed off" when they all had their faces obscured by the BBC?
I was referring to the video below. The interesting stuff starts at 4 minutes 50 seconds. No faces obscured here and that is one pissed off copper who walks away at the end. He knows the bloke has a valid legal point and that he had been caught on camera admitting they were helping the bailiffs.
Check out the sick look on the copper's face at 6 Minutes 38 seconds when the bloke asks him why he is helping the bailiffs with a civil matter. The copper took a proper spanking from the driver and was proper pissed off about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoXPMhlIWI)
It's obviously very subjective, but I do happen to know that officer, and that Isn't what he looks like when he's "proper pissed off"!
-
I'm just glad that street crime in Croydon has been eradicated to the extent that the local rozzers now have time to help private contractors intimidate the drivers of specific vehicles.
-
I'm just glad that street crime in Croydon has been eradicated to the extent that the local rozzers now have time to help private contractors intimidate the drivers of specific vehicles.
That's why they use ST Officers and/or it's done on overtime, although the video BE was on about is from Hounslow.
-
Hounslow, Croydon, Barnet or any other fecking place in the country it matters not. The Police are Bang out of order as well as exceeding their powers! I really hope this is tested in a court of Law soon. We will never accept a Police state!
This is England FFS not Egypt or Syria. It makes my Piss boil!!
-
the lawfulness would seem to turn on the reason for the stop.
if plod is anpr'ing drivers for tax disc etc. then drivers are fair game for bailiff scum to approach and beg for money like some like some grotty squeegee merchant/shit rose seller, on the north circ. road.
if, they are stopping purely on bailiff info then that is unlawful I think.
-
You're on the right lines with that EDW. I'm sure the cozzers have to have suspicion of something of interest to the Police for a stop to be lawful. It is clear that only vehicles of interest to the, ahem, squeegee merchant* are being stopped.
*That's about right, spot on. :aplude:
-
Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988:-
"Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence."
and Section 165:-
"Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance or security and test certificates.
(1)Any of the following persons— .
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or .
(b)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road, or .
(c)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage), .
must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination."
So the Police have the Power to stop any vehicle, at any time and require the driver to produce his/her driving documents on a road, and doesn't need a reason/suspision to do so. If that makes the UK a "Police State" then it's been one since 1988.
-
Thanks Dick. I assumed that PACE might have added reasonable suspicion to that but I was thinking bollocks. I should do some research before posting or I'm likely to find myself as a BPA Ltd member.
(http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-cartoon-013.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons.php)
The whole thing still smells bad all the same.
-
Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988:-
"Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence."
and Section 165:-
"Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance or security and test certificates.
(1)Any of the following persons— .
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or .
(b)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road, or .
(c)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage), .
must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination."
So the Police have the Power to stop any vehicle, at any time and require the driver to produce his/her driving documents on a road, and doesn't need a reason/suspision to do so. If that makes the UK a "Police State" then it's been one since 1988.
The stop must be carried out for a reason, and that reason must be related to police work and be articulable.
Stops which don't meet this test are oppressive.
Motorist 'Why did you stop me?'
PC Plod 'Because you've got massive tits and I fancy a feel'
Is that lawful?
Clearly, not.
-
Motorist 'Why did you stop me?'
PC Plod 'Because you've got massive tits and I fancy a feel'
Is that lawful?
Clearly, not.
[/quote]
I think you might be mixing 'Lawful' up with 'Handful' In that last post?
-
So Dick, where is the power to detain the vehicle once it is stopped?
-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4)
4 Road checks.
(1)This section shall have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks by police officers for the purpose of ascertaining whether a vehicle is carrying—
(a)a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic offence or a [F1vehicle] excise offence;
(b)a person who is a witness to such an offence;
(c)a person intending to commit such an offence; or
(d)a person who is unlawfully at large.
-
[url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4[/url] ([url]http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/4[/url])
4 Road checks.
(1)This section shall have effect in relation to the conduct of road checks by police officers for the purpose of ascertaining whether a vehicle is carrying—
(a)a person who has committed an offence other than a road traffic offence or a [F1vehicle] excise offence;
(b)a person who is a witness to such an offence;
(c)a person intending to commit such an offence; or
(d)a person who is unlawfully at large.
So nothing about bailiffs then!
-
Exactly, so they can only do a stop using s.163
There is some case law about s.163 but nothing about bailiffs.
-
I haven't been following this here, but I was quite concerned about the incident as soon as I saw it on Parking Mad. Obviously, the matter of police assisting the bailiffs was surprising, but there were also other matters, some of which have been pointed out in this thread:
1. Bailiffs could only get details of 'keepers' and not 'owners',
2. The female bailiff was heard at the end telling a driver that they would go to his mum's house and take her stuff!
3. Trying to take a work vehicle,
4. Attempting to take a £20,000 car for a £500 debt.
How on the earth the police could assist with this operation is beyond belief. It is amazing that the bailiffs allowed themselves to be filmed whilst clearly breaking every rule in the book.
It was the most evident case of highway robbery since Dick Turpin!
-
So Dick, where is the power to detain the vehicle once it is stopped?
Never said there was - once the Police have done their checks and no Offences have come to light, the motorist is free to go. If they choose to stay and chat with a Bailiff, that's their choice.
At what point in that "Parking Mad" footage is anyone told any different by a Police Officer?Section 163 Road Traffic Act 1988:-
"Power of police to stop vehicles.
(1)A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform. .
(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence."
and Section 165:-
"Power of constables to obtain names and addresses of drivers and others, and to require production of evidence of insurance or security and test certificates.
(1)Any of the following persons— .
(a)a person driving a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) on a road, or .
(b)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have been the driver of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) at a time when an accident occurred owing to its presence on a road, or .
(c)a person whom a constable has reasonable cause to believe to have committed an offence in relation to the use on a road of a motor vehicle (other than an invalid carriage), .
must, on being so required by a constable, give his name and address and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle and produce the following documents for examination."
So the Police have the Power to stop any vehicle, at any time and require the driver to produce his/her driving documents on a road, and doesn't need a reason/suspision to do so. If that makes the UK a "Police State" then it's been one since 1988.
The stop must be carried out for a reason, and that reason must be related to police work and be articulable.
Stops which don't meet this test are oppressive.
Motorist 'Why did you stop me?'
PC Plod 'Because you've got massive tits and I fancy a feel'
Is that lawful?
Clearly, not.
Where in S.163 does it say that a Constable has to have a reason?
-
What would limit it would be the obvious limit of justice that the power must not be used capriciously or oppressively.
Chief Constable of Gwent -v- Dash; 1986
In the absence of malpractice, oppression, caprice or opprobrious behaviour, there is no restriction on the stopping of motorists by a police officer in the execution of his duty and subsequent requirement of a breath test if the officer then and there genuinely suspects the ingestion of alcohol.
Lloyd LJ said: ‘The word ‘malpractice’, as it has come to be used in this field, seems to me to cover cases where the police have acted from some indirect or improper motive or where the conduct on the part of the police could be described as capricious. The random stopping of cars under section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 for the purpose of detecting crime, or for inquiring whether the driver has had too much to drink, cannot be so described. Nor can it be said that the police were acting from some indirect or improper motive. However much the public may dislike the random stopping of cars, I cannot agree that random stopping by itself involves malpractice, and if Donaldson LJ said otherwise in Such v Ball to which Macpherson J has referred, then, I would very respectfully disagree.’
Macpherson J said: ‘in summary, therefore, the police are, in my judgment, not prohibited from the random stopping of cars within the limits already referred to; but are, of course, prohibited from requiring breath tests at random, which is a very different thing. That distinction must always be borne in mind.’
Date: 01-Jan-1986
Judges: Lloyd LJ, Macpherson J
-
@DD,
You are quoting the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the sections you are quoting, namely 163 and 165 (together with Section 164) relate solely to road traffic offences. The 1988 Act confers no powers upon a constable to stop a vehicle in respect of a civil offence.
Furthermore, we must all remember, when quoting Parking Mad, that each clip is a cameo and that it will have been edited by the production company and may also have been re-edited by the BBC. So there is no way of knowing whether or not the constables that feature in the programme have made it clear to those that they have stopped that they are under no legal obligation to engage with the bailiffs that are present.
-
@DD,
You are quoting the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the sections you are quoting, namely 163 and 165 (together with Section 164) relate solely to road traffic offences. The 1988 Act confers no powers upon a constable to stop a vehicle in respect of a civil offence.
Furthermore, we must all remember, when quoting Parking Mad, that each clip is a cameo and that it will have been edited by the production company and may also have been re-edited by the BBC. So there is no way of knowing whether or not the constables that feature in the programme have made it clear to those that they have stopped that they are under no legal obligation to engage with the bailiffs that are present.
What I'm saying is that S.163 gives the Power to Stop a vehicle - it doesn't specify that the Stop has to be for (or on suspicsion of) an Offence.
-
What I'm saying is that S.163 gives the Power to Stop a vehicle - it doesn't specify that the Stop has to be for (or on suspicsion of) an Offence.
However the introduction to the 1988 Act states
"An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to road traffic with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission."
A constable would be ultra vires to attempt to use a Road Traffic Act to justify a stop for any other purpose e.g. for enforcement of a civil matter.
-
For a definitive insight into the rights and wrongs of police/bailiff roadside operations you might want to read Tom Tubby's posts on the link below.
In short, the conclusion reached is that the "'ANPR Roadside Operations' should NOT be taking place with private sector bailiffs and instead, should only be in partnership with Civilian Enforcement Officers"
By way of clarification of the definition of a Civil Enforcement Officer and his/her duties, Tom Tubby goes on to say:
What is the difference?
Civilian Enforcement Officers (CEOs) are employed in the magistrates’ court by HM Courts
& Tribunals Service and are responsible for enforcing certain magistrates’ court and Crown Court orders. They execute warrants of arrest, committal, detention and distress. Under a change of regs, in 2006 HM Courts entered into Contracts with three private sector companies (Drakes, Philips, Swift) to permit them to enforce these criminal warrants on their behalf. The Contracts were subject to re-tendering a couple of years ago and there are now 4 companies (Marston Group, Collectica Ltd, Swift Credit Services and Excel Enforcement). Under these Contracts the officers (enforcing these warrants are known as Approved Enforcement Officers.
GAME OVER!
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police- (http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-)!!!
-
I did an FOI to MPS in Dec. last year, they refused on grounds of costs, a review is pending.
Look at this for a nice email from MPS.
Comfort.A.Saforo@met.pnn.police.uk
15 Jan
To
XXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXXXX.co.uk
Dear Mr. EDW2000,
Please are able to see what we were able to assist you with (that is the attachment)?
Regards
Comfort
-
Hounslow, Croydon, Barnet or any other fecking place in the country it matters not. The Police are Bang out of order as well as exceeding their powers! I really hope this is tested in a court of Law soon. We will never accept a Police state!
This is England FFS not Egypt or Syria. It makes my Piss boil!!
So my rant still stands then!
-
Today would be good to observe Police ANPR operations across London. Operation Big Wing 5,500 Police involved. Get out there and let the public know their rights re civil Bailiffs if they are involved!
-
I would consider getting involved but some plod are so aggressive they will probably just put you in handcuffs for:
Obstruction
Breach of the peace
public order act nonsense
all unlawful.
-
Today would be good to observe Police ANPR operations across London. Operation Big Wing 5,500 Police involved. Get out there and let the public know their rights re civil Bailiffs if they are involved!
Big Wing does not involve Bailiffs.
-
Gentlemen,
We could debate this until we're all a lot older and greyer than some of use already are, but S.163 gives Police the power to stop vehicles at any time, AFAIK, no Court with the power to change the Law has said anything to the contrary.
The Bailiffs on the other hand are, as a minimum, acting beyond their powers.
-
For a definitive insight into the rights and wrongs of police/bailiff roadside operations you might want to read Tom Tubby's posts on the link below.
In short, the conclusion reached is that the "'ANPR Roadside Operations' should NOT be taking place with private sector bailiffs and instead, should only be in partnership with Civilian Enforcement Officers"
By way of clarification of the definition of a Civil Enforcement Officer and his/her duties, Tom Tubby goes on to say:
What is the difference?
Civilian Enforcement Officers (CEOs) are employed in the magistrates’ court by HM Courts
& Tribunals Service and are responsible for enforcing certain magistrates’ court and Crown Court orders. They execute warrants of arrest, committal, detention and distress. Under a change of regs, in 2006 HM Courts entered into Contracts with three private sector companies (Drakes, Philips, Swift) to permit them to enforce these criminal warrants on their behalf. The Contracts were subject to re-tendering a couple of years ago and there are now 4 companies (Marston Group, Collectica Ltd, Swift Credit Services and Excel Enforcement). Under these Contracts the officers (enforcing these warrants are known as Approved Enforcement Officers.
GAME OVER!
[url]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-[/url] ([url]http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-[/url])!!!
I just joined today from gloucestershire after watching on parking mad.
am i right in thinking that only the above ceo's can stop you with police assistance and that bailiffs cannot use the police to stop you for outstanding fines etc - but that only the police can stop you if they suspect criminal activity etc and therefore as soon as you prove you are not a criminal you are free to ignore the bailiffs and drive off?
civil matter - police have no powers to force me to talk to bailiffs?
if i stated to the police this is the case would they know i knew my rights and leave me in peace?
all the best
-
CEO cannot stop you. Only the police can, and when plod is finished with you, then you drive off. But people don't know this.
-
so you mean when plod can ask me certain questions? and if he finds - which he will - i am not guilty of anything criminal - i have every right to drive off yes?
also - what questions can he ask and which do i have to answer.
i was under the impression i can ask - "am i obliged to answer your questions" and they have to say no.....
cheers
-
If you’re stopped, the police can ask to see your:
driving licence
insurance certificate
MOT certificate
If you don’t have these documents with you, you have 7 days to take them to a police station. You’re breaking the law if you don’t show the requested documents within 7 days.
Show, does not mean give, you can show your docs from inside the vehicle with the door shut (locked). You should wind the window down an inch so plod does not have
to shout. You are entitled to ask why you were stopped.
When plod is finished you ask 'am I being detained?' plod says no so you drive off. If the bailiff is in your way hoot the horn and ask the plod to move him to prevent a breach of the peace.
-
'7 day wonders' are very rarely - if ever - issued these days. PNC is linked to both VOSA and the MID systems, so if your car is shown on PNC as having No MOT/Insurance, further checks will be undertaken (if possible) and if not satisfactory, the usual penalties will be applied.
Why would you lock the doors and only wind the windows down an inch if the Police want to talk to you? About the only thing that will do is to make them more suspicious.
The final paragraph sounds like yet more 'freeman' woo.
-
'7 day wonders' are very rarely - if ever - issued these days. PNC is linked to both VOSA and the MID systems, so if your car is shown on PNC as having No MOT/Insurance, further checks will be undertaken (if possible) and if not satisfactory, the usual penalties will be applied.
Why would you lock the doors and only wind the windows down an inch if the Police want to talk to you? About the only thing that will do is to make them more suspicious.
The final paragraph sounds like yet more 'freeman' woo.
because people impersonate the police and carry out car-jackings, sexual assaults etc. usually women are the target. So you stay in the car with the door locked.
It also means bailiffs cant grab the keys.
-
'7 day wonders' are very rarely - if ever - issued these days. PNC is linked to both VOSA and the MID systems, so if your car is shown on PNC as having No MOT/Insurance, further checks will be undertaken (if possible) and if not satisfactory, the usual penalties will be applied.
Why would you lock the doors and only wind the windows down an inch if the Police want to talk to you? About the only thing that will do is to make them more suspicious.
The final paragraph sounds like yet more 'freeman' woo.
because people impersonate the police and carry out car-jackings, sexual assaults etc. usually women are the target. So you stay in the car with the door locked.
It also means bailiffs cant grab the keys.
A good point, I have to admit I hadn't thought of that - probably because I wouldn't go around doing any of those things!
Since you would be talking to the Police through the passenger window - they usually pull you over to the left, for safety reasons - it would be an extremely athletic Bailiff who'd be able to grab the keys.
-
https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q587.htm (https://www.askthe.police.uk/content/Q587.htm)
Keep the doors locked until you are happy it is the police. Have your mobile at hand just in case. You can ask to see a warrant card, which should carry a name and photograph, through the closed window.
If in doubt, drive steadily to the nick, fire station etc.
-
Bigger picture folks!
Fact: Joint operations between the police and private sector bailiffs are not subject to any estblished protocols, because no such protocols can exist within current law. ANPR Roadside Operations' should NOT be taking place with private sector bailiffs and instead, should only be in partnership with Civilian Enforcement Officers. If you don't believe me, follow the links on my post below.
http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,3482.msg25034.html#msg25034 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php/topic,3482.msg25034.html#msg25034)
We are working hard to get these operations stopped, but like everything else in government it takes time to persuade them they have got it wrong.
In the meantime, I would suggest that if you are stopped at one of these unlawful operations, you fully cooperate with the police whilst they carry out their checks. If they then invite you to speak to a bailiff say "no thank you", get in your car and drive away.
-
I have filed a complaint with MPS.