Police roadside checks and bailiffs - intersting FOI

[EDW2000]

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.

[dangerous beanz]

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.
 

[DastardlyDick]

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?

[EDW2000]

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'?

[DastardlyDick]

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.

[EDW2000]

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?

[The Bald Eagle]

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!

[The Bald Eagle]

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.

[EDW2000]

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.

[EDW2000]

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?

[DastardlyDick]

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.

[EDW2000]

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.

[The Bald Eagle]

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.

[EDW2000]

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
case.

[DastardlyDick]

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.