I believe that use of the police by enforcement agents should be closely regulated. The Police are being used as a tool to intimidate debtors into paying rather than to prevent a "Breach of the Peace". I think they are being called routinely even when there hasn't been a prior heated "discussion" and the debtor has no previous history. The Police are being used to generate profits for these corrupt companies.

absolutely agree with your post above.

I believe that use of the police by enforcement agents should be closely regulated. The Police are being used as a tool to intimidate debtors into paying rather than to prevent a "Breach of the Peace". I think they are being called routinely even when there hasn't been a prior heated "discussion" and the debtor has no previous history. The Police are being used to generate profits for these corrupt companies.

The problem that needs to be addressed is that the police are unaware, or inadequately trained of the law in this area, and are under the mistaken impression that they are mainly on the same side as the bailiff, so side with him, even in the face of the bailiffs often blatant misuse of his powers, for which HE should actually be the one arrested.

The problem is that police officers receive little or no training in how to deal with bailiffs, even though national guidelines are in existence. Another problem is that ACPO regard bailiff matter as "civil matters". Whether this has got something to do with their relationship with the trade associations bailiff and HCEO companies belong to needs to be investigated. The News International scandal has highlighted the dangers of inappropriate relationships between the police and commercial interests.

Any training police are given in dealing with bailiffs should include insisting on seeing the court warrant and the bailiff or HCEO's certificate. Any claims by bailiffs that police officers are required to help them gain entry to a debtor's home should be dealt with as a potential attempt to incite disaffection and be dealt with as such. Where a bailiff has made threats, either by letter, or by telephone or in person, these should be dealt with under relevant legislation, i.e. Malicious Communications Act 1988, Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003. Although, under normal circumstances, arrest is the very last resort, in cases such as these, it should be a case of one and only warning before arrest. Where a debtor is classed as vulnerable, this should be regarded as aggravating factors in deciding whether or not to arrest a bailiff after giving them a warning or arresting them without a warning.

The police have been mislead by the civil enforcement iindustry and there will be a payback or, more accurately, a backlash and when it comes, bailiff and HCEO companies will not be prepared for it. I can see police officers coming down hard on bailiffs and HCEOs who cross the line.

The problem is that police officers receive little or no training in how to deal with bailiffs, even though national guidelines are in existence. Another problem is that ACPO regard bailiff matter as "civil matters". Whether this has got something to do with their relationship with the trade associations bailiff and HCEO companies belong to needs to be investigated. The News International scandal has highlighted the dangers of inappropriate relationships between the police and commercial interests.

 

Any training police are given in dealing with bailiffs should include insisting on seeing the court warrant and the bailiff or HCEO's certificate. Any claims by bailiffs that police officers are required to help them gain entry to a debtor's home should be dealt with as a potential attempt to incite disaffection and be dealt with as such. Where a bailiff has made threats, either by letter, or by telephone or in person, these should be dealt with under relevant legislation, i.e. Malicious Communications Act 1988, Public Order Act 1986, Communications Act 2003. Although, under normal circumstances, arrest is the very last resort, in cases such as these, it should be a case of one and only warning before arrest. Where a debtor is classed as vulnerable, this should be regarded as aggravating factors in deciding whether or not to arrest a bailiff after giving them a warning or arresting them without a warning.

 

The police have been mislead by the civil enforcement iindustry and there will be a payback or, more accurately, a backlash and when it comes, bailiff and HCEO companies will not be prepared for it. I can see police officers coming down hard on bailiffs and HCEOs who cross the line.

ACPO should itself be investigated, as it is a for profit company, as most police forces now are as they are all registered as corporations on Dunn & Bradstreet, Far from being a union for Chief police officers as it is portrayed, it has a malign and corrosive influence to the detriment of police impartiality. and helps to politicise the police to the detriment of the public.

.........Any training police are given in dealing with bailiffs should include insisting on seeing the court warrant and the bailiff or HCEO's certificate.........

+1

As I've said before, HCEO's are sending allsorts to enforce, the registered HCEO should be present in person. It's very wrong that HCEO companies are sending "security" industry people to enforce, There are a fair number with criminal connections and the debtor may find himself being extorted or burgled shortly after being visited.

ACPO should itself be investigated, as it is a for profit company, as most police forces now are as they are all registered as corporations on Dunn & Bradstreet, Far from being a union for Chief police officers as it is portrayed, it has a malign and corrosive influence to the detriment of police impartiality. and helps to politicise the police to the detriment of the public.

I totally agree with you. In the light of the News International scandal, I can see ACPO's relationships with the trade associations in the civil enforcement and private security industries putting put under the microscope. You are absolutely right about the corrosive influence on police impartiality - ACPO are the ones promoting the "It's a civil matter" line with regard to bailiff misconduct. You are also right about the politicisation of the police -that's why officers are leaving in droves. Morale is at rock-bottom.

I totally agree with you. In the light of the News International scandal, I can see ACPO's relationships with the trade associations in the civil enforcement and private security industries putting put under the microscope. You are absolutely right about the corrosive influence on police impartiality - ACPO are the ones promoting the "It's a civil matter" line with regard to bailiff misconduct. You are also right about the politicisation of the police -that's why officers are leaving in droves. Morale is at rock-bottom.

That is a great pity, as a lot of the common sense , and inherent fairness that was typical of the police of old, where a quiet word, and a ticking off did more good than a prosecution, has been lost to a new cadre of apparatchiks who chase targets to the detriment of the public they purport to serve.

There is a provision in the Courts Act 2003 directing the Police to assist HCEO's, well I didn't know that.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/39/schedule/7/paragraph/5#schedule-7-paragraph-4-4

This reinforces my comments about the High Court being the Queen's Court and The Police being sworn to the Crown.

Only for fairly specific purposes according to paragraph 3, by the looks of it.

Zaniwhoop - I am looking into what assistance the police are actually allowed to provide to HCEOs. Once I have established exactly what assistance the police are required to provide, I will post it up.

Deadwood - I will look into what you have posted about the situation of HCEOs using what appears to be crims and post up my findings.