This seems the best thread for posting this, forgive me if i am mistaken.

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/cvd95p/parking-mad--series-1---episode-1

Bailiff Debbie joins a roadside operation with the police during which she may have to confiscate a van

How this will fit with new regulations I have not yet considered.

I've started a new thread for you.

Thank you. I should have done that..

Don't forget this is on tonight.

EXCELLENT programme !!!

Very worrying indeed to see CONFIRMATION that the bailiff and police "Roadside Operation" are certainly NOT 'multi agency' operations (ie: bailiffs, public carriage office, DVLA, Immigration dept etc. Instead, it was just ONE bailiff and 4 Police Officers and the police could be seen STOPPING the vehicles. Can't wait to see next week....

PS: I was pleased that the public got to see how PATAS actually works. I hope that motorists will now be encouraged to appeal PCN's that are in dispute.

I didn't once see a driver ask the police why they had been stopped, surely it cannot be legal for the police to intervene in order to collect outstanding debts

I didn't once see a driver ask the police why they had been stopped, surely it cannot be legal for the police to intervene in order to collect outstanding debts

Once it is established that there is no reason for the Police to stop the vehicle, they can just drive on. They don't have to speak to the bailiff.

It is just with the Police there, people think they have to speak to the bailiff. The warrant the bailiff has does not allow the bailiff to stop a vehilcle on a public highway and to seize it straight away.

Perhaps the footage showing the stops can be used to show Eric Pickles that the action is unlawful.

This, the ("Metropolitan Police Service") is their answer.

On skimming over the response it would appear they operate under a combined system of exploiting loopholes in Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and its own "made-up" policy.

The responses from the police that can be viewed by the link provided underline the relevance of HHJ Cryan's remark to a bailiff he was cross examining over such joint operations - 'Some people might be sceptical about whether what you are describing to me is the real world or not'.

It really was trite and utterly unconvincing reaction from an organisation which clearly has no idea about the fact that it is illegal for the police to be anywhere near a civil matter.

Section 163 only allows a police officer to stop a car. It does not allow him to detain the occupants for any civil reason.

everyone involved and stopped in the roadside operation should download the Police Complaints Commission form and send it off , there is no way the Police should have been involved in this and the people stopped should claim compensation from the Force involved

everyone involved and stopped in the roadside operation should download the Police Complaints Commission form and send it off , there is no way the Police should have been involved in this and the people stopped should claim compensation from the Force involved

So there would be nothing to stop the driver driving away then once the police officer had walked away and the bailiff approached..

I caught up with this on I-player why are the Police stopping vehicles for the EA? what is the law regarding this?

MM

posted in the wrong area ADMIN please delete

i think you have added this to the wrong post

i was under the impression that the police have to have resonable cause to pull a vechile over (Might be wrong)

i was under the impression that the police have to have resonable cause to pull a vechile over (Might be wrong)

The legality or lawfulness of the pull if the sole reason is a CIVIL debt is dubious at best.

did you here her tell the bloke if he cant pay they would go and remove his mothers goods

did you here her tell the bloke if he cant pay they would go and remove his mothers goods

The bailiff could well regret saying that on camera somewhere down the line hopefully, I think the content needs highlighting for the benefit of Eric Pickles.

I loved the part where the white van man stood his ground and made them back down !! Lol

So there would be nothing to stop the driver driving away then once the police officer had walked away and the bailiff approached..

spot on? (once any police checks are clear, which would be the only reason for the pol pulling someone over! ie not re a civil matter!)

did you here her tell the bloke if he cant pay they would go and remove his mothers goods

Yes I heard her say that - unbelievable !

Yes I heard her say that - unbelievable !

Hopefully that will come back and bite her.

She had a point though, if people paid their fines in the first place, they wouldn't be as bad as they were.

Yes the old bloke was right to appeal, but many of those cases could have easily been people not giving two hoots about where or how they park and they got a fine for doing so.

She had a point though, if people paid their fines in the first place, they wouldn't be as bad as they were.

 

Yes the old bloke was right to appeal, but many of those cases could have easily been people not giving two hoots about where or how they park and they got a fine for doing so.

Given the proportion of appeals that are successful, it seems that many people are wrongly penalised by local authorities not giving two hoots about issuing tickets correctly.

She had a point though, if people paid their fines in the first place, they wouldn't be as bad as they were.

 

Yes the old bloke was right to appeal, but many of those cases could have easily been people not giving two hoots about where or how they park and they got a fine for doing so.

To be pedantic, they are not criminal fines they are Penalty Charge Notices, many by CCTV for dubious reasons, like the ones where people are not parked per se, they are in a traffic queue, but the camera goes ding and the PCN is issued.