On 21st April I started a new thread here concerning the response that had been received from the Metroploitan Police to a Freedom of Information request regarding police and bailiff roadside operations.

This is clearly a subject that has gained the attention of the public and this can be demonstrated by the fact that the thread has been viewed over 13,000 times.

For new visitors not wishing to read back on the many pages a short description is below:

A Freedom of Information request had been made to the Metropolitan police regarding Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations. It would seem that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) did not address the enquiry in the usual period of time and this led to the person making the request to ask for an internal review. The MPS were also advised that all further correspondence was being copied to that persons MP and the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

The MPS responded in April 2014 and it was clear when compiling the information that the 'penny had dropped' with the Metropolitan Police in that these 'ANPR Roadside Operations' should NOT have be taking place with private sector bailiffs and instead, should only be in partnership with Civilian Enforcement Officers who are employed in the magistrates’ court by HM Courts & Tribunals Service and who are responsible for enforcing certain magistrates’ court and Crown Court orders (such as warrants of arrest, committal, detention and distress).

Statutory regulations were changed in 2006 allowing HMCS to Contract with private sector companies 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) enforcing such warrants. Under these Contracts the officers are known as Approved Enforcement Officers.

Parking Mad

Shortly after the response to the FOI the public were able to witness for themselves how Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations work in practice when they viewed the new "Panorama' series on TV. There were 4 episodes each running for an hour and featured a bailiff company called Whyte & Co using ANPR vehicles to enforce unpaid parking tickets.

The timing of the episodes could not have been worse given that only a few weeks earlier (on 6th April) the government had introuced its long awaited new regulations to reform the bailiff industry. Seeing first hand how these 'police and bailiff roadside operations work in practice made for very uncomfortable viewing indeed and the legality of these operations was once again 'under the spotlight'. It is known that many complaints were made to the TV company after the series ended and over 40 separate Freedom of Information requests were known to have been made to local authorities and police forces.

MPS 'suspended' police and bailiff 'roadside operations'

On 11th June I updated the tread (post number 110) to report that the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) had confirmed that they had suspended such operations.

I am aware of a great deal of work that is ongoing 'behind the scenes' regarding these operations and yesterday a response was received from one of the many Freedom of Information requests as outlined above.

Once again, the Metropolitan Police's response is very serious indeed and given that the previous thread had so many pages to it I thought it better to dedicate a new thread.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-!!!(3-Viewing)-nbsp

In relation to this particular FOI response from the Metropolitan Police the reply consisted of 19 email exchanges between relevant police forces and bailiff companies. Naturally the emails have been carefully redacted to remove private contact information. Yesterday they were featured on other websites and below I will be providing important extracts from the emails:

In relation to this particular FOI response from the Metropolitan Police the reply consisted of 19 email exchanges between relevant police forces and bailiff companies. Naturally the emails have been carefully redacted to remove personal information.

Yesterday they were featured on other websites and below I will be providing important extracts from some of the emails. Many of them refer just to the date, time and location of the operations so my responses below will only be addressing parts of the emails that are considered very serious indeed.

The following email is by far the most serious:

6th August 2013:

"We recently spoke about the possibility about taking part in some ANPR Ops with you.

The offer of a 15% "donation" still stands and would be grateful if this is of interest to you"

10th August 2013

"Apologies for not being able to get back to you sooner.

"Joint working remains of interest and in terms of your proposal, I need to speak to one of my senior managers. I have been in contact with him and I am hopeful of speaking to him early next week"

"As soon as I have an update, I will be in touch"

4th November 2013.

"Do you have any updates with regards to ANPR stops in your area. Newlyn are still very interested in being part of these"

Kind regards

11th Dec 2013:

"As discussed, I have spoken to xxxx from Newlyn re. their offer of assistance when we are conducting ANPR Ops.

XX has confirmed that he can assist us on 9th January - he will have sufficient staff and vehicles available to assist us at three sites.

I have indicated to him that likely timings will be from 10.30am until approximately 6pm.

Whilst I have not agreed anything with him, xxx has confirmed that the previous offer of a 15% "donation" to Police remains valid".

In regards to Data Protection the following email exchange is of great concern and will no doubt have serious implications. Once again, it should be noted that the Police refer to these operations as: "Cubo Operations"

14th July 2013:

Re: Whyte & Co

"I have spoken to my Chief Inspector and he is happy that you and your teams come out with us at 4 sites on the next operation Cubo (7th August).

The stop sites are as follows. . .

xxx

xxx

xxx

xxx

I will be out visiting all the sites to ensure things run smoothly"

15th July 2013:

Hi xxx

"No problem, I have a team briefing here on Thursday.

We will also have tow trucks on standby in Croydon in readiness should a swift removal be required.

Are there any VRMs you would like added to the ANPR systems to assist your staff on the day,

if so can you email a list preferably in excel format to before midday on the 6th Aug so we can get it loaded to the vans.

I will be out visiting all the sites to ensure things run smoothly"

Regards,

Note: It is important to note that it is not known whether the 15th July 2013 email exchange is between Whyte & Co and the police or between different police dept.

I take my hat off to you for collating and posting up these exchanges between Newylns and MPS and Whyte & Co and MPS, TT. What they reveal is very serious indeed. I cannot emphasise this enough. Not only is it almost certain the stopping of motorists by MPS was unlawful in the circumstances, but the taking of money and seizure of vehicles by Newlyns and Whyte & Co were, too, given the circumstances.

I have said this before and will say it again, and that is a warrant is an order from a court and whoever is entrusted with its execution must comply with the conditions attached thereto and endorsed thereon to the letter and the law. If conditions and the law are not complied with in the execution of a warrant or other order of a court, any legal protection conferred is lost and it therefore follows that not only does the person involved in its execution act unlawfully, but the organisation/person to whom the warrant or order was granted acts unlawfully too. Any person or organisation who acts without lawful authority, which is what a warrant or court order effectively confers, opens themselves and/or the organisation to whom the warrant or order was granted to civil litigation or, even, criminal prosecution or, in extreme or serious cases, both.

As you have pointed out, in Post #1, the penny has dropped at New Scotland Yard and I have no doubt Bernard Hogan-Howe is wondering how he is going to explain this to the members of the London Assembly and, possibly, the Home Secretary who has overall responsibility for policing and to whom he is ultimately answerable.

Are we likely to see motorists who had money extorted from them or had their vehicles seized during these roadside operations either have the money repaid to them by the local authorities involved and/or the MPS or the vehicles recovered and returned to them and compensation paid to those who unwittingly purchased the vehicles?

The most equitable solution would be for the London Boroughs who hired Newylns and Whyte & Co to reimburse those motorists affected in full, save for the discounted PCN rate, if it was for a de-criminalised PCN, where money was taken from them at the roadside. If their vehicle was seized, then steps should be taken, in collaboration with MPS, to recover the vehicles and arrange compensation with those unfortunate enough to have unwittingly purchased the seized vehicles. If the vehicles have been declared insurance write-offs or destroyed on the say-so of DVLA or the insurance industry's dodgy Motor Insurance Database (MID), then replacement vehicles will need to be provided.

Should Newlyns and Whyte & Co come out of this unscathed?

The immediate termination of contracts should be the very least that should happen. Also, both companies should be required to reimburse the London Boroughs with fees charged and any additional costs incurred. There is no way the taxpayer or residents of the London Boroughs involved should have to foot the bill for Newlyns and Whyte & Co's actions. Also, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) needs to take a long, hard look at whether there are grounds to seek an order from the High Court to close down Newlyns and Whyte & Co in the public interest and/or to seek Company Director Disqualification Orders against the directors of both companies.

As I have said on another thread, in a perverse sort of way, Parking Mad has highlighted and, indeed, exposed the civil enforcement industry in a way I suspect it would prefer not to have been seen. However, the genie is out of the bottle and no way is the genie going to go back into the bottle.

I should point out that this was not an FOI that I had made. I am only posting about this today as the information has already featured on other sites.

I do not intend posting copies of all emails as most relate to dates , times and locations of Police and Bailiff ANPR Operations which are somewhat irrelevant given that these 'operations' have since been suspended.

Instead, the extracts that I will be posting refer to important points about the operations. Interestingly, (as I am sure you probably already observed) the police refer to such 'operations' as CUBO. I am sure that 'Old Bill' will enlighten visitors to what these 'Cubo operations' are supposed to be for.

You couldn't make it up!

http://content.met.police.uk/News/Operation-Cubo--targeting-bad-and-uninsured-drivers-across-Richmond/1400019191095/1257246745756

http://the-zebra.com/met-police-seize-308-uninsured-vehicles/

@ Oldbill, perhaps an FOI to ask how many of the vehicles seized by bailiffs were third party, as n index number on warrant, vehicle sold to new owner in the interim police pull them in on strength of bailiff ANPR, then the new owner has had to pay, or actually lost the vehicle?

I'm sure ther have been several.

I have to be honest here by saying that I was somewhat surprised that the MPS had not redacted the name of Newlyn in reference to the offer of a 15% 'donation' (to the Police). The reference to Whyte & Co is very likely to be because the emails referred to 'locations' within the Croydon area and both Whyte & Co and Newlyn are known to have contracts to enforce unpaid parking charge notices within that area.

I would also like to make another point very clear that from all the email exchanges that I have seen, none of them state whether or not the Metropolitan Police accepted the offer from Newlyn Plc of a 'donation of 15%. Furthermore, it is possible that other enforcement companies had similar 'arrangements' or proposals'. There are other FOI requests regarding other London boroughs and I assume that further information will probably be made available very soon.

I should point out that this was not an FOI that I had made. I am only posting about this today as the information has already featured on other sites.

 

I do not intend posting copies of all emails as most relate to dates , times and locations of Police and Bailiff ANPR Operations which are somewhat irrelevant given that these 'operations' have since been suspended.

 

Instead, the extracts that I will be posting refer to important points about the operations. Interestingly, (as I am sure you probably already observed) the police refer to such 'operations' as CUBO. I am sure that 'Old Bill' will enlighten visitors to what these 'Cubo operations' are supposed to be for.

There are two types of operations police will mount -

CUBO - These are intended, primarily, to catch persons unlawfully at large, prison escapees, persons subject to recall to prison, persons who have breached their bail conditions or persons who are wanted in connection with a criminal offence. They are also used to disrupt the movements of drug dealers and organised crime. However, they are also used to catch motorists who, allegedly, have no motor insurance, MOT or Road Tax. The legitimacy of such operations in respect of the latter is open to debate.

MOLE - An acronym meaning Meeting of Law Enforcement. These are more targetted at commercial goods and passenger-carrying vehicles and will include officials from VOSA, HMRC, UKBA and the police. They are aimed, primarily, at ensuring the commercial goods and passenger-carrying vehicles on the roads are safe to be on the road. HMRC test fuel to ensure red diesel is not being illegally used in road vehicles.

15% Donation!!!!!

That's the price it cost for these illegal activities, esp when exhorting money under false pretences!! (Obviously those being it was being portrayed as an official Police sanctioned operation!!)

Absolutely "Unbelievable" indeed!!

Unfortunately, whilst I wholeheartedly agree that it stinks, I'd be surprised if anything comes of this.

It is highly likely that the Police did not accept the 15% (of what is not clear) and that the enforcement companies involved will sweep it under the carpet and move on.

HCEO,

You will see that I have mentioned above that although there is reference to an 'offer' being made of a 15% 'donation' by Newlyn Plc that I cannot see on any of the 19 emails any reference that the 'donation' had been accepted.

Secondly, as disappointing as it may be, I share your view that the enforcement companies will probably come out of this unscathed.

However....I do not think that the same applies to the Metropolitan Police.

PS: I will be posting details from more of the emails in a few moments......

I'm not sure the MPS has done anything wrong in regard to the 15% although other comments in various emails clearly need looking at (which I'm sure you'll cover tomtubby)

-----

Please remind your bailiffs that if they wish police to stop a vehicle for them the officer must first deal with the driver under Sec 163 of the Road Traffic Act (check for driving documents) before bailiff speaks to the driver . I am going to remind all the Sergeants of this as some officers are leaving themselves open to complaint if they do not deal with the driver under the RTA first . Please let me know if above is suitable .

-----

We will obviously work off of your ANPR and we will deploy a "spotter" to identify vehicles worth a stop . There will be no specialist traffic officers .

-----

Cubo 29 really well for us and I know the bailiffs recovered quite a bit. I thought we discussed that you would be sending me an overall figure on the day? [blanked Section] They weren't up to the usually high standard by all accounts. Just so you know, . . wasn't a major problem for us .

-----

Yes I am aware of a few issues and I'm dealing with that. I will give you a ring next week as there was one incident that could of got both you and ourselves in hot water, nothing too drastic so don't panic

'

This one resembles a league table !!!

27th January 2014

Re: Location and times as follows for Cubo 28 on Croydon Borough

"I am hoping got put together another site at South Norwood Hill...however we are running light on resources in the North.

Maybe this could be a "go it alone" site for SW Traffic??

xxxx (Location and times)

xxxx

xxxx

I spoke to Cato this morning...in total we got 27 seizure on the last Cubo for Croydon Borough....we were second (just pipped by Lambeth who I think had 30).

If you are going to be on your own at a site with no ZD officers could I please have the name of the OIC from traffic at that site. There will be bailiffs at a number of the sites and I will arrange this"

I'm not sure the MPS has done anything wrong in regard to the 15% although other comments in various emails clearly need looking at (which I'm sure you'll cover tomtubby) By not accepting the 15%, the MPS has saved itself from allegations and a formal investigation for corruption. However, the 15% mentioned could be seen as an inducement and that, alone, is serious.

 

-----

Please remind your bailiffs that if they wish police to stop a vehicle for them the officer must first deal with the driver under Sec 163 of the Road Traffic Act (check for driving documents) before bailiff speaks to the driver . I am going to remind all the Sergeants of this as some officers are leaving themselves open to complaint if they do not deal with the driver under the RTA first . Please let me know if above is suitable . Absolute abuse of authority and powers. My gut-feeling is the MPS is unlikely to get out of this one. Allowing individual officers to abuse the powers, privileges and protections of the office of Constable, is a serious matter.

-----

We will obviously work off of your ANPR and we will deploy a "spotter" to identify vehicles worth a stop . There will be no specialist traffic officers .Data Protection issues and further evidence of abuse of authority and powers.

-----

Cubo 29 really well for us and I know the bailiffs recovered quite a bit. I thought we discussed that you would be sending me an overall figure on the day? [blanked Section] They weren't up to the usually high standard by all accounts. Just so you know, . . wasn't a major problem for us .No? There will be when the guano hits the ceiling fan.

-----

Yes I am aware of a few issues and I'm dealing with that. I will give you a ring next week as there was one incident that could of got both you and ourselves in hot water, nothing too drastic so don't panicIf you wanted evidence that MPS had doubts as to the legitimacy of their actions, this has to be it. Reading between the lines, it looks very likely the MPS knew what they were doing was legally unsound and potentially unlawful or illegal.

Responses in red text.

HCEO,

 

You will see that I have mentioned above that although there is reference to an 'offer' being made of a 15% 'donation' by Newlyn Plc that I cannot see on any of the 19 emails any reference that the 'donation' had been accepted.

 

Secondly, as disappointing as it may be, I share your view that the enforcement companies will probably come out of this unscathed.

 

However....I do not think that the same applies to the Metropolitan Police.

 

PS: I will be posting details from more of the emails in a few moments......

I agree that the MPS will come out of this badly, but their relationships with both Newlyns and Whyte & Co will be examined and where it is found unlawful or illegal conduct was taking place involving the two civil enforcement companies, it is likely there will be a financial cost for both companies. Expecting the taxpayer to indemnify private companies isn't going to be tolerated by the man and woman in the street who, quite rightly, will be baying for the blood of those involved. I would not like to say the management of both companies or their EAs are likely to come out any formal investigation without some form of legal or judicial sanction.

6th March 2014

Subject: Cubo

"Hope you are well.

Cubo 29 went really well for us and I know the bailiffs recovered quite a bit

I though we discussed that you would be sending me an overall figure on the day?

They weren't up to the usually high standards by all accounts.

Next Cubo is the 9th April I think...will contact you nearer the time if you want to come and support us again".

Regards.

Reply:

7th March 2014

Re: Cubo

Yes, I am aware of a few issues and I'm dealing with that

I will give you a ring next week as there was one incident that could of got both you and ourselves in hot water, nothing too drastic so don't panic"

Regards

This one is very serious indeed:

27th March 2014

Subject : Cubo

"Morning

Do you have details of the next Cubo yet please".

Regards

Reply:

28th March 2014

Subject: Cubo

"Hi,

Cubo 30 is due to take place on the 9th of April. We have six sites again...if you would like to post bailiffs at three of them that would be fine.

I would suggest:

xxx (Location and times)

xxx

xxx

Please remind the bailiffs that if they wish police to stop a vehicle for them the officer must first deal with the driver under Sec 163 of the Road Traffic Act (check for driving documents) before bailiffs speak to the driver. I am going to remind all the Sergeants of this as some officers are leaving themselves open to complaint if they do not deal with the driver under the RTA first.

Please let me know if above is suitable".

Many thanks,

Reply

28th March 2014

Subject: Cubo

"Morning,

We will cover all three sites and I will a word with the staff.

Unfortunately I won't be able to attend this one but will be watching closely from the office.

Speak soon"

TT,

Your last three posts reveal abuse of the powers, privileges and protections of the office of Constable in addition to abuse of authority on the part of MPS. Whoever within the MPS gave the green light to allow Newlyns and Whyte & Co to take part in CUBOs should be dismissed with immediate effect for misconduct at the very least. I would not rule out a case of Misconduct in Public Office either.

Problems with Cubo 30 !!

4th April 2014

Subject: Cubo 30

"Did try to call you....left a message. I have spoken to xxx and I think it is best in the circumstances to not have bailiffs working with us for Cubo 30.

Really grateful for the heads up and hope to work with you again on Cubo 31"

Regards

Discussing the 'Panorama' programme (Parking Mad):

2nd April 2014

Subject: Next Cubo

"Hi,

I hope your well.

What day is your next CUBO is it the 7th or the 8th May?

Any problems after the Panorama programme?"

Regards

Reply:

23rd April 2014

Subject: Next Cubo

"The next Cubo (31) is on the 8th of May 2014

Inspector xxx is taking over the running of Op Cubo and I am bowing out after I think it is 28 Op Cubo's I have planned and prepared.

I have copied in xxx to this email and I am sure that he will touch base to discuss operating site with you.

No fall out from the Panorama programme to my knowledge"

Regards

Discussing the 'Panorama' programme (Parking Mad):

 

 

 

2nd April 2014

Subject: Next Cubo

 

"Hi,

 

I hope your well.

 

What day is your next CUBO is it the 7th or the 8th May?

 

Any problems after the Panorama programme?"

 

Regards

 

 

 

Reply:

23rd April 2014

 

Subject: Next Cubo

 

"The next Cubo (31) is on the 8th of May 2014

 

Inspector xxx is taking over the running of Op Cubo and I am bowing out after I think it is 28 Op Cubo's I have planned and prepared.

 

I have copied in xxx to this email and I am sure that he will touch base to discuss operating site with you.

 

No fall out from the Panorama programme to my knowledge"

 

Regards

"....but little did Inspector xxxxxxxx realise the guano was about to hit the ceiling fan big-time."

[

 

 

http://the-zebra.com/met-police-seize-308-uninsured-vehicles/

Thank you silverfox for this link. !!!!

If you look under the heading of: Incorrectly insured means uninsured: you will see this little gem....

"Many of the uninsured vehicle that are seized did have insurance but not the right type of cover.

One...being driven by a BAILIFF who had only just qualified...was being used for work but the insurance was only social, domestic and pleasure (SDP)

SDP is enough for going to college but commuting to and from work is a separate category and driving for work is a third"