On 9th July I started a very important thread about Police & Bailiff Roadside Operations (link below).

The 19 emails provided by the Met Police under FOI were first published on the 'NoToMob' website and I copied them onto this forum that same day.

There can be little doubt that the email exchanges are very serious indeed and following publication, the Editor of CCR Public Sector magazine approached both Whyte & Co and Newlyn Plc for their comments regarding the documents (and the operations in general).

Late this afternoon CCR Public Sector published a copy of the official response from both companies and it is very important that these comments are taken into consideration by viewers.

A 'word' copy of the article as published by CCR today can be read in the following post.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?428516-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...bailiffs-offering-to-pay-a-15-quot-donation-quot-to-the-police!!(5-Viewing)-nbsp

Wednesday, 16 July 2014

A significant set of correspondence between the Metropolitan Police’s ANPR Operations section and private enforcement companies was revealed last week, after a long-running set of Freedom of Information requests.

As the documents were made public, it became clear that the police have been co-operating over a long period with EAs, enforcing council tax and other debts, by stopping vehicles in roadblocks.

Although the practice has now been suspended (see page 26, CCR-PS, July edition) by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), the correspondence so far released shows that at least one enforcement company, Newlyn, offered to make a 15% “donation” to police,

Another piece of correspondence turns to co-operation between EAs and their ANPR equipped vehicles, with at least one instance where the enforcement company offers it’s service to the police.

In the correspondence, Whyte & Co, make an offer to the police:

“Are there any VRMs you would like added to the ANPR systems to assist your staff on the day, if so can you e-mail a list preferably in Excel format to before midday on the 6 Aug (2013) so we can get it loaded to the vans."

Paul Whyte, a partner at Whyte & Co, told CCR-PS:

“In respect of the request for VRM's - it is not usual procedure to offer such a facility. In this instance we offered to utilise a valued ANPR facility for police use by way of VRM only (not the police database as reported by some). This offer was made after a conversation whereby a police officer had commented on a number of highly sought after cars for serious crimes and the offer was made in the spirit of partnership but knowing it was very likely to be refused. This is the one and only occasion on which such an offer was made and it was not taken up.”

In an e-mail dated 15 July 2013, a police officer responds to an offer of assistance, so:

“OK many thanks for this. The team that is going down to Thornton Heath Ponds really need to be mindful of not interrupting/disturbing the businesses down there. On the last CUBO (operational name for police roadblocks) we had a number of complaints from them and I think this was partly down to the bailiffs taking an unreasonable amount of time dealing with motorists. As discussed I know you are in agreement that they are dealt with efficiently so not as to either clog the site up or make the police officers jobs harder down there.

We contacted Newlyn and Whyte & Co, to ask them for their views.

Paul Whyte added:

“Third party agencies including VOSA, immigration and local authorities have been working with the police on such operations for a number of years now.[/i]

“They attend upon invitation and are in attendance as guests - it has been mooted such operations are orchestrated by the enforcement agent and clearly this is not the case.

“I am aware of the current suspension pending a review of police operating proceedings and therefore we are unable to comment on police matters.

“I am also aware of the “chatter” currently in progress on some (consumer advice) websites which disappointingly, although not surprisingly, argues an end to such joint operations.

“These operations proceed regardless of our attendance and as such there is no cost to the taxpayer when we do attend. As all vehicles stopped by the police are first subject to their own enquires a number of arrests have been made over the last twelve months in respect of serious offences (drugs/firearms), this before any enquiry can be made in respect of our own enforcement matters.

“There is no doubt that the synergy of these operations, no matter how distasteful to some, produce results that actually bring added value to the taxpayer.

“In the matter of any "donation" I can confirm Whyte & Co have never offered one, nor have we ever been asked to make one, in respect of these operations.”

David Smith of Newlyn, told CCR-PS:

“MPS state that operations such as CUBO offer a demonstrable and practical deterrent to non-compliant motorists. These exercises are supported by our clients, the local authority, and indeed we are actively encouraged to participate whenever possible because of the positive results that are achieved both in terms of publicity and the enforcement process.

“These operations, which have been running for several years now, were devised to involve task forces from multiple agencies to combat the illegal activities of some drivers. The basis of our involvement in the operation is to deal with persistent evaders and motorists who fail to pay their outstanding PCN’s.

“To the best of my knowledge we have never collected any council tax arrears on these operations only PCN's. As citied elsewhere in this story these initiatives by the police and government agencies have resulted in arrests for firearm and drug offences as well as identifying drivers with no road fund licence or insurance; including illegally using their cars as unlicensed mini cabs. These roadside exercises provide a benefit to the community as a whole by removing dangerous drivers and their vehicles from the roads. In addition to the above benefits we are able to recover outstanding Penalty Charge Notices that have gone unpaid despite numerous requests prior to the roadside operations.

“These operations are run in addition to the normal duties of the police in a much smaller way similar to crowd control at football matches, sporting events and music concerts, as such they increase the demand on the budgets of local forces. With this in mind Newlyn Plc offered to make a contribution of 15% to the cost of each operation undertaken. The suggestion of a contribution was made with the sole aim of supporting this valuable function as carried out by the police and other government body’s and not as is intimated in the story as a payment of any other kind.

“Newlyn believe that without the support of all of the organisations involved, the running of these campaigns would cease due to lack of funding. Something that the anti-enforcement groups would welcome and which we believe is demonstrated by the “volume” of activity already seen on these types of forums following the release of the information obtained as part of the FOI request.

“Newlyn denies there is any suggestion of wrong doing on its part as the company is not the sole beneficiary of the operation nor does it control the number of cars processed on each exercise, this number varies on each occasion; we are offering a service to our clients. the local authority for which we have been appointed.”

Don't know about anyone else but I believe them.

What is obvious from the comments from both companies....they see nothing wrong in their involvement with these 'Cubo' operations.

That is extremely worrying.

It is also obvious that both companies read this forum.

What a shame that both Newlyn and Whyte & Co, didn't take the opportunity to acknowledge, accept and apologise for the vehicles that have been seized wrongly, and the inconvenience that this has caused to the completely innocent motorists involved.

What a shame that both Newlyn and Whyte & Co, didn't take the opportunity to acknowledge, accept and apologise for the vehicles that have been seized wrongly, and the inconvenience that this has caused to the completely innocent motorists involved.

I think people are being a tad naive here. Neither Newlyn or Whyte & Co are going to say anything, which might be used against them at a later date. If there was any slight suggestion of the roadside operations not being legal, this would be jumped on by lawyers, who might at some future date be helping with court claims or be used in criminal proceedings.

I suspect that Newlyn and Whyte & Co will be putting all responsibility for these operations on the MPS. They are basically saying that they were just joining in with CUBO stops and that the operations were not solely for outstanding PCN's.

I can see what they are saying. It was the MPS who allowed Newlyn and Whyte & Co to attend. The Police were in charge of the operations and for the conduct of how they were handled.

" Standing in da road with your hi viz on your back

Johnny your too bad

Walking to de car with you clipboard in your hand

Johnny your to bad

you just seizing and a taking and a selling a car wid a new owner

and the ticket you are chasing not belong to that owner

And one day when de man come who you gonna run to?

You gonna run to the rock for rescue

And there will be no rock"

Paraphrased from Johnny Too Bad (THe Slickers)to mean a bailiff with a clipboard approaching a third party new owner who loses the car and sues

The standard element of ‘Wot me Gov?’ is bad enough, but both turn this into some crusade where ordinary motorists are the biggest criminals in the world and deserve everything they get. If wasn’t for these bailiffs there be a major crime wave……

Aren’t we lucky?

Perhaps that is why there is not a hint of remorse or acknowledgement that any of them might just have acted illegally and quite enthusiastically so.

Given the opportunity to clarify the situation, Newlyn’s failure to deny they have paid anything to the police is interesting.

These idiots actually think this rubbish is convincing without realising (after many years experience in the industry) that either they knew that this was illegal or they didn't, both of which exposes them as not being fit for purpose.

Just how many own goals do you score before the penny drops that the game can't be won?

I think people are being a tad naive here. Neither Newlyn or Whyte & Co are going to say anything, which might be used against them at a later date.

Ahh no, not being naive. I didn't expect them to say it, but it's a shame that they didn't

Given the opportunity to clarify the situation, Newlyn’s failure to deny they have paid anything to the police is interesting.

Without wishing to sound like I'm trying to defend Newlyn in any way. One must bear in mind that lots of external (to the police (and government)) organisations pay money into police coffers to have police officers at an event (for instance) so the situation isn't exactly unique. However, that said, none of the other organisations mentioned by Paul Whyte would need to pay (or "donate" money to) the police to be part of an operation like this.

It's quite a regular sight to have partner agencies involved in police led operations, certainly people like VOSA, DSA, HMRC, DWP etc, but there's a common theme among them, they're all Government agencies and not private, for profit, companies that are using the police as a means to get vehicles stopped.

I don't think Newlyn, Whyte & Co et al, are going to see a resumption of these kind of operations (with their like involved at least) at any point in the future now that it's come to light that the police have been 'had', "donation" or not.

I come back to what I have said quite a few times. The 19 emails provided under FOI addressed selected 'CUBO' stops in CROYDON only......

There are 33 other London Boroughs.......

The quotes above from both companies therefore only relate to CROYDON.

I suppose given the nature of the beast [to deny any wrongdoing regardless of he facts] that both bailiff spokespersons bring in red herrings like drugs and firearms in support

of their case. I'm not sure whether their obfuscation is designed to big up their own actions or to suggest that motorists who have outstanding PCNs also drive around with guns

in their possession.

When the reality is that their bailiffs come over as domineering, rude and appear totally ignorant of the Law as well as misdirecting the Police. How you can deny any wrong doing when your company has been caught out on film is taking chutzpah to its nth degree.

that both bailiff spokespersons bring in red herrings like drugs and firearms in support

of their case. I'm not sure whether their obfuscation is designed to big up their own actions or to suggest that motorists who have outstanding PCNs also drive around with guns in their possession.

If you read some of the Police articles online about CUBO, there is a link made between cars being driven without insurance, road tax etc and people involved in various crimes.

Therefore I suspect that Newlyn and Whyte & co are using what the Police have previously said about CUBO in their responses. They are not saying that people with unpaid PCN's are involved in criminal activity.

TT mentions that the FOI details released are from Croydon only and I therefore suspect that other boroughs will have seen CAG, plus other online sites. They will therefore be having meetings at the moment about their strategies of how to respond once they do release the information. There would no doubt be some form of MPS wide approach to dealing with the issue, which will ensure that nothing is done about previous operations. They will simply deal with their future operations and will wait to see whether cases are brought to the courts, where they will fight them into the long grass. The MPS have a lot more resources than most people who would take them on.

This offer was made after a conversation whereby a police officer had commented on a number of highly sought after cars for serious crimes and the offer was made in the spirit of partnership but knowing it was very likely to be refused.

Yeah, right.

The statements from Whyte & Co & Newlyn make no distinction between offences, criminal behaviour and alleged civil debt and yet they are openly trying to take credit for their supposed part in helping to clear up the first two.

Disingenuously trying to link in the third so as to gain some undeserved kudos when the first two are nowt to do wi' them and for which they weren't there for either, does nothing but make them look even more fraudulent.

Keep scoring the own goals boys...........

Reading what Paul Whyte and David Smith are quoted as saying, it is glaringly obvious that what they have said is an attempt at damage limitation. Note that David Smith claims the local authority support the exercises. Really? Any local government officer or elected councillor who approved, condoned, connived, encouraged or participated in the commission of unlawful and/or illegal acts on the part of a contractor would be guilty of Misconduct or Malfeasance or Misfeasance in A Public Office as well as any other offences for which evidence existed.

Whether Paul Whyte and David Smith penned their responses themselves or had some PR outfit or lawyer do it for them, the fact that the wrongdoing their respective companies engaged in was broadcast by the BBC on "Parking Mad"and is also on YouTube for all to see seems to have conveniently escaped them. When you are caught red-handed, it is best to admit what you have done and put matters rights, not try and tough it out, or justify that which cannot be justified or shift the blame onto someone else. I cannot help thinking that David Smith may well live to regret claiming the local authority supports his company's involvement in the roadside operations which have clearly backfired on MPS and the two civil enforcement companies involved. Could Newlyn lose their contract? I would not rule it out.

MPS were in the wrong for letting Whyte & Co and Newlyn take part in their CUBO operations, but there is no way that the taxpayer should indemnify either Whyte & Co or Newlyn against civil litigation for recovery of vehicles or monies. Any costs and refunds must be borne entirely by Newlyn and Whyte & Co. The best advice any lawyer could give either company in this matter is not to even think of trying to fight any claims, but to put matters right as quickly as possible.

I don't think anyone has a real problem with the police and statutory bodies like VOSA and the Border Agency undertaking operations designed to catch criminals or illegal immigrants,or to take unsafe vehicles off the road.

What they do have a problem with is private companies pretending a status they do not have, and particularly acting unlawfully.

It appears that only Messrs Whyte and Smith don't get it. Perhaps they're as thick as their employees seem to be, based upon their television appearances.

An unpaid PCN is merely a civil debt. It is neither a fine or a criminal matter. Can you imagine for one moment the public outcry if a car was stopped by the police....the occupant asked for their insurance documents and when these checks were complete the police officer stating the following:

"Thank you Mrs Smith....may I now introduce you to Mr Jones. He is a representative from Barclaycard and he would like to discuss the matter of a County Court Judgment of £250 that you have failed to pay".

Oh they understand it all right, but they live in world where they have been able to get away with anything they wanted to for years. That includes lying in court at the drop of a hat even after being caught out by a judge. So they think that they are invincible, just like all the other arrogant idiots who could not historically differentiate between enough and too far and then who paid the price.

Arrogance? - who in their right mind would put the name of David Smith to a statement of innocence when he was named in HHJ Platt's judgment as a liar and in contempt of court? Just the man to convince the plebs.

You would be right too in thinking that these statements were almost certainly composed by lawyers. The phraseology of Newlyn's solicitor - 'persistent evaders' and everybody is a criminal permeates throughout this pathetic attempt to hold up the Titanic with sticking plaster.

Maybe they should remember the confused look on Nicolae Ceausescu's face in his last public appearance when he too failed to convince the audience of ordinary people.

An unpaid PCN is merely a civil debt. It is neither a fine or a criminal matter. Can you imagine for one moment the public outcry if a car was stopped by the police....the occupant asked for their insurance documents and when these checks were complete the police officer stating the following:

 

"Thank you Mrs Smith....may I now introduce you to Mr Jones. He is a representative from Barclaycard and he would like to discuss the matter of a County Court Judgment of £250 that you have failed to pay".

Be careful TT that is likely to be the next stage of the bailiffs and police CUBO, if they think the heat has died down.Well hopefully these operations will no longer be permitted to involve bailiffs, As to that only being Croydon, we can expect JBW, Equitaa, Ross 'n Robbers and Collecticarp to be involved in these unlawful seizures also porobably. with other London councils and MPS.

Their attempt to obfuscate the distinction between a civil penalty and crime is obnoxious in the extreme. Breaking on the wheel is too good for Paul Whyte and David Smith. In an Islamic Sharia jurisprudence they would get a cross amputation as in right hand and left foot

Maybe they should remember the confused look on Nicolae Ceausescu's face in his last public appearance when he too failed to convince the audience of ordinary people.

...Just before he and his family were lead away, put against a wall and shot.

I don't think Paul Whyte and David Smith will suffer the fate Nicolae Ceausescu and his family suffered, but their companies will sure as hell sustain major damage to their reputations as a result of what has happened. I suspect they have been advised by commercial lawyers who, all too often, tell businesspeople what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. In this respect, there needs to be swift and effective action taken to clamp down on commercial lawyers who effectively tell businesses they can do what they like. I can recall a businessman I interviewed as a CID officer who came out with the gem, "I can do what I like. The only crime I have committed is getting caught." He was told, in no uncertain terms by a Detective Inspector, "You cannot do what you like, you have been caught and I'm going to make sure you get your arse well and truly kicked when we get you into court."

Paul Whyte and David Smith would do well to heed what happened when Jamie Waller of JBW asked Lord Tugendhat to grant him an injunction to prevent the BBC broadcasting a Panorama programme showing one of his bailiffs behaving in the most appalling manner.

...Just before he and his family were lead away, put against a wall and shot.

 

 

Paul Whyte and David Smith would do well to heed what happened when Jamie Waller of JBW asked Lord Tugendhat to grant him an injunction to prevent the BBC broadcasting a Panorama programme showing one of his bailiffs behaving in the most appalling manner.

That was one in a you tube link was it not where a bailiff threatened removal of a taxi. and the bailiff abused a Romanian family threatening to seize the paint off the walls. What an anus.

That was one in a you tube link was it not where a bailiff threatened removal of a taxi. and the bailiff abused a Romanian family threatening to seize the paint off the walls. What an anus.

Indeed. I posted that video in another thread just the other day.

That was one in a you tube link was it not where a bailiff threatened removal of a taxi. and the bailiff abused a Romanian family threatening to seize the paint off the walls. What an anus.

That's the one, BN. Waller had been leading a charmed life until Lord Tugendhat slapped him and JBW down. The refusal to grant the injunction should serve as a warning to the entire civil enforcement industry that they cannot expect to get away with conduct society, as a whole, considers and deems to be unacceptable and indefensible.

That's the one, BN. Waller had been leading a charmed life until Lord Tugendhat slapped him and JBW down. The refusal to grant the injunction should serve as a warning to the entire civil enforcement industry that they cannot expect to get away with conduct society, as a whole, considers and deems to be unacceptable and indefensible.

Judging by the Whyte & Co and Newlyn response, that is just what they think should happen, as in carry on regardlessthey feel they are helping prevent crime by seizing the cars that have contravened the parking rules, and to them that is no different to a magistrates fine, as the obviously managed to convince MPS that it was so serioius that the naughty cars should be taken from their owners, even if that owner didn't own it when the car was given the ticket. They should be closed down, or to extend the horror idea of an endgame by TT, Parking Eye will be sending their invoices for bailiffs to ANPR cars on once they get that default judgment

Judging by the Whyte & Co and Newlyn response, that is just what they think should happen, as in carry on regardlessthey feel they are helping prevent crime by seizing the cars that have contravened the parking rules, and to them that is no different to a magistrates fine, as the obviously managed to convince MPS that it was so serioius that the naughty cars should be taken from their owners, even if that owner didn't own it when the car was given the ticket. They should be closed down, or to extend the horror idea of an endgame by TT, Parking Eye will be sending their invoices for bailiffs to ANPR cars on once they get that default judgment

Unless Parliament gets a mass bout of madness and privatises the enforcement of CCJs, this responsibility still lies with County Court Bailiffs.