Detained by police for unpaid PCN

[crem]

They did as apparently they think an officers powers to stop a vehicle, although not expressly stated, extends to 'assisting' bailiffs/debt collectors recover civil charges.

 

Question 2. Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 and section 49 of the Police Reform Act 2002 allows a constable in uniform to stop a mechanically propelled vehicle being driven on a road, however, this is not just specific to PCNs.

 

I could be wrong, but the way I read the reply to point (2) is that they were referring to PCNs (i.e. REAL PENALTY CHARGE NOTICES ones from the police and council) and not the made up invoices that the PPCs like to call PCNs

[lamma]

in which case they did not read the question - or respond to it. the question is clear.

[crem]

in which case they did not read the question - or respond to it. the question is clear.

 

I agree lamma. But I think at the very least they need to be asked to clarify that they believe private Parking Charge Notices fall within the remit of their power to stop. I would doubt they do.

[68904]

Last month I reported a Council to the Police for crimes involved in decrimminalised parking lines and signs. The officer read my files which contained the evidence of the councils wrong doing, and told me there was a primia facia case to answer to.

Two hours later the officer told me that it was not a police matter, and If I thought the council was wrong, I could take my own action.

In the converstation with this officer I mentioned ANPR and balliffs.

He told me that his force would not take any actions against drivers with outstanding PPC problems. He said it was a civil matter.

This officer was a junior senior officer i/c a station.(Insp.)

I took my local forces attitude towards the sins committed by my local council as evasion of thier duty to the citizens of this country.

I agree that signs and lines maybe a civil matter, but the money obtained as a result of non compliant lines and signs are crimes committed against the theft act, fraud act and mispheasance in public office, and above all the driving citizens of the Country who have to be cheated out of money, from Councils/Officer/Councillors who should be custodians of the public purse not faceless crimminals who hide behing the lions outside on the Town Hall steps.

If carried on like these namless people, I would not last long, but as Bob Dylan wrote ' The times they are a changing. ' lets hope soon

[lamma]

The police can be asked to assist in the serving of any distress warrant - but not by any of the Acts that GMP have quoted. Stopping a vehicle and detaining the driver (often by taking the cars keys) until the bailiff turns up is not 'assisting'. I believe it is an assault.

[lamma]

Last month I reported a Council to the Police for crimes involved in decrimminalised parking lines and signs. The officer read my files which contained the evidence of the councils wrong doing, and told me there was a primia facia case to answer to.

Two hours later the officer told me that it was not a police matter, and If I thought the council was wrong, I could take my own action.

In the converstation with this officer I mentioned ANPR and balliffs.

He told me that his force would not take any actions against drivers with outstanding PPC problems. He said it was a civil matter.

This officer was a junior senior officer i/c a station.(Insp.)

I took my local forces attitude towards the sins committed by my local council as evasion of thier duty to the citizens of this country.

I agree that signs and lines maybe a civil matter, but the money obtained as a result of non compliant lines and signs are crimes committed against the theft act, fraud act and mispheasance in public office, and above all the driving citizens of the Country who have to be cheated out of money, from Councils/Officer/Councillors who should be custodians of the public purse not faceless crimminals who hide behing the lions outside on the Town Hall steps.

If carried on like these namless people, I would not last long, but as Bob Dylan wrote ' The times they are a changing. ' lets hope soon

 

This is shocking - not least because it is the CPS who are supposed to make those decision not the police. Did you ask the Insp if that was a CPS decision ? I would forward the file to the CPS in any event...recorded signed for to all heck and back.

[JonCris]

It's not assault. At the very least it's wrongful detention or arrest

[68904]

I have just seen this link about Councils and covert observations.

BBC NEWS | UK | Councils warned over spying laws

 

Your views and comments

[JonCris]

Sorry mate but we have heard it all before. Afraid it's nothing more than meaningless propaganda.

 

It's a case of don't do what we say do what we do. They could stop this conduct overnight if they wanted to but they wont & I doubt the Tories will either.

 

Politicians of all persuasion will never surrender the levers of power no matter what they claim now especially if they aren't in power

[letshelp]

Hi Watchingyou,

Interesting response from GMP, the nicely evaded the relevant questions, those guys would make great rugby players!!!!

regards

[Fair-Parking]

Very interesting Watching You and congratulations for asking the questions. GMP have actually failed to answer question 2 in relation to the word 'detain' which is clear in your query. Section 163 of the RTA 1988 only permits a uniformed officer to stop a vehicle which is fair enough, but it does not give him the power to detain either it or the driver.

 

Extra powers are granted under Section 49 of the Police Reform Act 2002 that do allow the officer the powers of arrest if he suspects a crime may have taken place or is about to be committed. This section is therefore completely irrelevant to civil/decriminalised parking.

 

By linking the two Sections and Acts together the person answering your questions has fudged the issue and tried to justify the unlawful actions of GMP under the Data Protection Act 1998 by inferring that officers had the right to suspect that a crime may have taken place on each and every occasion they stopped and detained innocent motorists, knowing full well that matter was no more than a civil parking dispute.

 

Tell them that you are not satisfied with the answer given and that GMP should direct their reply around reasons for detaining motorists and not merely stopping them.

[lamma]

I asked a very qualified friend about S163 - "S.163 of the RTA 1988 allows a constable to stop any vehicle for any purpose (among other laws). Case law has stated that it also allows them to detain the vehicle for so long as is necessary to carry out their functions in relation to that vehicle - document checks, testing etc. I don't think it would extend to assisting bailiffs. "

[Zamzara]

S163 creates an offence for a driver who fails to stop, regardless of the reason. The reason could be the officer doesn't like her hair colour or wants to chat her up. If the driver doesn't stop it's an offence.

 

This isn't the same as granting the officer immunity if the reason turns out to be inappropriate use of police powers. The law creates an offence for drivers, not a right for officers.

[Fair-Parking]

Of course we all need to accept that if a uniformed officer stops a vehicle there must be a reason for it, even if it is only to give advice. However GMP were not simply stopping vehicles, they had every intention of detaining them because they had been lured by a private company - who almost certainly knew better, into mistakenly believing that an offence had taken place.

 

The term 'warrant' used in the justification of this myopic stop on sight policy, had been distorted both by Marstons and senior GMP officers who through gross negligence and unquestionable ignorance of the law, then wrongfully instructed their front line officers to engage in a campaign that unlawfully targetted innocent motorists into entrapment by a private firm of bullying and fraudulent bailiffs, simply to enhance the bailiffs' commercial gain.

 

In this instance both S163 RTA 1998 and S49 PRA 1992 are red herrings cast into a sea of deceit, because the person answering the Freedom of Information Act questions didn't understand the implications, and once in doubt presumably adopted the standard policy that the police always know better.

 

In reality the bailiffs undoubtedly gained financially before this police approved [problem] inevitably hit the buffers.

 

However the police come out with nothing except a further erosion of public confidence of their abilities to maintain law and order.

[JonCris]

Quite & I for one don't think the OP should let it stop there. They should strive to involve as many agencies as possible in their fight against this appalling conduct & attempts to justify it be GMP

[threeamp]

I am half tempted to get a parking ticket and not pay it just to find out if they are still doing this.....

[JonCris]

what's needed is for the media in & around Manchester to ask if anyone has been stopped & detained by the police whilst aiding bailiffs to enforce civil parking charges

[Fair-Parking]

I am in agreement with the sentiments expressed on this thread but it doesn't do any harm to wait and accumulate the evidence required to make the criticism to put to the Chief Constable and the media much more damning.

 

In this instance not only do we know that this disgraceful policy was implemented and that Manchester City Council was forced to terminate it, but we now know that when a singular question is directed to GMP under the Freedom Of Information Act about this policy, that question was not researched nor answered as GMP is required by law to do.

 

To put that more bluntly, the person answering the question never investigated the actual query which was specific to MCC/GMP and Marstons and not 'What is the general policy in relation to stopping motorists?' which is what the answer related to

 

Thus in addition to unlawfully stopping motorists, suspicion now falls on to GMP who can now be seen to avoiding specific issues when asked to explain them under the law covered by the Freedom Of Information Act.

 

That is now two instances of GMP breaking the law for which unimpeachable evidence now exists.

[watchingyou]

I have asked for a review of my Freedom of Information Act request which GMP have now agreed to undertake. I have also had a phone conversation with the person who conducted the original FoI request. During this call I made it clear that question 2 specifically asked about 'stop and detain' she then attempted to rely on Section 49 of the Police Reform Act 2002 as the power given to an officer to detain under these circumstances even though I maintained that these powers are not available to an officer for civil matters. I shall now have to wait for the result of their internal review, when I get it I will post it here.

[JonCris]

FP I agree & I also think GMP should be given a second opportunity to respond to the FOI whilst pointing out that their original answer was based on a misunderstanding & incorrect interpretation, by them, surrounding the law empowering officers to stop & detain innocent members of the public for what can only be described as the unlawful purpose of assisting in the collection of allegedly unpaid parking charges

[JonCris]

Shall look forward to their next responses which I strongly suspect will be another attempt to cloud the issue by espousing rules, regulation & laws which will have little to do with the facts

 

Whilst this is the sort of thing one expects from these disreputable bailiffs the behavior by GMP in colluding with this murky conduct is beyond the pale

[JonCris]

One question that must be asked is how, when, where & by whom was the discussion & final decision taken to implement this unpublicized practice.

 

Also I would like to ask why, as we are repeatedly told police resources are overstretched, this time consuming practice was permitted & who, if anyone, apart from the bailiffs benefited from it & how

Edited August 29, 2008 by JonCris

[watchingyou]

Another problem I think they may have once they disclose that this type of activity has actually taken place is that it may make them vulnerable to charges of crimes under the Data Protection Act because processing of personal data will have possibly taken place between the police the bailiffs and/or the Manchester City Council when it is not allowed for under the DPA.

[jasmin2008]

Also as we now have the name of a chief inspector involved, should a complaint be made about him and his conduct?

[JonCris]

I agree but the most serious compliant can & should be that the police unlawfully detained an innocent motorist & then proceeded to unlawfully assist in the recovery of a civil debt by threatening the motorist with arrest if they refused to comply. In other words demanding money with menaces