Illlegal immigrants caught working as civil enforcement officersrs

[noddyaccount]

Seventeen CEOS / Parking attendants were caught working in Haringey on "professionally forged documents "

in a raid on 28 January 2009 , like Lambeth council before it . i do not have an axe to grind with their status , but hold any council liable for not making proper checks .

However the point is these people were working fraudulently which imo throws the veracity of any tickets they issued into question , if someone is committing

fraud to come to work , is it too much to ask that they would not commit it at work , to meet targets , keep their jobs and not rock the boat .

Has anyone appealed a ticket on the basis that the person giving it should not have been , this perhaps could be verified by means of a specific freedom of information request to the council concerned , especially if you got a ticket in Haringey before the raid .

Interestingly It does not seem clear whether the council is liable for the up to £10,000 fines per worker for failing to carry out the correct right-to-work checks , will they be sending the bailliffs in on them selves .

[green_and_mean]

Immigration status has no relevance as to their ability to issue tickets the TMA 2004 does not state they have to be british passport holders just employed by the Council.

The Council are not liable as they checked the status of the workers as best they could. It is not an employers fault if someone provides forged documents as it is not reasonable to expect them to be forgery or experts in passport inspection. The majority I beleive did not even work for the Council they were contractors.

 

(3) An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.

[noddyaccount]

Immigration status has no relevance as to their ability to issue tickets the TMA 2004 does not state they have to be british passport holders just employed by the Council.

The Council are not liable as they checked the status of the workers as best they could. It is not an employers fault if someone provides forged documents as it is not reasonable to expect them to be forgery or experts in passport inspection. The majority I beleive did not even work for the Council they were contractors.

 

(3) An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.

 

Yes i understand from the article that we both read that an agency provided the agency workers , note the double use of the word agency just in case there was any doubt .It is as we both know not the first time this has happened , lambeth and perhaps you are aware of others ,as the resident devils advocate , please disclose .

Perhaps you could tell us how many ceos/parking attendants are agency workers , and whether the training they receive is adequate for the job , given the number of complaints and sucessful appeals , and the resulting waste of time and costs for all concerned including the councils , who are duty bound to keep down costs ,

[lamma]

I have seen council reports of 80 percent turnover for CEOs.

 

 

One does not have to wonder why.

[noddyaccount]

Immigration status has no relevance as to their ability to issue tickets the TMA 2004 does not state they have to be british passport holders just employed by the Council.

The Council are not liable as they checked the status of the workers as best they could. It is not an employers fault if someone provides forged documents as it is not reasonable to expect them to be forgery or experts in passport inspection. The majority I beleive did not even work for the Council they were contractors.

 

(3) An employer is excused from paying a penalty if he shows that he complied with any prescribed requirements in relation to the employment.

 

I did not say anything about British Passport holders or Eu or commonwealth , remember them , thats irrelevant , unless of course they are professionally forged . if i made a fraudulent application for a responsible position , lied about qualifications or did not disclose a criminal record for example it would be the same thing ,' little lie big lie' they say on c.s.i .

If someone is a proven fraudster and their evidence is instrumental in you being fined i would say that is relevant as their evidence is the Councils case . if these matters were heard in a magistrates court as of old who knows , No fine nor forfeiture without trial , now i know why , You I am sure would try to say that a p.c.n is neither a fine nor a forfeiture .

[300]

Perhaps there should be a passport inspection service that verifies passports as genuine before an offer of employment. Too simple an idea I expect. It would expose the holes in the system like the corrupt EU countries that issue passports for a small fee but no that was our passport office also ;¬)

[lamma]

what about the people running the professional forging service ?

 

there is a lot of this (forged paperwork) going on according to a few Magistrates.

 

what about the rest of the council employees ? a professional 'service' will serve the biggest customer base it can. so include the rest of the contractor's staff at other locations as well.

[noddyaccount]

Yes i understand from the article that we both read that an agency provided the agency workers , note the double use of the word agency just in case there was any doubt .It is as we both know not the first time this has happened , lambeth and perhaps you are aware of others ,as the resident devils advocate , please disclose .

Perhaps you could tell us how many ceos/parking attendants are agency workers , and whether the training they receive is adequate for the job , given the number of complaints and sucessful appeals , and the resulting waste of time and costs for all concerned including the councils , who are duty bound to keep down costs ,

Bye the bye if the majority of these folks were "contractors" and "not working for the council " What were they doing doling out p.c.ns in an official uniform , doing the councils duty , is that some kind of Stopple issue ? Lawyers please . this gets worse and worse!!!!

[green_and_mean]

Bye the bye if the majority of these folks were "contractors" and "not working for the council " What were they doing doling out p.c.ns in an official uniform , doing the councils duty , is that some kind of Stopple issue ? Lawyers please . this gets worse and worse!!!!

 

The Council cannot issue PCNs on street since it is a body not a person it therefore needs to employ someone to do it whether the person is contracted directly or through a sub contractor makes no odds as long as they are employed for that purpose.

 

TMA 2004

 

76 Civil enforcement officers

 

(1) A local authority may provide for the enforcement of road traffic contraventions for which it is the enforcement authority by individuals to be known as civil enforcement officers.

(2) A civil enforcement officer must be—

(a) an individual employed by the authority, or

(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a civil enforcement officer.

[noddyaccount]

The Council cannot issue PCNs on street since it is a body not a person it therefore needs to employ someone to do it whether the person is contracted directly or through a sub contractor makes no odds as long as they are employed for that purpose.

 

TMA 2004

 

76 Civil enforcement officers

 

(1) A local authority may provide for the enforcement of road traffic contraventions for which it is the enforcement authority by individuals to be known as civil enforcement officers.

(2) A civil enforcement officer must be—

(a) an individual employed by the authority, or

(b) where the authority have made arrangements with any person for the purposes of this section, an individual employed by that person to act as a civil enforcement officer.

 

I once inadvertently won a parking appeal for a "stopple " , where the adjudicator off his own bat stated that , As I had been advised by a uniformed council parking attendant that i could park where I had , despite the fact that I should not have parked there , I was not due a penalty/fine

This apparently is a 'stopple'as the p.a was a uniformed Council official .

So on the same basis regardless of his contactual status , the attendant has the councils authority and as such the council should have a recipricol responsibility to ensure the people working for them should be properly trained and vetted and of good character . It stands to reason that anyone who is living a criminal lie is not to be trusted .

You would have it both ways that a ceos evidence/ word is to be held as good if it is their word against yours . I myself have had 'ghost' tickets , made up to meet targets .

Also I have spoken to Parking attendants one told me he only gave 10 tickets a day as he wanted to get promoted , if you gave out 25 plus a day you would never get a cosy inside job as you were too good an earner to take off the street.

[flyingdoc]

"stopple

 

I think you mean estoppel here.

 

On a different note I do agree that if these people are here fraudulently, then ANY evidence that they offer in support of any kind of penalty has to be suspect.

 

And to answer G&M, no the legislation does not say that they must be UK passport holder, but nor does it say that they cannot be chimpanzees.

 

The implication has to be that anyone WORKING in the UK should be doing so LEGALLY and as these people were not doing so then any penalties they have issued should be called into question.

Edited March 27, 2009 by flyingdoc

[lamma]

When contractors are used the council retains responsibility - so it can't be 'shuffled off'.

[green_and_mean]

And to answer G&M, no the legislation does not say that they must be UK passport holder, but nor does it say that they cannot be chimpanzees.

 

It does in fact say they cannot be chimpanzees.

[green_and_mean]

When contractors are used the council retains responsibility - so it can't be 'shuffled off'.

 

They are not responsible for employment checks only an employer has a legal duty to ensure the employee has a legal right to work. If they fail to do so it may be a breach of contract between the Council and contractor but its not an offence under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. If you got in a builder to build an extension and they employed an electrician not authorised to work here do you really think you are guilty of employing them and would get fined £10,000?

[lamma]

the secretary of state seems to disagree with you.

[noddyaccount]

They are not responsible for employment checks only an employer has a legal duty to ensure the employee has a legal right to work. If they fail to do so it may be a breach of contract between the Council and contractor but its not an offence under the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. If you got in a builder to build an extension and they employed an electrician not authorised to work here do you really think you are guilty of employing them and would get fined £10,000?

 

Do you not think that if a council has been given the responsibility and potential rewards for de-criminalised parking , that they should be seen to be beyond reproach ?