Police helping bailiffs with PCN stops

[brassnecked]

PS: If ANPR is curbed..or better still banned then the bailiff companies have only themselves to blame.

 

A lot of bailiff companies are refusing to adhere to section 75.7(7) of the Civil Procedure Rules regarding the strict warrant re-issue procedures.

They think that Data Cleansing is acceptable, they are completely wrong. It is about time these dangerous loose cannons were silenced or prosecuted for their systemic lawbreaking.

[lamma]

Is the data forwarded to the vehicles to become immediately 'active' or is there a built in later step to activate it ?

[brassnecked]

Is the data forwarded to the vehicles to become immediately 'active' or is there a built in later step to activate it ?

 

I would assume that it would be activated immediately it was on the ANPR system.

[lamma]

Assumption.

[brassnecked]

Assumption.

 

In the contract scenario illustrated by TT "The Contractor shall ensure that new cases are forwarded to the ANPR vehicle(s) no less than 48 hours after the dispatch of the letter of intended action for each batch of new Warrants of Execution"

 

That phrase " forwarded to the ANPR vehicle(s) " would indicate that the data was for instant use from the time it was uploaded to the ANPR. Perhaps TT can elicit what exactly happens.

[lamma]

All it tells us that they are forwarded to the vehicles. IF they do activate the cases immediately upon arrival then this gives rise to very serious questions.

Like you I am in the dark as to what happens. The reason I am posting about it is that I can see a ready 'out' for them.

Any reasonable person would assume that they are not activated upon arrival as then the bailiff runs the risk of being clearly unlawful and of damaging individuals and themselves (and arguably depending on the contract details their employer). Empirical evidence from this forum suggest that is not a bar to them, however we need certainty.

Does anyone recall a case were the bailiff 'jumped the gun' in the period in question ?

 

Would that an APR Bailiff (or ex-ANPR Bailiff) would post and inform us.

[HCEOs]

I would add that it may also come down to the deemed service date.

 

If the appropriate notice is sent 1st class then it could be that it is deemed served by the time the ANPR vehicle receives the data.

 

However, I can't but agree that this is not allowing the debtor a reasonable opportunity to pay. A 7 day timescale would seem more sensible.

 

As for the Police Officer's comments in the video it really is about time they were trained on what their duties are in Bailiff and HCEO matters.

 

In our cases we so often hear them say that 'we're only here to prevent a breach of the peace' whereas legally they have a duty to assist an HCEO (Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003).

[tomtubby]

 

 

As for the Police Officer's comments in the video it really is about time they were trained on what their duties are in Bailiff and HCEO matters.

 

In our cases we so often hear them say that 'we're only here to prevent a breach of the peace' whereas legally they have a duty to assist an HCEO (Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003).

 

 

It is strange that you have mentioned Section 99 etc because yesterday afternoon, I had a call from a police officer as they had received a complaint from a member of the public to allege that one of their officers had broken the law by "assisting" an HCEO when enforcing a writ of fi fa on behalf of a large builders merchants.

 

Apparently the debtor had made the allegation based upon information from an advice website and the police were trying to establish the identity of the site. He was left in no doubt that the information had NOT come from me !!!!

Edited December 19, 2013 by tomtubby

[Coughdrop]

Hmmm....... I wonder which site that could be. Someone is telling the public porkies aren't they! It's frightening how vulnerable people can be misled so easily by that sort of site.

[mikeymack2002]

will people read the sticky here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377686-Devon-and-Cornwall-police-guidelines-for-police-and-bailiffs-alike-(Home-office-guide-lines-issued-to-all-Forces)

 

 

Police must not be used to assist the bailiff only to prevent a breach of the peace, a police officer in uniform may stop a vehicle for the lawful purpose, to

 

 

Unless there is a warrant for the arrest of the driver or RO RC, if the vehicle is wanted for some crime then it can be stopped. But the Police must NOT assist the Bailiff and if they do the force can then be sued, a bailiff does not have the authority to make a traffic stop.

 

 

DWP do not have it either

 

 

A PSCO does not have that authority.

 

 

These suck and wrong, a civil debt is just that CIVIL a Magistrates debt is different, even so the bailiff must not be assisted by the Police read that thread

[outlawla]

......Eric Pickles is doing a sterling job at DCLG and his department are indeed aware of the concerns regarding ANPR.

 

Be very wary of Pickles. He is as divisive as he needs to be to maintain his position in the conservative ministerial role he is in.

[outlawla]

Be very wary of Pickles. He is as divisive as he needs to be to maintain his position in the conservative ministerial role he is in.

 

 

I should have justified my comments in regards Eric Pickles being a self serving Tory scu mo. Couldn't find the links that influenced my opinion to form that view at the time though.

 

Delving into hansard records provides the specific parliamentary questions (and answers) that helped form the opinion that our seemingly, man of the people, is in fact just like any other self serving minister (collecting his taxpayer funded salary for cutting budgets). In contrast, Iain Duncan Smith – the minister responsible for countless injustices and hated for the remuneration he receives for being responsible for implementing such draconian measures – is happy to take his rewards, without the elaborate show of cunning that Pickles, needs to exhibit.

 

Hilary Benn (5th question down) 8 July 2013 questions in the House of Commons:

 

Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab):

 

....Thousands of people on low incomes are now getting council tax summonses because of the Secretary of State's new poll tax. The Sunday Mirror reports that Peterborough city council, for example, has issued double the number of summonses for non-payment compared with last year. Why does he think that so many people are finding it so difficult to pay the bills that he has imposed on them?

 

Mr Pickles:

Let me be absolutely clear: these are local authority schemes. In some parts of the country, people on low incomes are not receiving anything additional. These are schemes put together by local authorities, and it is up to local authorities to defend them.

 

Hilary Benn:

It will not quite do for the Secretary of State to introduce the legislation, cut the money, and then attempt to pass the buck to local authorities up and down the country. The truth is that he is out of touch with what is happening to people on low incomes.

 

Let me try another question. One of those summonsed is a single parent called Charlotte, who has been asked to pay £141.66. She told the newspaper:

 

"My priority is finding money to get food for my child."

 

What choice does the Secretary of State think she should make?

 

Mr Pickles:

We have placed before local authorities discretionary help to use in such circumstances. The most interesting thing is this: that money has gone unclaimed. This is a local authority scheme, and it is up to the local authority to defend it.”

 

 

Eric Pickles could not have cared less and merely scapegoated local authorities for not utilizing the "REDUCED" funding that "HIS DEPARTMENT" had granted councils.

 

Pickle's gang reveal what the 10% cut in Council Tax funding was really all about:

 

This link suggests that the government expected local authorities to meet the council tax benefit cuts by making greater efficiencies such as cutting the estimated £200 million wasted on council tax benefit fraud and error.

 

Another answer (link) from the same Baroness seems like an admission that the estimated £200 million wasted etc., was based on guesswork.

Edited December 21, 2013 by outlawla

[tomtubby]

Outlawla

 

Your above post is very interesting indeed. I would prefer not to answer it at present as to do so will make this important thread go 'off topic".

 

However, during the day I will be posting some new THREADS regarding various subjects and I would hope that you would respond to one of the threads by copying your above post.

 

PS: One of the new THREADS will be concerning a subject that is important to you....summons costs etc. You may be interested to hear that local authorities have been VERY concerned at the number of FOI requests on this subject. You deserve a very big "pat on the back" for your relentless work on this subject. More about this on another thread.

[brassnecked]

Outlawla

 

Your above post is very interesting indeed. I would prefer not to answer it at present as to do so will make this important thread go 'off topic".

 

However, during the day I will be posting some new THREADS regarding various subjects and I would hope that you would respond to one of the threads by copying your above post.

 

PS: One of the new THREADS will be concerning a subject that is important to you....summons costs etc. You may be interested to hear that local authorities have been VERY concerned at the number of FOI requests on this subject. You deserve a very big "pat on the back" for your relentless work on this subject. More about this on another thread.

That's an upvote from me, you have been tireless in your pursuit of the reasonableness and true cost to the LA these egregious charges

[outlawla]

What can you make of the Metropolitan Police Service's response to this?

 

Aiding and abetting bailiff

[unclebulgaria67]

What can you make of the Metropolitan Police Service's response to this?

 

Aiding and abetting bailiff

 

I think this is something that needs to be raised with Boris or whoever is the person responsible for the MPS.

 

The MPS are obviously actively involved with assisting bailiffs and must have tasked officers for this role.

[tomtubby]

Only this morning I was sent a copy of an FOI that has been sent to a LOT of local authorities regarding the matter of these Police and Bailiff "Roadside Operations". Furthermore, this subject is one that will be featuring in my response to the DFT/DCLG Consultation paper which ends on 14th Feb.

[brassnecked]

These roadside ANPR pulls are surely unlawful as there is no criminal offence committed ands the police are pulling for bailiffs, unlike the police ANPR with uninsured vehicles.

[ploddertom]

I wonder if someone was taking licence from the way the initial question was phrased "Metropolitan Police Service's road traffic operations" rather than asking generally about the Met as whole.

[HCEOs]

What can you make of the Metropolitan Police Service's response to this?

 

Aiding and abetting bailiff

 

That last response looks rushed and careless.

[mapadale]

Just to question the legality of the stops, the only multiple agencies who are allowed to attend are government. However the legality over this could be brought into question, especially with the DWP and Bailiffs being present at such stops, as nether have legal duty to be there..

[outlawla]

FoI response from the Metropolitan Police Service

 

 

"

The MPS does sometimes work in partnership with Bailiffs. Vehicles are stopped lawfully using police powers such as Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Bailiffs may conduct their own checks on the vehicle whilst Police Officers conduct theirs. If appropriate, the checks that the bailiff carries out may lead to a discussion with the driver about potential civil liabilities.

 

These checks are carried out at a wide variety of operations for a wide variety of reasons.

 

The work carried out by the MPS at the scene would take place, regardless of the attendance or not of the bailiff and therefore no more money is spent to fund these operations than would have been spent anyway.

 

[ploddertom]

And what do they say when it is pointed out the vehicle has changed hands and it is a previous keeper that was responsible?

[tomtubby]

Outlawla,

 

Police have routinely relied upon section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for at least 8 years that I know of as justification for pulling over vehicles with unpaid PCN's.

 

Only this morning I was contacted by a debtor whose car was pulled over in a London street. The police officer stated that the 'reason' for the police check was because they believed that the 'spacing' of the numbers on the vehicle licence plate were not in accordance with regulations !!!

 

I have addressed the matter of the abuse of ANPR for these "Police and Bailiff Roadside Operations" in my lengthly response to the joint DVLA/DCLG Consultation Paper on the future of CCTV.

[Fulhamboy]

So someone must be contacting the bailiffs and saying that on this street and on this day we will be stopping vehicles ! Unless the bailiffs are employing Mystic Meg how else do they know .

If its a Met operation someone maybe getting a birthday present for this information . Could a Jehovas Witness attend also and hand out copies of the Watchtower ? What happens if your car and details check out and you dont converse with the bailiff and just drive off , will you be allowed like feck will you The whole thing stinks . The Police should not be cohersed in this way full stop .