Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Police and Bailiff ‘ANPR Roadside Operations’...response at last from the Metropolitan Police !!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3550 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Five months ago on 22nd November an important Freedom of Information request was made to the Met Police regarding Police and Bailiff ‘ANPR Roadside Operations’ ( a copy of which is below). As viewers will see from reading below...making the request was simple....but obtaining a response was a whole different matter:

 

22nd November 2013 the FOI request was submitted to the Met Police.

 

6th December Met Police confirmation receipt.

 

24th December Met Police stated that their response 'had been delayed'.

 

30th December Met Police stated that a 'response had been drafted but awaits approval by a Senior Information Manager'.

 

31st December the Met Police responded to advise that the request was not 'within the cost threshold' (£450) and furthermore that the information was not 'centrally located'.

 

6th January the Met Police confirmed receipt of the individuals request for a 'review'.

 

4th February the individual wrote again seeking an update.

 

4th March the individual contacted the Met Police once more to complain and stated that she had copied her complaint to the Police Commissioner, the Information Commissioner's Office and also her MP.

 

14th March the individual sought an 'Internal Review' of the Metropolitan Police's handling of her FOI request.

 

17th April the Metropolitan Police responded to advise that they had decided to overturn their original decision with regards to questions 2 to 5 and that the information request was actually held by the MPS. With regards to questions 1 & 6 they advised that the review had concluded that 'the information was not held'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Copy of the Freedom of Information request:

 

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

 

Can you publish any agreement, policy local or otherwise, service level agreement, a contract or contracts to show :-

 

1. Police and bailiff contracts to execute road side stop checks ANPR operations.

 

2. What agreements are in place to share information between bailiffs and police, that is to say, where a driver refuses to give information to a bailiff, under what section of what law, or any written or verbal agreement would a police constable share, give, volunteer, disclosure the details of a driver given to the police during the course of the police officers normal duties, the information being given to a constable for lawful police related matters.

 

3. What agreements, policy, procedure, standard operating procedure, etc are in place for a bailiff to instruct or command a police constable to stop a vehicle that appears on the bailiff ANPR. Under what section of what law or verbal or written agreement or understanding is the bailiff entitled to command or request or require a constable to stop a moving vehicle.

 

4. What is the full guidance issued to the officers, senior or otherwise at ANPR roadside checks for dealing with or otherwise engaging with drivers and bailiffs, that is to stay what is the remit of the officers in so far as forcing drivers to deal with bailiffs when they refuse to do so.

 

5. What is the guidance policy procedure advice, given to police officers with regards to drivers who do not wish to exit their vehicle, as long as no crime or offence has been commited, again for the purposes of clarity this could mean that the vehicle does not appear on any PNC indices via ANPR but is stopped at the request of the bailiff firm, the driver is not obliged to exit his vehicle, what is the guidance for these types of situation.

 

6. What is the cost to the police for the bailiff and police ONLY check points and how are they organised, under what level of authority, how is it paid for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The response from the Met Police is detailed and lengthly and I will be posting a link for viewers to read the entire reply. However, the following extracts are vitally important:

 

Appendix A: Standards Operating Procedures: Introduction.

 

CO15 ANPR Teams working with Court Enforcement Officers / Bailiffs

 

 

The primary purpose of Traffic OCU ANPR operations is denying criminals the use of the road.

 

These Standard Operating Procedures are intended to provide guidance to all police officers and police staff deployed on CO15 Traffic ANPR operations in partnership with Civilian Court Enforcement Officers (CEO) / Bailiffs.

 

These SOPs have been written in conjunction with legal advice provided by MPS Department of Legal Services and police powers in relation to civil debt recovery, magistrates and county court warrants.

 

Application

 

All police officers and police staff, including the extended police family and those working voluntarily or under contract to the Metropolitan Police Service, must be aware of and comply with these SOPs and relevant MPS policies and associated procedures.

 

Additionally, all police officers and staff must make themselves aware of Police Notice 04/2005 and Corporate News Item dated 18th September 2006. Extracts and electronic links have been included at Appendix A.

 

Aim

 

These Standard Operating Procedures is to support the following MPS and Traffic OCU objectives:

 

Make neighbourhoods safer through partnership working to reduce crime.

 

Disrupt criminal networks by denying criminals the use of the road.

 

These operating procedures are intended to provide clarity for both MPS staff and partners regarding police powers in relation to civil debt recovery, county court and magistrates court warrants.

 

These procedures will allow a smooth partnership working between MPS Traffic OCU and Civilian Enforcement Officers / Bailiff companies involved in Traffic ANPR operations, whilst protecting the reputation of the MPS and reduce the risk of civil litigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To keep this thread in order I will be posting full details later today so could viewers wait until then to post comments.

 

In the meantime, what has been revealed in the Metropolitan Police's response is that their reply has confirmed that these 'operations' should be in conjunction with Civilian Enforcement Officers ( who are employees of the Magistrates Court. They are not private sector bailiffs).

 

The response also appears to indicate that the operations (in conjunction with Civilian Enforcement Officers) are to enforce criminal warrants (distress warrants etc).

 

Crucially, under Part 3 the Metropolitan Police outline the legal position and it is here that they 'drop their bombshell' by stating as follows:

 

 

Relevant Legislation & Police Powers

 

The following pieces of legislation appear most relevant in relation to police and civilian enforcement officers powers in relation to warrants and are provided as a guidance:

 

Section 125 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

 

This provides for the issue and execution of warrants and provides constables with a power to execute warrants acting within their own police area. It also provides powers under Section 125A(1) for Civilian Enforcement Officers.

 

The warrants referred to will generally be Non-Payment of Fines warrants issued by magistrate’s courts.

 

By virtue of S.125D(1) and S.125D(2) there is no longer a requirement to be in possession of the warrant. However by virtue of S.125D(4) the warrant must be produced on demand of the person arrested or as soon as practicable

 

This section therefore provides police officers with a power to execute these warrants but would not necessarily allow for the person to be detained by police in order that CEOs execute the warrant.

 

 

Section 85 County Courts Act 1984

 

This relates to the execution of judgements or orders for payment of money.

 

It has been often quoted that police officers have a duty to assist officers of the court executing these warrants by virtue of Section 85(4), which states “It shall be the duty of every constable within his jurisdiction to assist in the execution of every such warrant”

 

However this section has been restricted by virtue of Statutory Instrument 1993/2073 - The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 (article 6)

 

This section does not afford police officers with a power to execute the warrant and there is no power for police officers to detain a person in order for CEOs to execute the warrant.

 

Police officers powers in relation to these warrants would be limited to the common law power to prevent a breach of the peace.

 

Note:

 

This is where they then try to explain their reason for relying upon their 'get out of jail' card of using the 'old chestnut': Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

it may be an illustration of Common Purpose in action, the police are "Leading Beyond Authority" as an aside Cressida Dick a very high profile high ranking officer is a Common Purpose graduate, who knows how many more police are Common Purpose trained?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the postings TT.

 

Review decision in regards to question 5. What is the guidance policy

procedure advice, given to police officers with regards to drivers who do

not wish to exit their vehicle, as long as no crime or offence has been

commited, again for the purposes of clarity this could mean that the

vehicle does not appear on any PNC indices via ANPR but is stopped at the

request of the bailiff firm, the driver is not obliged to exit his

vehicle, what is the guidance for these types of situation.

 

The attached Standard Operating Procedure states at 2.4.15. ‘The officer

dealing with the vehicle will:

o Explain clearly to the occupants that police enquiries are complete.

o Explain clearly to the occupants the role of the CEO who would like

to speak to them.

o Explain clearly to the occupants that if necessary, officers may use

power of arrest for 'breach of the peace' and detain those who are

obstructing the bailiff. However, officers are advised to avoid using this

power by making it plain what the position is, and what will happen if the

bailiff is resisted.

o Explain clearly that police involvement, unless other criminal

offences come to light will be to prevent a breach of the peace.

o Police will withdraw unless required to deal with a Breach of the

Peace or other criminal offences that come to light.’

 

 

The important parts are in bold. Anyone stopped can advise a Police Officer that they do not wish to speak to a bailiff and will simply drive on not wishing to cause any breach of the peace. A Police Officer could not stop the person driving on.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The important parts are in bold. Anyone stopped can advise a Police Officer that they do not wish to speak to a bailiff and will simply drive on not wishing to cause any breach of the peace. A Police Officer could not stop the person driving on.

 

I would agree with that summary UB, unfortunately the police would likely arrest the driver or initate a pursuit, going off how the police are so cosy with the bailiffs on these operations.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree with that summary UB, unfortunately the police would likely arrest the driver or initate a pursuit, going off how the police are so cosy with the bailiffs on these operations.

 

The Police could not arrest the driver unless an offence had been committed and they could not pursue them unless they had good reason.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Police could not arrest the driver unless an offence had been committed and they could not pursue them unless they had good reason.

You are correct UB they couldn't but seeing how they think the bailiff is on the same side, even thoigh they have used a tenuous connection with Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act to do the pull at the behest of a bailiff for a Civil debt, they are likely to regard the driving off as a crime of itself and use that as the excuse to pursue. Not saying they absolutely would, but some coppers are so stupid that they might.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are correct UB they couldn't but seeing how they think the bailiff is on the same side, even thoigh they have used a tenuous connection with Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act to do the pull at the behest of a bailiff for a Civil debt, they are likely to regard the driving off as a crime of itself and use that as the excuse to pursue. Not saying they absolutely would, but some coppers are so stupid that they might.

 

By driving off and not speaking to a bailiff, you are not committing any offence. If it were the case, any householder who refused to open their door to speak to a bailiff, would face being arrested.

 

The Police cannot use breach of the peace in these circumstances. The Police could actually commit a breach of the peace themselves by their actions.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

By driving off and not speaking to a bailiff, you are not committing any offence. If it were the case, any householder who refused to open their door to speak to a bailiff, would face being arrested.

 

The Police cannot use breach of the peace in these circumstances. The Police could actually commit a breach of the peace themselves by their actions.

That is the point the police are making it up as they go along, what they are allowed to do and what they actually do are not always one and the same.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

an obvious question for the MPS and for the Mags courts for the boroughs

How many roadside stop operations have been attended by Court CEOs.

Plus quite how S.125 of the MCA 1980 applies to 'warrants' issued by Local Authorities is beyond me.

Especially as under CPE the bailiff attends in the capacity of a private bailiff.

It took them months and they came up with utter rubbish

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something good that could come out of it, and I would love to see real, honest stats on this, is how many real criminals were caught using these operations. It's fair to assume common criminals don't pay their fines and if only one burglar, robber etc was caught that otherwise might not be (even if by luck), is that not good for the population as a whole? It does say if other offences come to light, then further action could be taken. Maybe this is why the police are involved.

 

You may call me naive, and this is probably about getting people to pay their parking penalties, but if it has the side effect of catching real criminals then I'm for it. If the people stopped have a genuine belief that the ticket wasn't given to them for good reason, then they can drive off. As I said in the other thread, if it's fair cop and they just avoided paying thinking it would go away and the price got hiked up as a result then that's their fault.

 

Just my two cents worth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Bulgaria, the Police do often ask drivers to step out of their car when they have been stopped. Under those circumstances, no doubt Old Bill will correct me if I am wrong,

but I don't think you can refuse such a request by the Police. Once out the car, it is more difficult then not to be confronted by the bailiff. I don't think that the Police would allow you to record on your phone their actions during the stop and once again I am unsure as to the legality of that Police request.

Link to post
Share on other sites

an obvious question for the MPS and for the Mags courts for the boroughs

How many roadside stop operations have been attended by Court CEOs.

Plus quite how S.125 of the MCA 1980 applies to 'warrants' issued by Local Authorities is beyond me.

Especially as under CPE the bailiff attends in the capacity of a private bailiff.

It took them months and they came up with utter rubbish

 

Don't see how it can apply lamma, as that provision is for Criminal, the bailiff ANPR is logging purely Civil debt.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncle Bulgaria, the Police do often ask drivers to step out of their car when they have been stopped. Under those circumstances, no doubt Old Bill will correct me if I am wrong,

but I don't think you can refuse such a request by the Police. Once out the car, it is more difficult then not to be confronted by the bailiff. I don't think that the Police would allow you to record on your phone their actions during the stop and once again I am unsure as to the legality of that Police request.

 

You could ask the Police Officer why they are asking you step out of the car. You only have to cooperate with the Police in regard to the section 163 stop, where the Police may ask for copy of driving licence, certificate of insurance etc. There may be other reasons for the stop, which the Police have to explain. I have been stopped before on one of those drink driving check points and gave a clear breath test.

 

The Police cannot make anyone speak to a bailff and there are no grounds for any arrest for breach of peace for failing to do so.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

it may be an illustration of Common Purpose in action, the police are "Leading Beyond Authority" as an aside Cressida Dick a very high profile high ranking officer is a Common Purpose graduate, who knows how many more police are Common Purpose trained?

 

The Police could not arrest the driver unless an offence had been committed and they could not pursue them unless they had good reason.

 

Cressida Dick, wasnt she the Commander in charge of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/3151204/Jean-Charles-de-Menezes-Cressida-Dick-admits-an-innocent-man-could-be-killed-again.html

 

 

Ms Dick admitted that the first hour of the day was "appalling" because there was "no structure" but added that it was common for police operations to be chaotic in their early stages as commanders attempted to pull together thousands of officers.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes indeed Citizen B it was she!

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This scenario was featured on a TV prof recently and I was very confused as to why police officers were stopping people for civil debts, one rather stroppy bailiff was certain she could claim a guys can despite the debt being his but the van belonging to his son, she eventually had to let him go after much huffing and puffing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cressida Dick, wasnt she the Commander in charge of the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/3151204/Jean-Charles-de-Menezes-Cressida-Dick-admits-an-innocent-man-could-be-killed-again.html

 

She was indeed, Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the "Shoot to kill" policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

She was indeed, Cressida Dick is the Common Purpose senior police officer who authorised the "Shoot to kill" policy without reference to Parliament, the law or the British Constitution.

 

She was truly following the Common Purpose mantra, "Lead Beyond Authority"

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Metropolitan Police's response to this FOI request is very significant indeed for so many reasons.

 

Firstly, the Met Police attempted to evade disclosing the information on the basis it would cost more than £450. They ONLY agreed to set the previous decision aside as they were subject to an internal review and were also aware that an MP and the Information Commissioner's Office were being copied into the correspondence.

 

Secondly, it is clear to me that when compiling the information that the 'penny had dropped' with the Metropolitan Police that these 'ANPR Roadside Operations' should NOT be taking place with private sector bailiffs and instead, should only be in partnership with Civilian Enforcement Officers

 

What is the difference?

Civilian Enforcement Officers (CEOs) are employed in the magistrates’ court by HM Courts

& Tribunals Service and are responsible for enforcing certain magistrates’ court and Crown Court orders. They execute warrants of arrest, committal, detention and distress. Under a change of regs, in 2006 HM Courts entered into Contracts with three private sector companies (Drakes, Philips, Swift) 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). Under these Contracts the officers (enforcing these warrants are known as Approved Enforcement Officers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I particularly like the following comment from the Metropolitan Police:

 

"I have decided to provide you with the relevant information in full which can be found at Appendix A. I can also advise you that during the course of this FoIA review it became apparent that the MPS were in the process of reviewing this guidance".

 

I cannot wait to read the new Guidance. Will it be restricted to operations only involving Civilian Enforcement Agents and Approved Enforcement Officers enforcing Magistrate Court warrants ????

 

I would think that many local authorities and private sector bailiff companies are VERY worried today at the disclosure of this information from the Metropolitan Police !!!!

 

PS: A 'little birdie" has told me that requests have already been made to all 33 local authorities in the London area for copies of their contracts with the police regarding these Operations. There are some interesting times ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The legality of these operations is tenuous at best, where a civilian bailiff is involved. Ever likely the Met were anxious NOT to answer that FOI. No doubt the ConDems will change the law to allow the private bailiffs free rein.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...