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

[tomtubby]

Clearly my thread must have been picked up on a Google search engines overnight as it appears on the front page of SCOOP today.WOW !!!

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

[unclebulgaria67]

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.

 

I wonder whether anyone will take the MPS to court for assisting private bailiffs in their activities. I am not sure what case could be made and what someone would achieve by doing so. If a motorist lost their vehicle for a disputed PCN during one of these Police stops, could the Police be 'jointly' liable ? If the Police for instance told the motorist that they had to deal with the bailiff or face arrest, then I would think that a case could be made that the Police were acting in partnership with the bailiff and would therefore be jointly liable.

[brassnecked]

Clearly my thread must have been picked up on a Google search engines overnight as it appears on the front page of SCOOP today.WOW !!!

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

 

Most Excellent (sorry for quoting Bill & Ted)

[brassnecked]

I wonder whether anyone will take the MPS to court for assisting private bailiffs in their activities. I am not sure what case could be made and what someone would achieve by doing so. If a motorist lost their vehicle for a disputed PCN during one of these Police stops, could the Police be 'jointly' liable ? If the Police for instance told the motorist that they had to deal with the bailiff or face arrest, then I would think that a case could be made that the Police were acting in partnership with the bailiff and would therefore be jointly liable.

 

Quite possibly and damages plus quantum, if the motorist lost their job could be substantial

[lamma]

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.

Interesting indeed.

has that been backed up by FOIs to the courts in the London Boroughs seeking number of times that Court CEOs have attended such operations ?

My suspicion is that the answer is zero.

[brassnecked]

I would support your assumption lamma.

[tomtubby]

After viewing the "Parking Mad' series on TV last night I would think that a lot of police forces should be VERY worried at the legality of these operations !!!

 

It was again made clear that the POLICE themselves DO NOT stop the vehicle. Instead, the police are asked to do so.....by a private sector bailiff company. My post number 4 on this thread relates to the LEGAL position of the police in these 'joint operations' !!!!!!

[Coughdrop]

Does anyone have views on whether people who were, as seen last night, stopped for civil fines which should never have been part of the operations may have some sort of recourse as the fine was paid after possibly unlawful stops had been made? I don't know on what grounds one might pursue this - extorting money under duress? The police aiding and abetting extortion of money? Clearly this isn't going to happen in reality, but there may be something these people could do, and I wonder whether MP's should not be bombarded with emails and letters, 38 degrees involved in the campaigning etc...

 

Certainly I feel we shouldn't sit back and let a review take place without some significant feedback from the public.

 

I would also personally like to say thank you to 'Notomob' who are too far from me to join, but are doing a fantastic job!

[outlawla]

.....I don't know on what grounds one might pursue this - extorting money under duress? The police aiding and abetting extortion of money? Clearly this isn't going to happen in reality, ...

 

It would if enough people were prepared to make a stand and testify that our police are s......y criminals.

[unclebulgaria67]

Someone mentioned about EA's stopping cars on a highway, particularly near a bus stop. You will see I have highlighted a section in bold requiring a vehicle to be immobilised where it is for atleast 2 hours. I thought on the parking mad programme that they were taking the vehicles almost immediately and no mention of 2 hours was made. I am not sure the Police would allow an immobilised vehicle to be kept on a highway for 2 hours, if it presented a hazard or broke RTA laws.

 

The Taking Control of goods act 2013 has this clause

 

Securing goods of the debtor on a highway and removal: vehicles

 

18. (1) Where the enforcement agent is proceeding under paragraph 13(1)(b) of Schedule 12 and the goods to be secured are a vehicle, those goods must be secured in accordance with this regulation.

 

(2) The vehicle must be secured by an immobilisation device, unless the debtor voluntarily surrenders the keys to the vehicle to the enforcement agent.

 

(3) The immobilisation device must be provided by the enforcement agent.

 

(4) At the time of immobilising the goods, the enforcement agent must provide a written warning to the debtor in accordance with regulation 16(3).

 

(5) A vehicle must remain immobilised where it is positioned for a period of not less than 2 hours from the time of immobilisation unless the sum outstanding is paid or an agreement to release the vehicle, on part payment of the sum outstanding, is made between the enforcement agent and the debtor.

 

(6) On expiry of the period of time referred to under paragraph (5), the enforcement agent may remove the vehicle to storage.

 

(7) Where a vehicle is removed to storage, the enforcement agent must comply with the requirements of regulation 34 (care of controlled goods).

[Satterthwaite]

Uncle B,

 

it was filmed last July I believe, dont think the new rules applied then.

[ploddertom]

Seeing as there were a lot of Officers seen lolling about in the Parking Mad program it makes you wonder if:

a - who pays all their wages

b - are any of them on overtime

c - is it really necessary to have that many attending

d - it certainly was not best use of resources

[Satterthwaite]

I have a feeling from watching this programme bearing in mind it is edited, that the bailiffs are piggy backing on a Police ANPR operation.

 

There are to many police just for the bailiffs and if you look in the back ground you can see police dealing with motorists without any bailiffs present.

 

Either way the Police should not be assisting bailiffs, it was good to hear the Peugeot driver make that point.

[Bazooka Boo]

Either way the Police should not be assisting bailiffs, it was good to hear the Peugeot driver make that point.

 

I did pick up on that yes, he was right in what he said to them, ''You shouldn't be stopping drivers and helping these it's a civil offence'' surprised they kept that in at all TBH, not often you hear the truth on the Beeb..

[unclebulgaria67]

Uncle B,

 

it was filmed last July I believe, dont think the new rules applied then.

 

I meant that in future operations they would have to think about where these were done.

[Satterthwaite]

There should not be any future operations.

[old bill]

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 !!![/QUOTE]

 

It is all very well police forces trying to rely on Section 163, Road Traffic Act 1988 to get them off the hook. They have to be able to justify stopping someone. They cannot stop someone for the sheer hell of it or for some private sector bailiff chasing a civil debt. Notwithstanding, the old chestnut bailiffs use about warrants being enforceable anywhere, anyone with knowledge of the law, especially where it applies to warrants, knows that if you do not comply with the conditions on a warrant, regardless of whether it is civil or criminal, it will come back and sink its teeth into your buttocks.

[tomtubby]

Old bill.

 

Thank you for copying my post and in so doing.....highlighting once again that the police are NOT supposed to be involved in these operations. I have written an extensive article for a public sector trade editorial which should be published this evening and I will then be permitted to post a copy here on the forum.

[brassnecked]

Oldbill and tomtubby,doesn't the police officer, have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence or moving traffic violation, and unfortunately for the EA, their ANPR going "Achtung debtor" or whatever is not a reasonable cause to stop under S163 RTA. The nub is S163 is related to criminal, and a private certificated EA is not entitled to rely on S163. All ANPR roadside ops are challengeable imho.

[old bill]

Old bill.

 

Thank you for copying my post and in so doing.....highlighting once again that the police are NOT supposed to be involved in these operations. I have written an extensive article for a public sector trade editorial which should be published this evening and I will then be permitted to post a copy here on the forum.

 

You are most welcome, Tomtubby. I feel you have nothing to lose by approaching the Police Federation and Superintendents Association as to the lawfulness of their members becoming involved in these operations. I know this may sound terrible, but, sometimes, you have to get personal, that is, highlight the consequences for individual officers of their taking part in these illegal operations. The Police Federation represents police officers of the ranks of Constable, Sergeant, Inspector and Chief Inspector. The Superintendents Association represents officers of the ranks of Superintendent and Chief Superintendent. ACPO represents officers of the ranks of Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Chief Constable and, in the Metropolitan and City of London forces, the ranks of Commander, Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner.

 

I have said this on another forum where I post, but I feel the Police Federation and Superintendents Association are more likely to be receptive and listen than ACPO. You may wish to approach the respective chairs of the two staff associations I have mentioned within the Metropolitan Police Service.

 

Hope this helps.

[unclebulgaria67]

Would individual officers be liable or would it be the force they work for ? These roadside operations are arranged at a high level, presumably assistant Chief Constables. They could be aware that they receive part of their funding indirectly from PCN's. Councils pay money towards the Police and some will be from revenues from PCN's. So if there are millions of pounds worth of PCN's outstanding, this would mean less money that councils could give the Police. Or is the amount councils give Police set by government, so it would only be the council and residents that would suffer from not having this missing PCN revenue ?

[brassnecked]

UB The police normally have a direct precept which they levy as part of the council tax bill, as a per household charge. Whether these ANPR ops provide funding under another head is an FOI matter, but they will likely evade answering

[old bill]

Oldbill and tomtubby,doesn't the police officer, have to have reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed or is about to commit a criminal offence or moving traffic violation, and unfortunately for the EA, their ANPR going "Achtung debtor" or whatever is not a reasonable cause to stop under S163 RTA. The nub is S163 is related to criminal, and a private certificated EA is not entitled to rely on S163. All ANPR roadside ops are challengeable imho.

 

Hi BN,

 

Below is taken straight from Section 163, Road Traffic Act 1988 -

 

163 Power of police to stop vehicles.

 

(1)A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].

 

(2)A person riding a cycle on a road must stop the cycle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F3or a traffic officer].

 

(3)If a person fails to comply with this section he is guilty of an offence.

 

(4)F4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Whilst the provision does not specify any reason, my gut-feeling is that a Constable would have to have a lawful reason to stop a vehicle, e.g. suspicion of involvement in a criminal or road traffic offence, or in order to prevent an accident because the road had subsided. Lawful reason would not, in my opinion, include stopping a motorist to facilitate the execution of a warrant for a civil debt or de-criminalised Penalty Charge Notice. Notwithstanding, a warrant for non-payment of a magistrates court fine would be lawful reason for stopping a vehicle, but only for a Civilian Enforcement Officer (CEO) employed directly by HMCTS who holds a formal warrant, not a private-sector bailiff.

 

It is my understanding that the use of ANPR by those other than law enforcement agencies is currently under review and may well be outlawed, which would cause problems for civil enforcement companies and private parking companies.

[old bill]

Would individual officers be liable or would it be the force they work for ? These roadside operations are arranged at a high level, presumably assistant Chief Constables. They could be aware that they receive part of their funding indirectly from PCN's. Councils pay money towards the Police and some will be from revenues from PCN's. So if there are millions of pounds worth of PCN's outstanding, this would mean less money that councils could give the Police. Or is the amount councils give Police set by government, so it would only be the council and residents that would suffer from not having this missing PCN revenue ?

 

The police are funded partly by central government and partly by an element within Council Tax. Revenue obtained from PCNs does not enter the equation or argument. My suspicion is that malevolent individuals - aka disrupters - have been repeatedly chanting the mantra that those who do not pay de-criminalised PCNs are criminals and then push what are known as "nudge" policies to facilitate these illegal roadside operations. To give an example of these individuals, an individual at a meeting connected with the protest camp at Barton Moss Fracking Site, near Manchester, was repeatedly calling protesters at the site "economic terrorists". It is my understanding this is individual is now being monitored.

[tomtubby]

I would think that Whyte & Co may well regret following the British Parking Association's (BPA) suggestion to participate in this TV series. Over the weekend I counted seven Freedom of Information requests on the What do They Know website. I would assume that there are a lot more FOI requests that are not made on the public website. A complete disaster for the enforcement companies and the police involved:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/powers_to_stop_vehicles_used_in#incoming-511641

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/payments_from_whyte_and_co#incoming-511306