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

[old bill]

Thanks OLD BILL for the input, these issues are just the start of the next cluster ****, as far as Councils charging for gas most do so already, it will be in their T&C's most of which was rewritten in my area last November, Till I stuck my two penny worth in and they had to make some serious adjustments.

 

Any T & Cs not compliant with prevailing legislation are unenforceable and potentially unlawful or illegal.

[brassnecked]

A half good result then, what was not addressed ar appareently recognised by the MET was that their officers have been stopping and assisting the removal of third party vehicles, so information of how many new owners have had vehicles taken at the roadside with the assistance of police, because the EA has avowed the "Warrant is to the car" the index number being on it, then further how many of these third party owners were arrested for public order offences when they objected.

 

I agree with old bill that the polce will have difficulty wiith these cases as ab initio the whole process from stop to seizure was unlawful.

 

Will be emailing this thread to my MP, they should all see that the Civil Enforcement Industry is so out of control, and the new Regulations a chocolate fireguard.

[tomtubby]

Old Bill,

 

Thank you for your input. It is most helpful.

 

Over the past 10 days there were a number of rumours being heard to the effect that the Met Police had indeed suspended these operations but 2 days later one bailiff co were seen operating a Police & Bailiff Roadside Operation in London. It was thought that possibly only some police had made the decision to suspend the operations.

 

To my knowledge the letter that I have exhibited is the first official document confirming the suspension.

 

It is my understanding that CIVEA are writing to all their members regarding this matter.

[Satterthwaite]

Official PDF below:

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51531[/ATTACH]

 

 

My initial observations of that letter is how badly it is written.

 

3rd para, wrong act quoted, grammatically incorrect and why does he keep referring to CEO's, when Whyte & Co's thugs & liars are Enforcement Agents, Bailiffs to the man in the street?

[Fair-Parking]

I notice that the letter is dated 6th June. There is evidence that joint operations were still being held close to Tower Bridge on Monday 9th June. Not only does it seem that somebody lost his car after the police took his keys from the ignition, but his partner was threatened by the police that if she did not vacate the car, social services would be called to take her 3 month baby who was travelling with them.

 

If true it would appear that these operations are not only unlawful, but that insanity may be contagious

[old bill]

A half good result then, what was not addressed ar appareently recognised by the MET was that their officers have been stopping and assisting the removal of third party vehicles, so information of how many new owners have had vehicles taken at the roadside with the assistance of police, because the EA has avowed the "Warrant is to the car" the index number being on it, then further how many of these third party owners were arrested for public order offences when they objected.

 

I agree with old bill that the polce will have difficulty wiith these cases as ab initio the whole process from stop to seizure was unlawful.

 

Will be emailing this thread to my MP, they should all see that the Civil Enforcement Industry is so out of control, and the new Regulations a chocolate fireguard.

I have to agree with you, BN. These roadside operations raise serious questions of police accountability and their working with so-called "partner agencies". I feel that it is senior officers who should take the rap for all unlawful activities by junior colleagues, including Wrongful Arrest, Unlawful Detention, False Imprisonment and Malicious Prosecution. The CPS will not exactly be blameless in such instances as they should have checked the legal status of such activities and the lawfulness of the arrests. And it doesn't stop there. Any recovery operator who has provided tow trucks to remove seized vehicles to pounds and has benefited from either receiving fees or the proceeds from the sale of vehicles may well find themselves on the receiving end of more hassle than they want or can cope with, including litigation, possible seizure of their tow trucks, as any vehicle used in the commission of an illegal act can be seized, and, at worst, criminal prosecution. And it goes on. Motor auction houses and any other business involved in the sale or disposal of vehicles could find themselves attracting some unwanted attention from the police.

 

I have read of cases on this and another forum where I post of bailiffs reaching into cars, whilst the driver is still in the car and forcibly taking the ignition keys, using violence to do so in some cases. This is the equivalent of a bailiff using violence against a person standing in the doorway of their home and the bailiff pushing them aside or knocking them over in order to gain entry. It is totally illegal and bailiffs found to have done so should suffer the immediate suspension of their certificate, pending an investigation into how many other cases they have used violence to seize vehicles or gain entry to homes, followed by cancellation. In no way should a bailiff who has used unprovoked violence or unlawful or illegal force against either a householder or motorist be permitted to continue to work as a bailiff. In such cases, suspension of their certificate should be a precursor to cancellation, not retraining.

 

Once word of this case gets out, it will be around all police forces like wildfire. Yes, it is quite likely officers in other police forces will be calling the Met "muppets", but I have a feeling it will have officers of chief officer rank - Assistant Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable and Chief Constable - asking themselves and their junior colleagues some serious questions as to the conduct of certificated bailiffs and the police service's relationships with the civil enforcement industry. Will this lead to HMCTS reviewing their relationships with the likes of Marstons, Collectica, Pelham Excel and Proserve Swift as regards the collection of court fines? I would not rule this out.

[old bill]

I notice that the letter is dated 6th June. There is evidence that joint operations were still being held close to Tower Bridge on Monday 9th June. Not only does it seem that somebody lost his car after the police took his keys from the ignition, but his partner was threatened by the police that if she did not vacate the car, social services would be called to take her 3 month baby who was travelling with them.

 

If true it would appear that these operations are not only unlawful, but that insanity may be contagious

 

Oh dear. One officer who is going to find his backside being kicked from one end of Victoria Street, London SW1 to the other end and around Parliament Square for an encore by a senior officer. The only instances in which a police officer may do what you have highlighted, F-P, is -

 

a. if the vehicle is stolen or suspected of being stolen or taken without the owner's consent; or

b. the driver is unfit to drive through drink or drugs or is suspected of being under the influence of drink or drugs; or

c. the vehicle is suspected of being involved in the commission of a crime.

 

Other than these instances, a police officer has no power to reach into a car and remove the keys from the ignition. It is, at best, abuse of authority, at worst, criminal conduct. As to the police ordering the occupants to vacate the vehicle to facilitate seizure by a certificated bailiff for an unpaid de-criminalised PCN, the officer involved has acted ultra vires ab initio and could face disciplinary action leading to dismissal from the police service.

[tomtubby]

Will this lead to HMCTS reviewing their relationships with the likes of Marstons, Collectica, Pelham Excel and Proserve Swift as regards the collection of court fines? I would not rule this out.

 

Old Bill,

 

In reply to your above comment Magistrate Court FINES are NOT enforced by either Penham Excel or Proserve. The four companies that are permitted under contract to enforce such fines are Marston Group, Collectica, Excel Enforcement (Wales) and Swift Credit Services (also in Wales).

 

On a separate matter Proserve have severe problems regarding their access to DVLA records (for private parking). Penham Excel are trying to get into the council tax and parking sector but in the main they mainly deal with unpaid rent cases on behalf of commercial landlords.

 

As I had said elsewhere on the is thread the right of police to assist enforcement agents pursuing criminal court FINES is legal. However, very few cases are enforced by way of ANPR.

[tomtubby]

A further point that I would make here is that the letter displayed is from one department but I can assure you that there are other very senior people overseeing this matter over at the Intelligence unit at New Scotland Yard and even other departments.

[old bill]

Old Bill,

 

Thank you for your input. It is most helpful.

 

Over the past 10 days there were a number of rumours being heard to the effect that the Met Police had indeed suspended these operations but 2 days later one bailiff co were seen operating a Police & Bailiff Roadside Operation in London. It was thought that possibly only some police had made the decision to suspend the operations.

 

To my knowledge the letter that I have exhibited is the first official document confirming the suspension.

 

It is my understanding that CIVEA are writing to all their members regarding this matter.

 

You are welcome, TT.

 

Turning to your query about operations continuing, the letter that has been posted on this thread has come from the Met's Traffic and Roads Policing Operational Command Unit (OCU), hence why officers referred to in the letter have their ranks shown as "T/Chief Inspector". The "T" indicates "Traffic". The Traffic and Roads Policing OCU is a completely separate OCU from Borough OCUs and can initiate its own operations, as can Borough OCUs. It looks like this is going to have to be pursued at a much higher level than Borough Commander, who holds the rank of Chief Superintendent. I would suggest the Assistant Commissioner responsible for operational policing of London Boroughs would be a good place to start, escalating to Deputy Commissioner and, ultimately, Commissioner, if necessary.

 

Hope this helps.

[slob]

I notice that the letter is dated 6th June. There is evidence that joint operations were still being held close to Tower Bridge on Monday 9th June. Not only does it seem that somebody lost his car after the police took his keys from the ignition, but his partner was threatened by the police that if she did not vacate the car, social services would be called to take her 3 month baby who was travelling with them.

 

If true it would appear that these operations are not only unlawful, but that insanity may be contagious

 

 

I have been lurking round here for ages. I know very little about the law, but reading this post thought that if this happened close to the north of Tower Bridge the chances are it was City of London Police.

[old bill]

Will this lead to HMCTS reviewing their relationships with the likes of Marstons, Collectica, Pelham Excel and Proserve Swift as regards the collection of court fines? I would not rule this out.

 

Old Bill,

 

In reply to your above comment Magistrate Court FINES are NOT enforced by either Penham Excel or Proserve. The four companies that are permitted under contract to enforce such fines are Marston Group, Collectica, Excel Enforcement (Wales) and Swift Credit Services (also in Wales).

 

On a separate matter Proserve have severe problems regarding their access to DVLA records (for private parking). Penham Excel are trying to get into the council tax and parking sector but in the main they mainly deal with unpaid rent cases on behalf of commercial landlords.

 

As I had said elsewhere on the is thread the right of police to assist enforcement agents pursuing criminal court FINES is legal. However, very few cases are enforced by way of ANPR.

 

Agreed. However, cases on this and other forums have highlighted that EAs collecting unpaid court fines are not beyond stretching the truth or misquoting or misrepresenting the law in order to achieve their objectives. This is not good for justice or the police. CEOs directly employed by HMCTS are fully accountable, being civil servants, and, in my experience, use their commonsense when dealing with fine defaulters, not the sort of behaviour that has become evident amongst private sector EAs. Whoever advised MPs to allow court fines collection and enforcement to be outsourced to the private sector should be sacked, if a civil servant or on the public payroll in any capacity or receiving remuneration from public funds. The fraud committed by G4S and SERCO over offender tagging should have set alarm bells ringing at 102 Petty France as well as other places in Westminster. It clearly did not and it is now for electors to put MPs on the spot and make them earn their salaries and gilt-edged pensions.

[old bill]

I have been lurking round here for ages. I know very little about the law, but reading this post thought that if this happened close to the north of Tower Bridge the chances are it was City of London Police.

 

Ah. The criminal cabal's private police force. The sooner City of London Police is disbanded the better.

[unclebulgaria67]

As I said before, the 'state' will always excercise their power against the public and the only slight protection people have is to get a helpful Judge in a judicial review of the matter. This is the type of situation that would end up in the European court of Human Rights, as UK powers will try to stop any chance of this all being unwound. There would be many millions of pounds involved and probably government ministers/mayor of London called to explain what has happened. This is not going to happen at any point in the near future. They will dig their heels in, suspend activities for awhile and hold a review, giving them time to think how they are going to cover up the mess, plus ensure that they can continue to collect unpaid PCN's.

[old bill]

As I said before, the 'state' will always excercise their power against the public and the only slight protection people have is to get a helpful Judge in a judicial review of the matter. This is the type of situation that would end up in the European court of Human Rights, as UK powers will try to stop any chance of this all being unwound. There would be many millions of pounds involved and probably government ministers/mayor of London called to explain what has happened. This is not going to happen at any point in the near future. They will dig their heels in, suspend activities for awhile and hold a review, giving them time to think how they are going to cover up the mess, plus ensure that they can continue to collect unpaid PCN's.

 

Cases under the Human Rights Act 1998 can be pursued at county court level, UB. Before a human rights case can go to ECHR, it has to be heard by the county court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Most cases are resolved at county court level.

 

However, out of the 47 countries who are signatories to ECHR, the UK has the worst record for human rights abuses. Other countries may have only one or two cases a year end up before ECHR or the Grand Chamber of ECHR jn any one year, but the UK has, on average, at least 10 cases a year going before the court or Grand Chamber.

 

Another matter that needs to be remembered is that a judge has the power to attach a Certificate of Incompatibility to any provision contained within an Act of Parliament that breaches the Articles contained in ECHR and strike down (bring to an end) any provision contained within a Statutory Instrument or the Statutory Instrument itself that is incompatible with the Articles.

[unclebulgaria67]

Cases under the Human Rights Act 1998 can be pursued at county court level, UB. Before a human rights case can go to ECHR, it has to be heard by the county court, High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Most cases are resolved at county court level.

 

However, out of the 47 countries who are signatories to ECHR, the UK has the worst record for human rights abuses. Other countries may have only one or two cases a year end up before ECHR or the Grand Chamber of ECHR jn any one year, but the UK has, on average, at least 10 cases a year going before the court or Grand Chamber.

 

Another matter that needs to be remembered is that a judge has the power to attach a Certificate of Incompatibility to any provision contained within an Act of Parliament that breaches the Articles contained in ECHR and strike down (bring to an end) any provision contained within a Statutory Instrument or the Statutory Instrument itself that is incompatible with the Articles.

 

Yes realise all of that, but we all know that mostly UK judges are supportive of the state and will not want to 'rock the boat'. This is why so many UK cases end up in the ECHR. This is partly behind the reason why some political parties want to come out of the ECHR and have a UK bill of rights. They don't find it helpful having foreign Judges looking at UK issues.

 

I just don't think anything major will be done about the issues that arise from these Police/EA stops. They will find a way out of it, to limit anything they have to pay back.

[old bill]

There is an increasing number of judges who are putting their heads above the parapet and questioning what is going on, often putting civil and public servants to strict proof which pees them off no end. Also, High Court and Appeal Court judges are not beyond putting Secretaries of State firmly in their place as happened to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Home Secretary Mad Madam Mim May.

 

The reason why certain factions in the UK want the UK out of ECHR is because some MPs have prostituted themselves to a globalist and corporatist agenda. And, no, this is not a conspiracy theory; this is cold, hard fact.

 

Google "Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals" and download the PDF version. Read it and it will become crystal clear why what is going on is going on.

[tomtubby]

The actual decision to suspend these operations came from a senior Commander and was given in the last month of May. as I have said earlier there is a lot going on in the 'background'.

[unclebulgaria67]

There is an increasing number of judges who are putting their heads above the parapet and questioning what is going on, often putting civil and public servants to strict proof which pees them off no end. Also, High Court and Appeal Court judges are not beyond putting Secretaries of State firmly in their place as happened to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt and Home Secretary Mad Madam Mim May.

 

The reason why certain factions in the UK want the UK out of ECHR is because some MPs have prostituted themselves to a globalist and corporatist agenda. And, no, this is not a conspiracy theory; this is cold, hard fact.

 

Google "Saul Alinsky - Rules for Radicals" and download the PDF version. Read it and it will become crystal clear why what is going on is going on.

 

Yes I share some of these concerns. I think the most concerning is the concentration of wealth and power that comes with it. This is going to get worse in the years ahead and is partly behind some of the problems we currently have. Corporations love having a world with too many humans, as labour becomes cheaper and they can easily get governments to accept reduced rights of workers. e.g zero hours contracts. Oxfam recently highlighted some of the issues, which are going to get far worse during the next 30 years. World human population is due to peak at over 10 billion by 2050. Of course when you have debt issues caused by uncertainty in terms of income and increased living costs, there are DCA's, bailiffs etc, who will come along trying to earn a living, provide return for investors.

[unclebulgaria67]

The actual decision to suspend these operations came from a senior Commander and was given in the last month of May. as I have said earlier there is a lot going on in the 'background'.

 

I am glad that the weight of complaints following the BBC programme has led to action. But I fear that people will be left disappointed, with nothing done about the actions that have already taken place. I am just glad that I don't live in the London area, but know from relatives that owning a car and trying to avoid PCN'can be difficult. There are so many different parking rules, different bus lane time etc, that if you drive in an area you don't know really well, you can get caught out.

[old bill]

Yes I share some of these concerns. I think the most concerning is the concentration of wealth and power that comes with it. This is going to get worse in the years ahead and is partly behind some of the problems we currently have. Corporations love having a world with too many humans, as labour becomes cheaper and they can easily get governments to accept reduced rights of workers. e.g zero hours contracts. Oxfam recently highlighted some of the issues, which are going to get far worse during the next 30 years. World human population is due to peak at over 10 billion by 2050. Of course when you have debt issues caused by uncertainty in terms of income and increased living costs, there are DCA's, bailiffs etc, who will come along trying to earn a living, provide return for investors.

 

I think you would do well to download and read the publication I have mentioned, UB. What the politicos are trying to rush through is getting out into the public domain. Also, don't forget the saying, "Before the Gods destroy you, they first turn you mad."

[old bill]

The actual decision to suspend these operations came from a senior Commander and was given in the last month of May. as I have said earlier there is a lot going on in the 'background'.

 

Thank you for that, TT.

 

For those unfamiliar with ranks in the Met Police, the rank of Commander is equivalent to Assistant Chief Constable in a county force. Borough Commander is an operational title, not an actual police rank, and is held by an officer of the rank of Chief Superintendent, which is the rank immediately below a Commander/Assistant Chief Constable.

[Satterthwaite]

This is the response I received from the BBC;

 

Reference CAS-270**5-QV**0J

 

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Parking Mad’ recently.

 

I understand that you felt, in a recent episode, the police and bailiffs who featured were acting ‘illegally’.

 

‘Parking Mad’ is a documentary series on the world of parking. It gives viewers a behind the scenes look at the work of those involved in the world of parking. We don't have any sort of control over how parking attendants, bailiffs or indeed the police and other contributors carry out their work – if you’ve concerns about the way any officers conducted themselves you may wish to contact the relevant police force directly.

 

Nevertheless, I'd like to assure you that we've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback we compile daily for the programme makers and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape future decisions and they ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available to BBC staff across the Corporation.

 

Thanks again for contacting us.

 

Kind Regards

 

Stuart Webb

 

BBC Complaints

[old bill]

This is the response I received from the BBC;

 

Reference CAS-270**5-QV**0J

 

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC One’s ‘Parking Mad’ recently.

 

I understand that you felt, in a recent episode, the police and bailiffs who featured were acting ‘illegally’.

 

‘Parking Mad’ is a documentary series on the world of parking. It gives viewers a behind the scenes look at the work of those involved in the world of parking. We don't have any sort of control over how parking attendants, bailiffs or indeed the police and other contributors carry out their work – if you’ve concerns about the way any officers conducted themselves you may wish to contact the relevant police force directly.

 

Nevertheless, I'd like to assure you that we've registered your comments on our audience log. This is the internal report of audience feedback we compile daily for the programme makers and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape future decisions and they ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are made available to BBC staff across the Corporation.

 

Thanks again for contacting us.

 

Kind Regards

 

Stuart Webb

 

BBC Complaints

 

Typical BBC response. One reason why they are also known as the British Bull**** Corporation.

[Tryst]

I love the wording.

 

"It is clear that the police now recognise that assisting bailiffs with the collection of civil (non-criminal) debts is legally questionable."

 

'Legally questionable' indeed. How about 'completely bloody illegal'?