Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I had exactly the same issues.   Grossly over estimated bills from January onwards.  Despite what they claim, they are effectively taking an interest free loan from their customer base to keep the company in business.   They can dress it up how they like.  It’s irrelevant if they reconcile the bills the following month because they just over bill again thus keeping a rolling interest free loan.   it took two months of constant badgering to be finally moved to a fixed DD.   Once that was done I didn’t care how much they over-estimated by.   I had raised a query with the ombudsman over the billing fiasco and they readied a complaint should I wish to proceed.   I thought everything was sorted until May/June whereby I was allegedly more in debt then I was expecting to the tune of an extra months DD.   On querying it, it transpired that even though I was on a fixed monthly DD, because the bill was generated less than 5 days before the DD was due to be taken they didn’t take the DD.   They offered £5 compensation by way of apology but wanted to take two months DD in June.  I told them where to get off.   With appalling customer service,  bills that you need a Maths degree to follow, and I do have one and still struggled, inability to follow through on any agreements, constant gross over-estimation, the missed DD was the final straw and I proceeded with complaint to ombudsman.   Prior to getting to that stage I had to quote Symbio’s own complaints procedure to them to get any sort of response.   Their final offer to me was £25 goodwill and to waive an exit fee. The offer was derisory given the time it had taken to get things sorted and the continuing ineptitude.  Also, the whole thing has dragged on so long (5 months) I was already in the final 49 days of my contract and therefore there were no exit fees to pay and therefore nothing to waive.   Anyway, upshot is, ombudsman found in my favour.  Ordered an apology and a goodwill payment. Symbio appealed but were told the decision stood.   This week I received the goodwill payment.   I promptly left an honest and truthful review on trustpilot.   The next morning I received an email from Symbio with an apology.   This was followed an hour later with an email from trustpilot saying Symbio had replied to the review.  On reading the response they have accused me of not following procedure and of cyber bullying.   The company is a complete joke.
    • why not simply tell you supplier they have the wrong meter number you been paying for usage , and ofcourse you can view this online too so its not as if you'll owe anything you might get a nice surprise and find you are owed a refund.
    • The world of ballroom dancing went online to cope with the pandemic restrictions, but what does the future hold? View the full article
    • I would add, many companies have done everything possible to manage and carry on in difficult Covid19 circumstances to supply customers with what they need.   Continually making excuses for delays is not what I'd want from an installer and maybe the £100 deposit is not so important.   Get this deposit back if you can but, more importantly, find a local installer recommended by family or friends to carry out the works.
    • Hello all,   I hope you can assist me, as I am quite lost and confused at the moment.   Two years ago I moved to my actual flat. Throughout this time I have been with EDF first and now EON. When I moved in, my landlord didn't quite know which one was my meter and I picked the one that I believed was mine (now reading you I know I should have done a burner test..). During this time, I have been paying my bills and submitting the numbers that I believed mine, which actually agreed with my consuming patterns.   Today, all the meters appeared with numbers, but the one next to the one that I was using, which appeared with a different flat number. As you might have guessed, none of them had my flat number. I have just made the test and it looks like that one may be mine.   Now, how should I proceed? I have been paying bills is not like I wanted to avoid paying, but clearly there has been an issue. Could you please advice me on how to proceed?   Lastly, in terms of meter serial number, the one that I was using matches my bill and I guess my neighbor bill. The additional doubt I have is, who is paying for my meter and why are they still providing me with gas if no one is paying the one that seems to be my real meter.   Many thanks!    
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

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


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2299 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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

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

 

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...