MPS rules and regs

[mikeymack2002]

I was surfing the MPS site today and came across this. http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Interim-Standard-Operating-Procedures-Police-and-Bailiffs/1400023687221/1400023687221

 

See page one bottom right hand corner named "related publications". This is a very interesting read for those of us that want more information on the MPS ANPR stops with a CEO in attendance. Its a long document happy reading. For ease I have attached a copy as a PDF sorry if it has already been posted before

[brassnecked]

Excellent MM most interesting

 

Looking at this

 

"A recent check (within the preceding 3 weeks) with DVLA to confirm the

registered keeper of the vehicle. If the person named on the warrant is no longer

the registered keeper then that vehicle must be removed from the database

unless it can be demonstrated that the vehicle is being falsely registered or still

used by the person named on the warrant and it is likely that they will be traced

through the registration number being held on the database.

A recent check with the Motor Insurers Bureau, which shows that the person

named on the warrant is still insured to drive the vehicle – this will provide

reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle continues to be used by the

person named on the warrant"

 

It just about blows Whyte & Co and JBW out of the water, and puts them in the frame for claims against them and the police for their vehicles being taken when they are not the named debtor.

[mikeymack2002]

This one is great too see 2.4.11.

 

 

1. MPS police officers may stop a vehicle at the request of the CEO supervisor if the following circumstances apply:
    
   
   

 

• When reasonable suspicion of criminal offending is pointed out to an officer.
  
• For the purpose of executing a warrant providing that constable with a power to arrest or to detain or enter and search the vehicle in question, (but not purely for the purpose of executing a warrant directing enforcement by civilian enforcement officers only) In respect of powers of CEO and Police this would normally only be warrants issued under S.125 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.
  

 

 

 

[unclebulgaria67]

So are these roadside joint ops starting up again or are they still suspended ?

[mikeymack2002]

At present they are suspended, allegedly, until the MPS has sought further legal advice I believe. They need to get this one right or there maybe issues further down the line.

 

I attended Osprey House in Chelmsford yesterday (CPS HQ Essex) in regards to certain questions being raised about the fees issue. I am now awaiting the outcome of my enquiries

 

It could take a few weeks to come through.

 

Having read this document several times there appears to be much wrong with the interactions of this. (MPS/CEO's) one point I have asked is how can the Ceo's upload to the PNC?

 

They cannot it is a secure system, so therefore there are many more questions regarding this type of interaction. have the MPS stated that a CEO can upload to the PNC in public? So something else will now need to be asked is this ...

 

What access do the CEO's have to the PNC system and do they have access to the DVLA systems too? Do CEO's have access to ANY OTHER SECURE SYSTEM?

 

 

A question that should now be asked of the MoJ is how much access do CEO's have to secure systems including the PNC/DVLA/Local authority and so on

[brassnecked]

CEO's should not have access to PNC, especially if Civilian EAs aka bailiffs are included in the definition CEO by the MET

 

This is a can of worms that the MET, MOJ and Ea;s will regret being opened and spilled.

[mikeymack2002]

CEO's should not have access to PNC, especially if Civilian EAs aka bailiffs are included in the definition CEO by the MET

 

This is a can of worms that the MET, MOJ and Ea;s will regret being opened and spilled.

 

 

Please re-read 1.3.7. bullet point one, this allows the "data" to be uploaded to the ANPR van for that period of time in a "certain" format therefore allowing access to the PNC via the ANPR team

[mikeymack2002]

What do you think of Part two? especially 2.4.6 this is already incorrect as the data has been "uploaded" to the ANPR system by the CEO data

 

 

How about this one 2.4.11. bullet 2?

[brassnecked]

What do you think of Part two? especially 2.4.6 this is already incorrect as the data has been "uploaded" to the ANPR system by the CEO data

 

"2.4.6. MPS ANPR Operations are police led operations and as such only MPS ANPR It is extremely grim as the Civil data has no business on a police system

technology will be used to identify vehicles that are to be stopped by police."

 

How about this one 2.4.11. bullet 2?

 

2.4.11. MPS police officers may stop a vehicle at the request of the CEO supervisor if

the following circumstances apply:

 When reasonable suspicion of criminal offending is pointed out to an officer.

 For the purpose of executing a warrant providing that constable with a power to

arrest or to detain or enter and search the vehicle in question, (but not purely for

the purpose of executing a warrant directing enforcement by civilian enforcement

officers only) In respect of powers of CEO and Police this would normally only be

warrants issued under S.125 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980.

 The CEO supervisor provides reasonable suspicion that an offence under S 18

or S.20 to S.24 of the Road Vehicles (Registration & Licensing) Regulations 2002

(vehicle is not correctly registered). However see section 1.3.5 above. That would tend to indicate that a stop for a purely Civil PCN would automatically unlawful.

 

 

The whole joint ops scenario is looking even more dodgy by the day.

[old bill]

Civilian Enforcement Officers (CEOS) are civil servants employed directly by HMCTS. They are sometimes known as Warrant Officers. They would be permitted to have access to the Police National Computer (PNC) as a part of their duties.

 

A Certificated Enforcement Agent (CEA) is not permitted to have access to the PNC. Anyone who allowed a CEA to have access to the PNC or disclosed information from the PNC to a CEA or civil enforcement company would be in very serious trouble, most likely to result in criminal prosecution, as would the CEA or civil enforcement company.

 

As for civil enforcement companies downloading data onto police ANPR systems, my feeling on this is that it would need to be considered by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) as to whether the civil enforcement companies and police forces involved have breached the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

In a post above, BN has posted -

 

It just about blows Whyte & Co and JBW out of the water, and puts them in the frame for claims against them and the police for their vehicles being taken when they are not the named debtor.

 

To be honest, BN, it could be a lot more serious for both companies and, if I were Paul Whyte and Jamie Waller, I would be very worried, because when the proverbial hits the air conditioning, some very serious questions are going to be asked about individual seizures and if it is shown there was no lawful authority or right in law to seize vehicles or demand money from motorists, then it could be very serious indeed. We could be talking criminal prosecution, confiscation orders, company director disqualification orders, etc.,etc..

 

As the saying goes, "As you sow, so shall you reap."

[brassnecked]

Olsbill has highlighted possible consequences, but really the whole thing hinges on greed for revenue, so the councils are as complicit along with the MET and JBW, as to the MET, they obviously didn't check and consider the effect of various laws regarding what they were doing, and anyway a police stop for a civil debt is automatically unlawful. Sadly I feel they will try to sweep this one under the carpet. Hopefully it is too late for that, and the whole sorry tale will be told, and wronged innocents who lost cars and possibly jobs and marriages will be given some restitution.

[Tryst]

Excellent MM most interesting

 

Looking at this

 

"A recent check (within the preceding 3 weeks) with DVLA to confirm the

registered keeper of the vehicle. If the person named on the warrant is no longer

the registered keeper then that vehicle must be removed from the database

unless it can be demonstrated that the vehicle is being falsely registered or still

used by the person named on the warrant and it is likely that they will be traced

through the registration number being held on the database.

A recent check with the Motor Insurers Bureau, which shows that the person

named on the warrant is still insured to drive the vehicle – this will provide

reasonable grounds to suspect that the vehicle continues to be used by the

person named on the warrant"

 

So the owner of the car still gets his car stolen by the police, even though the driver is not the owner?

 

My car is owned by someone who is currently working abroad, he owns it but I drive it with his permission. How can this give police the right to take his car to pay a debt I may have incurred? I sold the car to him simply because I couldn't afford to keep it myself, he pays for the MOT, road tax and repairs because it is parked on the road and therefore has to be taxed and MOT'd. All I pay for is insurance and fuel although I do buy the tax and sort out the MOT and repairs on his behalf. When he returns from abroad, I have to relinquish it to him since I am only borrowing it, I then have to find alternative transport to get to work. Once I have sorted out my financial problems and can afford my own car again, I will buy one. He's got about two more years on his contract and then he returns for good, I have until then to sort out my own financial problems so I can get my own car. He hates the British Police with a vengeance anyway, apart from giving me a blasting for letting it happen, he would be looking to sue the police for it and he has pretty high legal connections in the UK so he's not the sort of person you want suing you.

[brassnecked]

Tryst, the main issue is that the bailiff/EA ANPR is out of date, and DVLA are useless so someone who bought a car three months previously, or the transfer was within the three week window indicated would risk having the car stolen by JBW or Whyte & co due to the ANPR, and probably unlawful stop. JBW have been known to take a car with police connivance even with full proof of ownership provided, as JBW say the car has a warrant against it, as the registration number is on it, so the innocent not knowing better hands over the keys and loses their car. all very nasty and unlawful, as the debt is not on the car but the owner at the time of the contravention.

[tomtubby]

MikeyMack

 

I think that you will find that the document that you have provided is the same one released under the Freedom of Information request that I published details ago a short while ago.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff#incoming-507274

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?422834-Police-and-Bailiff-%91ANPR-Roadside-Operations%92...response-at-last-from-the-Metropolitan-Police-!!!

[brassnecked]

Even if it is TT, it is good to keep the issue in the cold light of day, so that the EAs and MET can't sweep it under the carpet.

[old bill]

Olsbill has highlighted possible consequences, but really the whole thing hinges on greed for revenue, so the councils are as complicit along with the MET and JBW, as to the MET, they obviously didn't check and consider the effect of various laws regarding what they were doing, and anyway a police stop for a civil debt is automatically unlawful. Sadly I feel they will try to sweep this one under the carpet. Hopefully it is too late for that, and the whole sorry tale will be told, and wronged innocents who lost cars and possibly jobs and marriages will be given some restitution.

 

A lot of the problem hinges on woefully inadequate and ineffective regulation of the civil enforcement industry and politicisation of the police. Now the cat is well and truly out of the bag and it is now dawning on the Metropolitan Police their roadside operations with the likes of Whyte & Co, Newylns and JBW are beginning to show to be ill-advised at best, I have a feeling it will be open season on CEAs where the Met is concerned. Police officers are human beings after all and do not like being taken for fools or set up in a way that could, ultimately, compromise their integrity, reputations and, worse, lead to them losing their jobs or facing criminal proceedings for Misconduct in Public Office.

 

It is the local authorities who employed Whyte & Co, Newlyns and JBW who will take the rap financially, meaning it will be the Council Tax payers, us, who will end up indemnifying the likes of Whyte & Co, Newlyns and JBW against claims for compensation, damages and other civil remedies. The management of all three civil enforcement companies named in this post will, no doubt, claim they sought legal advice before becoming involved in these roadside operations. However, if my suspicions are correct, it will have been commercial lawyers who tend, more often than not, to tell the management of companies what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.

 

Waller has already had one good hard slap from the judiciary, when Lord Tugendhat told him he could not have an injunction to stop the Panorama programme going out on 6 April 2014 which showed a JBW bailiff behaving in the most appalling manner and a director of Newlyns was branded a liar by a judge. The civil enforcement industry has deluded itself that it is teflon-coated and nothing can stick to it. A lot of the problem is inadequate training of judges and police officers. What may possibly provide a solution and give the civil enforcement industry the wake-up call it needs is to appoint a new type of sheriff who is a law-enforcer rather than a high-ranking bailiff who can seize and cancel a CEA's certificate on the spot. The current system means the judge who hears a case against a CEA is hearing about an incident that has happened some weeks before and the CEA and civil enforcement company have had the opportunity to concoct a fairy story that would put the Brothers Grimm in the shade to get the CEA off the hook. My gut-feeling is that if CEAs knew a new type of law enforcer could be called out to an incident and send the CEA to the nearest Jobcentre Plus office there and then, only the most intellectually-challenged CEA would be willing to chance their luck. Something has to be done and such a measure may provide a workable solution.

[tomtubby]

Even if it is TT, it is good to keep the issue in the cold light of day, so that the EAs and MET can't sweep it under the carpet.

 

You are 100% correct and the more publicity the better. I am aware of a lot of work 'behind the scenes' regarding these police operations and it is my 'understanding' that the 'Guidance' (for want of a better decription) is currently being 'reviewed' and that a Consultation process will be undergoing. External 'stakeholders' will then be engaged.

[old bill]

You are 100% correct and the more publicity the better. I am aware of a lot of work 'behind the scenes' regarding these police operations and it is my 'understanding' that the 'Guidance' (for want of a better decription) is currently being 'reviewed' and that a Consultation process will be undergoing. External 'stakeholders' will then be engaged.

 

My concern about what you say, TT, is that what tends to happen is that those involved wait for things to settle, then, quietly start up again. This may sound cynical, but I have seen it happen. But you are absolutely correct, as is BN, that this matter should be kept in the public domain as much as possible and for as long as possible.

[tomtubby]

Old Bill,

 

I think that the while matter of ANPR use of bailiffs is under a great deal of confusion right now given the statement this week regarding the amendments in the Deregulation Bill which had it's 3rd reading on Monday. We now know that there is the provision to ban CCTV use and in time the EXTENT to which the ban may apply will become clearer. Whilst the actual reference to 'ANPR' was not in the 3rd reading (amendment) it nonetheless was heavily used elsewhere in the media and indeed by the British Parking Association. As I have said, there is lot going on in the 'background' right now and it is right to ensure that this subject keeps in the public domain.

[old bill]

Old Bill,

 

I think that the while matter of ANPR use of bailiffs is under a great deal of confusion right now given the statement this week regarding the amendments in the Deregulation Bill which had it's 3rd reading on Monday. We now know that there is the provision to ban CCTV use and in time the EXTENT to which the ban may apply will become clearer. Whilst the actual reference to 'ANPR' was not in the 3rd reading (amendment) it nonetheless was heavily used elsewhere in the media and indeed by the British Parking Association. As I have said, there is lot going on in the 'background' right now and it is right to ensure that this subject keeps in the public domain.

 

I have to say, TT, that serious questions need to be asked as to the use of ANPR, including its use by the police, with individual officers admitting they have concerns as to the accuracy of what is on the databases ANPR relies on to operate. Instances of vehicles being flagged as suspect and stopping innocent motorists is not unusual. The one that gives the most concern is the Motor Insurers' Database (MID). Its accuracy is shocking. And even when police ring the insurance companies to confirm whether a vehicle is insured or not, they cannot be entirely certain the information they are being given by insurance company staff is 100% accurate.

 

Local authorities, private parking companies and the civil enforcement industry should never have been allowed to acquire and use ANPR equipment in the first place. Experience has shown that it is widely abused and its supply needs to be strictly controlled and its use strictly regulated with robust safeguards put in place to ensure people do not become the victims of blunders, dishonesty and incompetence.

 

You have worked hard to ensure the public are treated fairly, TT, and I take my hat off to you for that.

[BankFodder]

a director of Newlyns was branded a liar by a judge

 

Could you provide a source for this please and the actual words used.

Thank you

[BankFodder]

I can see now that saying that Mr David Smith - of Newlyn was "branded a liar" by the judge is not strictly correct.

 

In fact Mr David Smith provided a statement - presumably signed as a statement of truth in support of a bailiff who subsequently had his certificate removed.

Mr David Smith's statement turned out to be untrue. The judge didn't call Mr David Smith a liar. Instead he said that Newllyn's Mr David Smith's statement was probably deliberately false and seemed to amount to a serious contempt of court.

The judge went on to direct that proceedings for contempt to be brought against Mr David Smith of Newlyn.

 

In the end, it seems that Mr David Smith claimed that the untrue statement was not a deliberate lie - it was simply an administrative error and apparently the decision was taken not to institute proceedings for contempt against Mr David Smith of Newlyn.

 

His Honour Judge Platt decided that Mr Morgan was not a fit and proper person to hold a bailiff’s certificate and ordered his existing certificate to be declared null and void.

The judge went on to question the truthfulness of Mr Mr David Smith’s supporting statement for Mr Morgan that said: “We have not received any complaints concerning his working practices.” In fact files from Northampton County Court reveal that details of a complaint about Mr Morgan had been sent to Mr Smith in August 2007.

The judge said: “In the light of these letters there is a strong prima facie case that the statement made by Mr Smith in his reference dated 25th July was not just incorrect but deliberately false. That would appear to be a serious contempt of court and I direct that Her Majesty’s Court Service send a copy of this judgment and all relevant correspondence to Her Majesty’s Attorney-General to consider the institution of proceedings in the Divisional Court for contempt against Mr David Smith.

The extract above is taken from para.15 of the judgement of His Honour Judge Platt at Romford County Court on 29th September 2009 concerning an complaint against Mr David Morgan who was then employed by Newlyn.

[brassnecked]

He was not entirely truthful then, but still that would make him not a fit and proper person.

[old bill]

I can see now that saying that Mr David Smith - of Newlyn was "branded a liar" by the judge is not strictly correct.

 

In fact Mr David Smith provided a statement - presumably signed as a statement of truth in support of a bailiff who subsequently had his certificate removed.

Mr David Smith's statement turned out to be untrue. The judge didn't call Mr David Smith a liar. Instead he said that Newllyn's Mr David Smith's statement was probably deliberately false and seemed to amount to a serious contempt of court.

The judge went on to direct that proceedings for contempt to be brought against Mr David Smith of Newlyn.

 

In the end, it seems that Mr David Smith claimed that the untrue statement was not a deliberate lie - it was simply an administrative error and apparently the decision was taken not to institute proceedings for contempt against Mr David Smith of Newlyn.

 

The extract above is taken from para.15 of the judgement of His Honour Judge Platt at Romford County Court on 29th September 2009 concerning an complaint against Mr David Morgan who was then employed by Newlyn.

Can I respectively suggest you read the email I sent you, BF? Any reasonable person would consider what you have posted above, in legalese, to be construed, in colloquial terms, as being branded a teller of untruths. Unlike yourself, I did not name the director, but you have. If you check the email and post you expressed concerned about, the reference was removed before you posted the above.

[BankFodder]

Can I respectively suggest you read the email I sent you, BF? Any reasonable person would consider what you have posted above, in legalese, to be construed, in colloquial terms, as being branded a teller of untruths. Unlike yourself, I did not name the director, but you have. If you check the email and post you expressed concerned about, the reference was removed before you posted the above.

Thanks for this. I did respond to you by email. Maybe it went into your spam folder.

I agree that there is room for all sorts of interpretation. It's amazing that senior figures in companies such as Newlyn can make such significant administrative errors and then sign them off as a statement of truth which then troubles a British judge so much that he announces in court that the statement is probably deliberately false and goes on to recommend proceedings for contempt.

 

 

Such a statement - or even a suspicion - from a British judge could have a very devastating effect on the reputation of any reputable company.