MPS rules and regs

[Fair-Parking]

Sadly I think that the reality is that it has no effect at all. Newlyn has been in denial about this for five years.

 

The director concerned was active on Newlyn's stand at the recent ParkEx exhibition.

 

However it is nice to know that Newlyn and its legal representative seriously feel the need to keep abreast of the forum and that any reference to this judgment still touches a raw nerve.

[HCEOs]

This law may complicate the issue:

 

Section 99, Schedule 7, paragraph 5 of the Courts Act 2003 - Constable’s duty to assist enforcement officers

 

5. It is the duty of every constable, at the request of—

 

(a) an enforcement officer, or

 

(b) a person acting under the officer’s authority,

 

to assist the officer or that person in the execution of a writ or warrant.

 

 

The word 'warrant' was inserted by the TCE Act 2007 in 2008.

TCE Act amendment 2008

[Fair-Parking]

Not in parking. No judicial courts involved. Refer to Section 6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 which in itself replaces sections 85 and 86 of the County Court Acts 1984.

[HCEOs]

You have far more experience in parking than I, but I can't see that this particular part of the County Court Act does not apply....

[Fair-Parking]

The answer is simple. Parking enforcement does not go through the county courts and thus sections 85 and 86 of the County Courts Act does not apply which is what Setion 6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 confirms

[HCEOs]

But this is Section 99, not 85/6....

[brassnecked]

HCEOs are you saying that the new regs TCGA 2008 allow these police stops for a Civilian ANPR match?

 

If so the police become less than impartial, although the duty existed to assist a HCEO, or a warranted CEO, but not a private certificated bailiff/EA. The question as raised by FP is that parking may well be different, so again might be conflicting legislation as even within a Statute, one section can appear to contradict another.

 

What a can of worms is opened.

[HCEOs]

brassnecked, in truth I'm not sure but the law I refer to does not appear to be repealed and if it does stand then an enforcement agent could argue that the Police were assisting him in the execution of a warrant.

[brassnecked]

brassnecked, in truth I'm not sure but the law I refer to does not appear to be repealed and if it does stand then an enforcement agent could argue that the Police were assisting him in the execution of a warrant.

 

It would appear though that the MET are worried as their protocol doesn't allow for a Cerificated Private EA, to be involved on the face of the document linked to they not being a warranted Officer of the Court, or even the same status as a HCEO /EA like yourself where the duty to assist definitely exists.

 

There are also issues of the likes of Whyte & Co and JBW apparently uploading civil debtors details and car index numbers that may no longer belong to the named debtor to the PNC, that of itself is extremely serious, the debts not being criminal.

[Fair-Parking]

Section 99 refers to High Court writs and not parking

[brassnecked]

Section 99 refers to High Court writs and not parking

 

In which case a duty to assist a civilian bailiff/EA doesn't exist in a parking matter, would the same be true of all the LA generated civil penalties, like bus lanes, box junctions, traffic lights etc?

 

One place it might apply possibly/maybe is a Parking Charge Notice from Parking Eye, if they get a CCJ max it out to £601, get a writ and get a HCEO, but then that would not be on ANPR apart from the in/out camera PE have on a place they infect or infest, so would not be a roadside pull by police.

[Fair-Parking]

BN - you would be right to believe that parking enforcement exists in its own bubble.

 

That is because unlike judicial courts, parking is enforced on a presumption of guilt.

 

This is why joint operations are so repulsive as we should not be asking the police to

on what will never be any more than an allegation.

 

The legislators recognised this when drafting section 6.

 

The MET, LAs and bailiffs thought they all knew better and are now in deep trouble.

[brassnecked]

FP, the problem is that somehow the Civil parking regime has managed to get the police thinking a PCN is a fine in the criminal sense, and they seemed to be buying it until this blow up from Parking Mad. That is even before we get to the parasites like Parking Eye.

 

What is revolting is that the police assist in depriving unlawfully an innocent new owner of their property for the previous owners PCN as the EA ANPR has the car registration on it.

[old bill]

A Constable should only assist an EA, whether certificated or High Court, where the EA is acting completely within the law. If not, the Constable should not assist the EA in any way, apart, that is, from removing the EA with the toe of their boot.

 

Speaking as a retired copper - Old School, I admit - any serving police officer who allows themselves to be hoodwinked into assisting an EA to commit and unlawful or illegal act is asking for trouble. Any EA who hoodwinks a serving police officer into assisting them to commit an unlawful or illegal act should not be surprised if the officer and his colleagues use the EA for target practice for the National Arse-Kicking Championships when the officer nearly loses his or her job because of the EA's actions.

[mikeymack2002]

This is a simple fix as far as I am concerned, a PCN is issued to a car not a person, but the person who was the driver at the time of the alleged offence is responsible. Hence the issue of the NTO

 

 

Even though the person driving may NOT be the owner at this time, the NTO is issued and a "fine" eventually issued to the then DRIVER/OWNER.

 

 

So the debt is now to a person not the index. Therefore as the debt is now against a person. That person may/not be the RO at the time of the stop. This needs to be verified by the Police which IS required for this to up loaded to the Police ANPR van for the duration of that op. The notes in my attachment in post #01 The quote is the information MUST be ACURATE at all times.

 

 

So looking at this as a child, The Warrant of control is for the OWNER at the time of the alleged offence, if the vehicle is caught in a stop area and if the driver can provide proof of ID to the Police officer and is NOT the named person of the vehicle at the time of the offence, then they cannot detain the driver further, or allow the EA to speak to the NOW driver, regardless of what the data in the ANPR van says.

 

 

The following MUST occur after a vehicle is stopped

 

 

 

1. Check the identity of the driver
   
2. Is the driver the new owner can they prove it with the bill of sale/receipt/v5 stub
   
3. If the driver is a new owner then the stop ends
   
4. If the driver IS the new owner then the EA cannot take control of the goods.
   
5. Has the V5 to DVLA been completed within the last 4 weeks? if so has the data been updated yet with the DVLA/EA systems?
   
6. line 5 can be checked instantly by the Police via the database THEY have which is more up to date than the EA (allegedly)
   
7. If the Identity of the current driver is not the named person on the Warrant of control then the EA should not take control of that vehicle.
   
8. If the driver is not the named person then the Police Must allow that driver to continue their journey unimpeded
   
9. If the Identity of the driver is NOT the owner at the time of the alleged offence or the named person on the Warrant of control then the DPA does not allow the EA to discuss the Warrant of control with the driver!!
   

Just my personal observations here and open to discussion if you want to

[Fair-Parking]

Its probably worse than that. The police believe that these self employed bounty hunters are 'court officers' enforcing 'court warrants' and that they have duty to ensure that such enforcements should not be interfered with. If it is then the description 'breach of the peace' is brought into play despite this being legally defined as violence or the imminent threat of violence. Arrests have been made for sitting in one's own vehicle.

 

Then the police have a thing called a 'Civilian Court Enforcement Officer' or 'CEO' as they describe it. The only CEOs are those who dispatch tickets and they must be in uniform. The rest are not even 'officers', they are agents or EAs. Anything with a 'C' in it in relation to a parking or minor traffic enforcement is the result of somebody's imagination.

 

Sorry for missing out 'enforce' in my previous email

[Fair-Parking]

Mikey Mac - There ain't no warrant of control and there ain't any debts in parking - only allegations

[mikeymack2002]

Fair-Parking this is what should happen at a stop in regards to ANY outstanding PCN

 

I know that you know that but the Police DO NOT know that

 

A stop should go like this

 

Police flags over vehicle

 

Police walks to car

 

Police asks for driving documents

 

Driver hands them over (if they have them on them)

 

Police are you the current owner?

 

Driver yes I bought it 3 weeks ago

 

Police have you got proof of this

 

Driver no

 

Police wait here whilst I check your details on the PNC/MIB/DVLA

 

Driver waits

 

Police return you are not xx xxxxx of address xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

Driver no

 

Sorry to stop you it is just a routine check

 

Police I also need to check with the EA to see if you are the named person for outstanding parking tickets

Police comes back, ok you are not that person that has these outstanding tickets, have a nice day please drive on.

[Fair-Parking]

Sorry but the police should not be involved with any PCN. The police don't stop anybody as PCNs and authorised warrants do not appear on any police database. The information to stop comes from the computer in the bailiff's ANPR van and the the police's. The bailiff then passes on the registration number to the congregation of police a few hundred yards down the road. Only then do the police act.

 

Already we have a problem, as the passing on of personal information even to the police for a civil matter is against the primary principles of the Data Protection Act 1998 - which is that all personal data should be safely stored and not made available except under the following sections -28 National Security, section 29 Crime and Taxation, section 35 Legal proceedings - none of which apply to parking. Indeed the pursuance of alleged civil debts is expressely forbidden by the ICO who wrote a directive to this effect on 23rd April 2009

 

This is why I was able to persuade Manchester City Council back in 2008 to discontinue their bailiffs (marstons) joint police operations. MCC recognised that not even the council, let alone its bailiffs, could pass on personal information on to a third party - which is all the police are in a civil matter

[mikeymack2002]

FP this topic is an absolute disgrace tbh the Police should not be involved.

 

 

If it is decided that all Forces now refuse to allow this to continue this should happen much sooner rather than later

[Fair-Parking]

It should also cease in relation to the police being called to people's homes. What on earth does the police think the word 'decrimininalised' means apart from 'Stay away, it's got nothing to do with thee'

 

What was the point of freeing up police time from administering parking, if they continue to invite themselves back - presumably at the expense of some poor boogar who desperately needs their assistance in relation to a criminal matter?

[DragonFly1967]

It should also cease in relation to the police being called to people's homes. What on earth does the police think the word 'decrimininalised' means apart from 'Stay away, it's got nothing to do with thee'

 

What was the point of freeing up police time from administering parking, if they continue to invite themselves back - presumably at the expense of some poor boogar who desperately needs their assistance in relation to a criminal matter?

 

But if they're being called, they aren't inviting themselves are they?

[Fair-Parking]

The law prevents them being there, so they are indeed inviting themselves by breaking the law to do it.

 

Nobody asks them to do that

[BigG123]

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.

 

It was Task Enforcement and Met Police

[old bill]

It was Task Enforcement and Met Police

 

That figures... on both counts.