Police and Bailiff ‘ANPR Roadside Operations’...bailiffs offering to pay a 15% "donation" to the police!!

[old bill]

I can hear rumblings from under the ground that when released under pressure might just make Versuvious look like a firework

 

Things like this have a habit of exploding into the public domain over time.

[brassnecked]

The reason these people can no longer get away with it is that they can all be outed on 't internet, there is nowhere to hide, so the victims now can raise the profile of their allegations. You don't think they are assuming those phone and other snooping powers so quickly to protec tus against the Islamists do you? The government and vested interests are more afraid of US, than any jihadi..

[tomtubby]

This subject is clearly of great importance and I have mentioned a few times since starting this thread that there are further developments 'in the background' regarding these 'Police & Bailiff Roadside Operation".

 

In this respect CCR Public Sector Editorial approached both Newlyn Plc and Whyte & Co to seek comments from then about these "Cubo Operations" and crucially, to ask whether or not payments were made to the Police. Late this afternoon CCR Public Sector released a news article outlining the full response received from both companies. To avoid this thread getting too long (and given the importance) I will start a new thread in a few moments time.

[outlawla]

Anyone know of any developments on the issues raised in this and another related thread?

[tomtubby]

Anyone know of any developments on the issues raised in this and another related thread?

 

Yes.

 

In fact 'behind the scenes' a lot has happened both with these 'operations' and the matter of how they have been 'funded'.

 

Taking the 'funding' part first. The Metropolitan Police are taking this part of these enquiries very seriously indeed and this is currently subject to further investigation with their Internal Affairs dept.

 

On the matter of the actual 'operations' themselves, the Metropolitan Police set up up a Consultation procedure a few months ago and meetings have taken place at the Metropolitan Police headquarters in London during July and August with various 'stakeholder group' to seek opinions regarding these operations.

 

The Consultation has now ended and the Metropolitan Police are due to present their findings to the ANPR Board within the next week or so.

 

I was personally invited to one of the 'Stakeholder' meetings in August and yesterday I wrote a media article regarding this subject. Once the article is published (which should be late tomorrow) I will then be able to provide a copy for this thread.

[old bill]

Yes.

 

In fact 'behind the scenes' a lot has happened both with these 'operations' and the matter of how they have been 'funded'.

 

Taking the 'funding' part first. The Metropolitan Police are taking this part of these enquiries very seriously indeed and this is currently subject to further investigation with their Internal Affairs dept.

 

On the matter of the actual 'operations' themselves, the Metropolitan Police set up up a Consultation procedure a few months ago and meetings have taken place at the Metropolitan Police headquarters in London during July and August with various 'stakeholder group' to seek opinions regarding these operations.

 

The Consultation has now ended and the Metropolitan Police are due to present their findings to the ANPR Board within the next week or so.

 

I was personally invited to one of the 'Stakeholder' meetings in August and yesterday I wrote a media article regarding this subject. Once the article is published (which should be late tomorrow) I will then be able to provide a copy for this thread.

 

I can see this matter becoming a major scandal, TT, and once the proverbial hits the air conditioning, I can see the whole issue of using private-sector civil enforcement companies to enforce public debt or alleged public debt coming into sharp focus and some serious questions being asked in certain places. Certain civil enforcement companies might wish to start putting matters right before they are forced into doing so. If they think they can force those they extorted money and vehicles from as a result of their questionable behaviour during these OPERATION CUBO roadside operations, to pursue them through the courts, then the senior management of the civil enforcement companies really do need to wake up and face the fact that the analogy I described in the past of the civil enforcement industry hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and into an abyss of no return may well cease to be an analogy and become a reality.

[tomtubby]

 

I can see this matter becoming a major scandal, TT, and once the proverbial hits the air conditioning, I can see the whole issue of using private-sector civil enforcement companies to enforce public debt or alleged public debt coming into sharp focus and some serious questions being asked in certain places. Certain civil enforcement companies might wish to start putting matters right before they are forced into doing so.

 

If they think they can force those they extorted money and vehicles from as a result of their questionable behavior during these OPERATION CUBO roadside operations, to pursue them through the courts, then the senior management of the civil enforcement companies really do need to wake up and face the fact that the analogy I described in the past of the civil enforcement industry hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and into an abyss of no return may well cease to be an analogy and become a reality.

 

Old Bill,

 

I would disagree. The government are absolutely determined to get debtors to pay and they will not be 'relaxing' enforcement and I cannot for one moment see 'civil enforcement companies hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and into an abyss of no return'.

 

My personal opinion (and I hope that I am correct in this) is that these 'Police & Bailiff Roadside Operations' are not likely to recommence. On the matter of how they have been funded I would not expect to see a 'public' report on this.

 

Whether we like it or not, it is expected that approx 4 million Liability Orders will be issued this year. The Traffic Enforcement Centre authorised approx 1.6 million warrants for unpaid parking tickets are there are approx 1 million warrants each year for magistrate court fines. This is an astonishing number of debts that the government want collecting and whether we like it or not....there will be more bailiffs (not less). In fact, in the past year an additional 400,000 bailiff certificates were issued !!!

[old bill]

Old Bill,

 

I would disagree. The government are absolutely determined to get debtors to pay and they will not be 'relaxing' enforcement and I cannot for one moment see 'civil enforcement companies hurtling towards the edge of a precipice and into an abyss of no return'.

 

My personal opinion (and I hope that I am correct in this) is that these 'Police & Bailiff Roadside Operations' are not likely to recommence. On the matter of how they have been funded I would not expect to see a 'public' report on this.

 

Whether we like it or not, it is expected that approx 4 million Liability Orders will be issued this year. The Traffic Enforcement Centre authorised approx 1.6 million warrants for unpaid parking tickets are there are approx 1 million warrants each year for magistrate court fines. This is an astonishing number of debts that the government want collecting and whether we like it or not....there will be more bailiffs (not less). In fact, in the past year an additional 400,000 bailiff certificates were issued !!!

 

That is the here and now. However, I would disagree that the civil enforcement industry will not, at some point in the future, be forced to call it a day. The industry has been drinking in the Last Chance Saloon for far too long and "time" was called sometime ago. Whether the new regs will prove to be anywhere near as effective as the politicians claim in clamping down on malpractice is yet to be seen. TEC needs looking at and, if necessary, those running it on a day-to-day basis, being either replaced or given an almighty rollicking. In a case I became aware of a few weeks ago, a person sent their forms and SD to TEC and the next thing they knew, they had the Mr McGovern on their doorstep being his usual charming self. When the person rang TEC to find out what was going on, TEC admitted they had lost the forms at TEC, but they could not be held liable for their carelessness. The person is now pursuing the matter with HMCTS at senior management level. More recently, I had the good fortune to see the attempts of a local authority and a magistrates court to hoodwink the public over Council Tax Liability Orders. The alleged summons had a message on the reverse, actively telling people not to go to court! The LO was even worse. A landscape A4 sheet that had clearly had the date pre-printed on it and then signed. No proof that it was signed on the date it was claimed to have been signed. For all we know, it could have been signed the day or a week before! Even a District Judge in the County Court had their doubts about them, but because the LOs had been granted by the magistrates, they could not overturned them.

 

Some serious questions need to be asked as to why there are so many outstanding public debts, whether these debts do, in fact, exist, or are, simply, the inane blatherings of a corrupt government that is desperate for cash.

[unclebulgaria67]

There is an easier way to enforce these penalties and fines. Trace the persons UK tax or benefit records and add it to record as a liability, sending notice to the address showing on official records.

 

If they did this, they would not need all these bailiffs and court actions. Of course they would need an admin process, but I expect that a company like Capita would love to get their hands on such a big contract. The difficult bit of not using civil servants for the process, would be access to tax and benefit records.

[old bill]

There is an easier way to enforce these penalties and fines. Trace the persons UK tax or benefit records and add it to record as a liability, sending notice to the address showing on official records.

 

If they did this, they would not need all these bailiffs and court actions. Of course they would need an admin process, but I expect that a company like Capita would love to get their hands on such a big contract. The difficult bit of not using civil servants for the process, would be access to tax and benefit records.

 

The idea is simple and workable. As long as any liability is sanctioned by way of the appropriate Attachment Order and sanctioned by a court of law, not some administrative office masquerading as a court of law and staffed by rubber-stamping clowns without so much as a day's legal training, and is fully and publicly accountable, there is no reason why it should not work. Keeping out the likes of Capita, Liberata and Vertex should be a priority. Where local authorities and police forces have been told to privatise services, on investigation, they have found it is more economical and better value for money to keep services in-house. As an actual example, Avon & Somerset Police were told to privatise their custody service. When they costed their existing in-house provision against that of the government's "preferred" contractor, it showed the in-house provision was £600,000 a year cheaper than the "preferred" contractor. Not surprisingly, Avon & Somerset Police are keeping their custody service in-house.

[brassnecked]

The idea is simple and workable. As long as any liability is sanctioned by way of the appropriate Attachment Order and sanctioned by a court of law, not some administrative office masquerading as a court of law and staffed by rubber-stamping clowns without so much as a day's legal training, and is fully and publicly accountable, there is no reason why it should not work. Keeping out the likes of Capita, Liberata and Vertex should be a priority. Where local authorities and police forces have been told to privatise services, on investigation, they have found it is more economical and better value for money to keep services in-house. As an actual example, Avon & Somerset Police were told to privatise their custody service. When they costed their existing in-house provision against that of the government's "preferred" contractor, it showed the in-house provision was £600,000 a year cheaper than the "preferred" contractor. Not surprisingly, Avon & Somerset Police are keeping their custody service in-house.

 

Agree with you and UB, any private provision is bound to be detrimental to debtors.

[tomtubby]

I fear that this thread is starting to once again go off the subject and this would be such a shame as the subject matter is so very important.

[Peterbard]

I fear that this thread is starting to once again go off the subject and this would be such a shame as the subject matter is so very important.

 

Wow, not been around for a while, you are absolutely right of course TT, the thread has been taken into the realms of, what if, and what should be by the usual suspects, (perhaps) instead of what is and what is realistic. Once this happens all intelligent and informed debate goes out of the window.

 

Seems to be happening a lot on the bailiff sections here, which is a shame because they are the sections which this forum can boast are IMO the most informed and useful, thanks to you and a coupe of others.

All i can suggest is that you do not engage in the conversation once thees silly rants commence and hopefully the reader will recognize which bits of the thread will be of use and which bits to disregard.

 

It is an unenviable task for forums like this, to balance the informed input with peoples right to air their own particular hobbyhorse; however illogical, something I confess I could never do.

 

Anyone remember applecart, a case in point. I suspect something similar will have to happen here before normality is resumed.

[outlawla]

Wow, not been around for a while, you are absolutely right of course TT, the thread has been taken into the realms of, what if, and what should be by the usual suspects, (perhaps) instead of what is and what is realistic. Once this happens all intelligent and informed debate goes out of the window.

 

Seems to be happening a lot on the bailiff sections here, which is a shame because they are the sections which this forum can boast are IMO the most informed and useful, thanks to you and a coupe of others.

All i can suggest is that you do not engage in the conversation once thees silly rants commence and hopefully the reader will recognize which bits of the thread will be of use and which bits to disregard.

 

It is an unenviable task for forums like this, to balance the informed input with peoples right to air their own particular hobbyhorse; however illogical, something I confess I could never do.

 

Anyone remember applecart, a case in point. I suspect something similar will have to happen here before normality is resumed.