Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
I found this https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff#inc... on another forum.
Old Fart said:
I found this https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff#inc... on another forum.
Good find.The guy who did the official review of the complaint is only an "i" away from having the best nominative determinism name ever...
Mike Lyng
FoIA Quality and Assurance Advisor
I initially read it as lying
robinessex said:
I've read most of this topic, and suffice it to say I'm in the Police shouldn't interfere in civil actions camp. However, my main point is the innocent person who gets caught up in this scenario. You buy a car. Some months hence, you get stopped as per this post. As far as the police are concerned, everything is in order. Driving license, MOT, insurance, drink/drug driving, seat belts, mobile phone, no offence(s) committed. You are free to go (as far committing a criminal offence). At this point, Mr Bailiff introduces himself. Has some claim against your recently purchased vehicle.
Two scenarios present themselves.
1. You say nothing to do with me, and drive off.
2. You check court order. Wrong address. You drive off.
Can the Police take any action against your action of driving away?
This question prompted by further postings after the originalTwo scenarios present themselves.
1. You say nothing to do with me, and drive off.
2. You check court order. Wrong address. You drive off.
Can the Police take any action against your action of driving away?
If, after the Police Officer has satisfied himself that you have committed NO criminal offence, and are free to go, upon the bailiff requesting you vacate your vehicle so he can take possession of it, you refuse to leave the drivers seat. Are you now ‘guilty’ of a ‘breach of the peace’, and can the Police Officer now arrest you?
10 Pence Short said:
The code of conduct attached makes it quite clear that county court warrants cannot form the basis of a stop and that the Police should not be stopping on the word of a bailiff based upon one.
It does say that they can stop under SOP 2.4.11 on relevant listed information from a CEO supervisor.vonhosen said:
Unless SOP 2.4.11 applies.
Of course, but then the Police always retain their right to stop based on police purposes, whoever gives them reason or suspicion. The discussion here is whether or not Police can stop purely on CEO/ bailiff information of a civil warrant, which I don't think either of us believe they can.Further, there is information in this thread to suggest Met are not following guidance. How correct that is, I don't know.
vonhosen said:
It does say that they can stop under SOP 2.4.11 on relevant listed information from a CEO supervisor.
SOP does not give lawful authority.Only the law gives lawful authority.
The TV programme clearly showed the female bailiff advising the police that she was interested in a vehicle, which they then stopped. I see this as abuse of power to stop as it is not in the course of police duties but in the course of 'optional extras' for their paymasters.
Well don't know if anyone saw episode 2 but it was more of the same from husband and wife team of bullies. Met police should be ashamed they threatened to sieze a motorbility car and extort money from the driver who was not the reg keeper or the named person on to ticket. When he stated he did not have the funds the husband baliff opens the boot threatens to remove the manspossessions. Then he has to run his debit card to prove no money when they clearly can't sieze the car due to it being motab and at the stage should of let him go.
Next a mini cab driver and they hold his mini cab to ransom and then tell it's 3% surcharge on card for payment. They hold,his cab to ransom for what appears some hours and there I was thinking a tool of trade is not seizable not unless your met police backed baliff then do as you please while parked on a pavement in a bus stop collecting fines for bad parking.
It becomes clear the anpr database seems to cover fines issued by the council even if they are with other baliffs they still attempt to collect as there is a discussion of fees and they state they are not the ballff who has issued the debt in one case.
Next a mini cab driver and they hold his mini cab to ransom and then tell it's 3% surcharge on card for payment. They hold,his cab to ransom for what appears some hours and there I was thinking a tool of trade is not seizable not unless your met police backed baliff then do as you please while parked on a pavement in a bus stop collecting fines for bad parking.
It becomes clear the anpr database seems to cover fines issued by the council even if they are with other baliffs they still attempt to collect as there is a discussion of fees and they state they are not the ballff who has issued the debt in one case.
That FOI website is a nightmare to read, this did make me smile though
FOI Request said:
Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),
Will I be waiting much longer?
Is it a tuff one to answer?
The request was made back in November 22 2013.
I have sent a copy of this to my MP the Honourable George Galloway.
Please update me.
Yours faithfully,
tracy sears
Will I be waiting much longer?
Is it a tuff one to answer?
The request was made back in November 22 2013.
I have sent a copy of this to my MP the Honourable George Galloway.
Please update me.
Yours faithfully,
tracy sears
Rovinghawk said:
vonhosen said:
It does say that they can stop under SOP 2.4.11 on relevant listed information from a CEO supervisor.
SOP does not give lawful authority.Only the law gives lawful authority.
The TV programme clearly showed the female bailiff advising the police that she was interested in a vehicle, which they then stopped. I see this as abuse of power to stop as it is not in the course of police duties but in the course of 'optional extras' for their paymasters.
vonhosen said:
Can you show us where the SOP supported an unlawful action?
Certainly ...Officers are instructed to warn motorists that they run the risk of arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructions
It doesn't come much more unlawful than that - whoever wrote that SOP is clearly a f
kwitRed 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Can you show us where the SOP supported an unlawful action?
Officers are instructed to warn motorists that they run the risk of arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructionsIt doesn't come much more unlawful than that - whoever wrote that SOP is clearly a f
kwitTo VH- I put it to you that the SOP does not confer lawful authority. It isn't law, it's procedure as written by someone in an office.
I await the next excuse for these actions....................
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Can you show us where the SOP supported an unlawful action?
Certainly ...Officers are instructed to warn motorists that they run the risk of arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructions
It doesn't come much more unlawful than that - whoever wrote that SOP is clearly a f
kwitThat's your words, not it's.
Rovinghawk said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Can you show us where the SOP supported an unlawful action?
Officers are instructed to warn motorists that they run the risk of arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructionsIt doesn't come much more unlawful than that - whoever wrote that SOP is clearly a f
kwitTo VH- I put it to you that the SOP does not confer lawful authority. It isn't law, it's procedure as written by someone in an office.
I await the next excuse for these actions....................
It doesn't say that they risk arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructions, it says they do if they obstruct the CEO. The CEO can't just make any unwarranted demand & it automatically be an obstruction if they fail to comply with that, just as if a Police officer told you to stand on your head it wouldn't be obstructing a Police officer or a breach of the peace if you refused.
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Can you show us where the SOP supported an unlawful action?
Certainly ...Officers are instructed to warn motorists that they run the risk of arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructions
It doesn't come much more unlawful than that - whoever wrote that SOP is clearly a f
kwitThat's your words, not it's.
It is pretty much what it says - threaten with arrest if the motorist does not leave his vehicle when instructed by the bailiff ... that is not a breach of the peace.
I see the brainwashing is irreversible .... that's a shame.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Can you show us where the SOP supported an unlawful action?
Certainly ...Officers are instructed to warn motorists that they run the risk of arrest for a breach of the peace if they refuse to comply with a CEO's instructions
It doesn't come much more unlawful than that - whoever wrote that SOP is clearly a f
kwitThat's your words, not it's.
It is pretty much what it says - threaten with arrest if the motorist does not leave his vehicle when instructed by the bailiff ... that is not a breach of the peace.
I see the brainwashing is irreversible .... that's a shame.
SOP said:
2.4.1. Police Officers Role in civil enforcement matters will be
restricted to the following:
· Remain impartial.
· Prevent Breach of the Peace.
· Deal with any Criminal Offences.
· Officers must ensure that any actions that they take are both
legal and appropriate.
restricted to the following:
· Remain impartial.
· Prevent Breach of the Peace.
· Deal with any Criminal Offences.
· Officers must ensure that any actions that they take are both
legal and appropriate.
SOP said:
2.4.15. If a vehicle or occupants are also of interest to the CEO
the following protocols will be followed to ensure impartiality and
protect the reputation of the MPS:
· The CEO supervisor present at the site will contact the ANPR Team
/ Borough Sergeant and inform him / her that the vehicle is also of
interest to the agency.
· The ANPR Team / Borough Sergeant will inform the officer(s)
dealing with the vehicle.
· When the officers have concluded their dealings with the vehicle
they may invite the CEOs to speak with the occupants.
· 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 following protocols will be followed to ensure impartiality and
protect the reputation of the MPS:
· The CEO supervisor present at the site will contact the ANPR Team
/ Borough Sergeant and inform him / her that the vehicle is also of
interest to the agency.
· The ANPR Team / Borough Sergeant will inform the officer(s)
dealing with the vehicle.
· When the officers have concluded their dealings with the vehicle
they may invite the CEOs to speak with the occupants.
· 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.
Appendix A Policy said:
Police action when called to an incident to a bailiff executing a warrant:
· Officers should check the bailiff has valid identification and a
valid warrant to enforce.
· Officers' role is then to prevent a breach of the peace. Officers
have a legal obligation to ensure that the bailiff is not hindered in any
way. It must be remembered that a court has issued a warrant for property
to be seized.
· 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. Officers are aware
that they may be liable to the creditor or court for unreasonably
preventing a bailiff from enforcing a warrant, especially if officers'
actions result in the bailiff losing the opportunity to seize the
property.
· Officers should not prevent the bailiff from enforcing the
warrant just because someone is upset by their activity.
· Officers should neither assist the bailiff nor the debtor and, as
with any other civil dispute, remain impartial throughout.
· If the other party approaches officers with any complaints
regarding the bailiff then officer should direct them to the County Court.
· If an agent or bailiff is acting in a wholly unlawful manner
(e.g. assault / criminal damage) then officers must act to prevent them
committing any offences and deal with any offences that they have
committed.
· Officers should check the bailiff has valid identification and a
valid warrant to enforce.
· Officers' role is then to prevent a breach of the peace. Officers
have a legal obligation to ensure that the bailiff is not hindered in any
way. It must be remembered that a court has issued a warrant for property
to be seized.
· 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. Officers are aware
that they may be liable to the creditor or court for unreasonably
preventing a bailiff from enforcing a warrant, especially if officers'
actions result in the bailiff losing the opportunity to seize the
property.
· Officers should not prevent the bailiff from enforcing the
warrant just because someone is upset by their activity.
· Officers should neither assist the bailiff nor the debtor and, as
with any other civil dispute, remain impartial throughout.
· If the other party approaches officers with any complaints
regarding the bailiff then officer should direct them to the County Court.
· If an agent or bailiff is acting in a wholly unlawful manner
(e.g. assault / criminal damage) then officers must act to prevent them
committing any offences and deal with any offences that they have
committed.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 27th April 23:07
How are police officers acting impartially if they are detaining people and then "introducing" a bailiff who is there to recover a civil debt as part of a joint operation ?
I was told many years ago - if it stinks, it's probably rotten. This practice stinks - badly.
Feel free to support the Met at all costs. I think most people can see what is really happening.
I will bid you farewell ... I cba with the bullst.
I was told many years ago - if it stinks, it's probably rotten. This practice stinks - badly.
Feel free to support the Met at all costs. I think most people can see what is really happening.
I will bid you farewell ... I cba with the bulls
t.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff