Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
vonhosen said:
What I said, operating on the fringes of a Police operation.
So pure coincidence that there are bailiffs sitting in a police vehicle when said police spot a car deemed worthy of a pull which just happens to have an outstanding parking fine/warrant against the RK?How convenient
vonhosen said:
What I said, operating on the fringes of a Police operation.
This is getting tedious - so, I'm outps If the police are acting as a result of information held on the bailiff's ANPR (which they appear to be) - that is not bailiff's acting on the fringes of a police operation. It is, in fact, quite the opposite.
OMNI Consumer Products is the future. The writing is well and truly on the wall - just give it a bit more time
smegmore said:
vonhosen said:
What I said, operating on the fringes of a Police operation.
So pure coincidence that there are bailiffs sitting in a police vehicle when said police spot a car deemed worthy of a pull which just happens to have an outstanding parking fine/warrant against the RK?How convenient
vonhosen said:
I doubt it was coincidence. They were there because they knew Police would be doing an operation targeting vehicles. They knew there would likely be some vehicles that Police stop that would be of interest to them also. When the Police had finished dealing with any that were of interest to them, then the bailiffs would step in for their own interests. I don't believe that would be all the vehicles stopped by the Police but inevitably they'd get some work out of it (just as happens with all the other agencies who tag along on these operations).
Option 1: the Police pull over cars with or without cause. The bailiffs are with them. Any car which happens to be pulled over by the Police and is all clear is one the bailiffs can check against. The bailiffs tag along and live off crumbs from the Police's table.Option 2: the bailiffs give the Police a list of cars they are interested in. The Police pull any car that is on the bailiffs' list, and once given the all clear, is handed over to the bailiffs. The bailiffs use the a police to stop,cars and for enforcement action.
As you say, "I doubt it was coincidence", which means it was option 2. Which means its is disingenuous to say "when the Police had finished dealing with any that were of interest to them. The cars were never of interest to the Police.
Greg66 said:
vonhosen said:
I doubt it was coincidence. They were there because they knew Police would be doing an operation targeting vehicles. They knew there would likely be some vehicles that Police stop that would be of interest to them also. When the Police had finished dealing with any that were of interest to them, then the bailiffs would step in for their own interests. I don't believe that would be all the vehicles stopped by the Police but inevitably they'd get some work out of it (just as happens with all the other agencies who tag along on these operations).
Option 1: the Police pull over cars with or without cause. The bailiffs are with them. Any car which happens to be pulled over by the Police and is all clear is one the bailiffs can check against. The bailiffs tag along and live off crumbs from the Police's table.Option 2: the bailiffs give the Police a list of cars they are interested in. The Police pull any car that is on the bailiffs' list, and once given the all clear, is handed over to the bailiffs. The bailiffs use the a police to stop,cars and for enforcement action.
As you say, "I doubt it was coincidence", which means it was option 2. Which means its is disingenuous to say "when the Police had finished dealing with any that were of interest to them. The cars were never of interest to the Police.
If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
vonhosen said:
They are doing a Police operation, so vehicles stopped are of interest to them. The fact they may be stopping vehicles of interest to others too is neither here nor there. As I said, if it were only vehicles of interest to bailiffs being stopped & the Police weren't checking the validity of the vehicles they stopped I'd agree, but I don't believe that would be the case on either count. It's the same with operations with other agencies present.
If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
And your thoughts on the virgin case?If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
It was not a police operation at all AND they only got £4k
vonhosen said:
They are doing a Police operation, so vehicles stopped are of interest to them. The fact they may be stopping vehicles of interest to others too is neither here nor there. As I said, if it were only vehicles of interest to bailiffs being stopped & the Police weren't checking the validity of the vehicles they stopped I'd agree, but I don't believe that would be the case on either count. It's the same with operations with other agencies present.
If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
Nor does it mean you are interested. You don't stop every car that passes you; so you pick and choose those that you stop. By reference to some criteria. And those that you stop happen to be of interest to another agency. Unlike those that you don't stop. If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
What a coincidence.
Except you've told us it isn't a coincidence.
Repeating "I stopped it to check its details" like a mantra isn't helping you, when the reality is that you're stopping cars for the benefit of third parties, and simply going though motions before handing the driver over. Perhaps that particular mantra helps you believe you're really doing police work after all; I don't know.
Von. Are you a brainwashed constable, a sergeant who is told from those above what to do and just has to get on with it, an inspector who is trying to justify the unjustifyable in order to get on, or an even higher up who really believes what you are saying?
I'm really struggling to see how you can expect us to believe that you can't see what is going on.
You, or your constables, WILL be stopping on behalf of Wonga in the future if this isn't nipped in the bud.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a different debate. Personally, I don't think anyone should get away with not paying a debt, but until a civil offence becomes a criminal one the police should not be involved.
I'm really struggling to see how you can expect us to believe that you can't see what is going on.
You, or your constables, WILL be stopping on behalf of Wonga in the future if this isn't nipped in the bud.
Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a different debate. Personally, I don't think anyone should get away with not paying a debt, but until a civil offence becomes a criminal one the police should not be involved.
testosterone said:
I was driving around Regents park area when i was pulled over by traffic police. Normal B/S ie is this car registered to you etc etc.? I am then informed that there is an outstanding parking ticket on the car and that the baliff standing with them will take the car unless i pay the sum of £670 ! Apparantly i got a parking ticket for parking in a loading bay in earls court at 2pm one morning and was captured on a CCTV camera. The penalty and subsequent correspondence were sent to my old address. Unfortunately i had to pay or be left stranded by the side of the road. I was pulled as the ticket was issued by transport for London and it showed up on the police records. I questioned the police asking why were they stopping me for a civil matter. Normal arrogant traiffic police officer replies that we can stop whoever we want for any reason. Obviously there is so little crime the police have got nothing better to do !
"Normal arrogant traffic police officer" Normal is it? Do you get stopped often?"obviously there is so little crime the police have got nothing better to do" It makes me laugh when people say this. You know they have.. You need to grow up.
vonhosen said:
eldar said:
vonhosen said:
They fund officers in BTP, City of London & Met. They need greater coverage than BTP (a stretched national force) alone offer with all the buses, taxis, licenced minicabs, red routes & network etc etc under their control.
If you are on the TFL network then their bailiffs may find you. There is nothing to stop them hanging around the fringes of Police work on that network.
First step to competitive tendering... you'll be working for Capita next and collecting for Wonga soon.If you are on the TFL network then their bailiffs may find you. There is nothing to stop them hanging around the fringes of Police work on that network.
But, then, you knew that, didn't you?
20 years ago this would have been a completely different matter, because parking type infringements were still 'criminal' and still a Police Matter - although in a settlement of any size even probationers had jack all to do with it - it was firmly the domain of the Yellow Peril of the actual, proper Traffic Warden.
The reason bailiffs etc are involved is the decriminalisation of parking type infringements on the majority of roads and the hand over of such matters to LAs and in the metrollopis to TfL...
Some of the frothers on the TV licence thread ought to be careful what they wish for.
The reason bailiffs etc are involved is the decriminalisation of parking type infringements on the majority of roads and the hand over of such matters to LAs and in the metrollopis to TfL...
Some of the frothers on the TV licence thread ought to be careful what they wish for.
vonhosen said:
Don't use TFLs network if you don't want bailiffs who might be hanging around recovering their debts.
Oh really: why should I be precluded from driving in Greater London? See below.Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
As I said, I'm sure that the Police will be checking that the vehicle is being legally driven on the road. The bailiffs may step in after that.
I don't believe the Police will just be stopping the vehicle for the bailiff.
In that case I suggest you read NH1's link - see post 3.I don't believe the Police will just be stopping the vehicle for the bailiff.
There have (apparently) been 3 operations in the Metropolitan Police area since September 2013 where police have worked in conjunction with local councils and their enforcement officers/ bailiffs and stopped vehicles due to outstanding parking "fines".
If you believe bailiffs have nothing better to do than blindly follow police officers around on the off-chance that the vehicles they stop may have outstanding fines registered against them I suggest you are deluded - I know you're not btw, you're just doing a (poor) job of acting daft.
Here's a tip - sometimes the police act incorrectly (for many reasons). Poor judgement from force hierarchy is not uncommon. If you continue to defend the police no matter what actions they take or policies they pursue you may be institutionalised/ brainwashed.
As a former police officer who has been around the block more than a few times, I'm happy to say I'm not. I just say it as it is (I always have). The Met appear to have got this one spectacularly wrong in my opinion. Like I said - it's a slippery slope.
So according to him I have to avoid anywhere where TfL holds sway. Marvellous. If the implications weren't so serious it would be a laughable state of affairs. This country really is becoming an authoritarian state.
It's an insult to all those who fought and died in WW2 against the forces of fascism.
Greg66 said:
vonhosen said:
They are doing a Police operation, so vehicles stopped are of interest to them. The fact they may be stopping vehicles of interest to others too is neither here nor there. As I said, if it were only vehicles of interest to bailiffs being stopped & the Police weren't checking the validity of the vehicles they stopped I'd agree, but I don't believe that would be the case on either count. It's the same with operations with other agencies present.
If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
Nor does it mean you are interested. You don't stop every car that passes you; so you pick and choose those that you stop. By reference to some criteria. And those that you stop happen to be of interest to another agency. Unlike those that you don't stop. If I were to stop a vehicle that was of interest to another agency that doesn't mean I'm not interested in whether it is being legally driven on the road &/or not involved in anything else besides.
What a coincidence.
Except you've told us it isn't a coincidence.
Repeating "I stopped it to check its details" like a mantra isn't helping you, when the reality is that you're stopping cars for the benefit of third parties, and simply going though motions before handing the driver over. Perhaps that particular mantra helps you believe you're really doing police work after all; I don't know.
As I said (may times) I don't believe they'd have been stopping only vehicles of interest to the bailiffs & many of those stopped won't have been of interest to the bailiffs.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 9th April 07:00
mph1977 said:
20 years ago this would have been a completely different matter, because parking type infringements were still 'criminal' and still a Police Matter - although in a settlement of any size even probationers had jack all to do with it - it was firmly the domain of the Yellow Peril of the actual, proper Traffic Warden.
The reason bailiffs etc are involved is the decriminalisation of parking type infringements on the majority of roads and the hand over of such matters to LAs and in the metrollopis to TfL...
Some of the frothers on the TV licence thread ought to be careful what they wish for.
That's not true. The reason bailiffs etc are involved is the decriminalisation of parking type infringements on the majority of roads and the hand over of such matters to LAs and in the metrollopis to TfL...
Some of the frothers on the TV licence thread ought to be careful what they wish for.
There were plenty of FPNs/process for parking offences by Police officers 30+ years ago.
Red Devil said:
vonhosen said:
Don't use TFLs network if you don't want bailiffs who might be hanging around recovering their debts.
Oh really: why should I be precluded from driving in Greater London? See below.Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
As I said, I'm sure that the Police will be checking that the vehicle is being legally driven on the road. The bailiffs may step in after that.
I don't believe the Police will just be stopping the vehicle for the bailiff.
In that case I suggest you read NH1's link - see post 3.I don't believe the Police will just be stopping the vehicle for the bailiff.
There have (apparently) been 3 operations in the Metropolitan Police area since September 2013 where police have worked in conjunction with local councils and their enforcement officers/ bailiffs and stopped vehicles due to outstanding parking "fines".
If you believe bailiffs have nothing better to do than blindly follow police officers around on the off-chance that the vehicles they stop may have outstanding fines registered against them I suggest you are deluded - I know you're not btw, you're just doing a (poor) job of acting daft.
Here's a tip - sometimes the police act incorrectly (for many reasons). Poor judgement from force hierarchy is not uncommon. If you continue to defend the police no matter what actions they take or policies they pursue you may be institutionalised/ brainwashed.
As a former police officer who has been around the block more than a few times, I'm happy to say I'm not. I just say it as it is (I always have). The Met appear to have got this one spectacularly wrong in my opinion. Like I said - it's a slippery slope.
So according to him I have to avoid anywhere where TfL holds sway. Marvellous. If the implications weren't so serious it would be a laughable state of affairs. This country really is becoming an authoritarian state.
It's an insult to all those who fought and died in WW2 against the forces of fascism.
Red Devil said:
VH totally fails to grasp the significance of the link posted by NH1. It is wholly iniquitous that the legislation now permits your car to be seized by a bailiff working in tandem with the police for a TfL infringement which has nothing whatever to do with you but was committed by a previous owner. The ping is on the VRM not the name of the debtor.
So according to him I have to avoid anywhere where TfL holds sway. Marvellous. If the implications weren't so serious it would be a laughable state of affairs. This country really is becoming an authoritarian state.
It's an insult to all those who fought and died in WW2 against the forces of fascism.
This post has just won the International All Internet Godwin Award for 2014. So according to him I have to avoid anywhere where TfL holds sway. Marvellous. If the implications weren't so serious it would be a laughable state of affairs. This country really is becoming an authoritarian state.
It's an insult to all those who fought and died in WW2 against the forces of fascism.
Breathe! I think that comparing this sort of thing to Fascism is the real insult to people who died to combat Fascism.
It seems quite sensible to me.
Chances are the people who have unpaid parking tickets are quite likely to be a bit dodgy in other ways.
By sharing data and resources the two government organisations are both working more efficiently.
I don't have a problem with it.
If it was 'parking eye' or 'NCP' it would be a different story.
(Edit to add 'unpaid')
Chances are the people who have unpaid parking tickets are quite likely to be a bit dodgy in other ways.
By sharing data and resources the two government organisations are both working more efficiently.
I don't have a problem with it.
If it was 'parking eye' or 'NCP' it would be a different story.
(Edit to add 'unpaid')
Edited by Snowboy on Wednesday 9th April 11:01
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff