Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[mph1977]

Rovinghawk said:

ED209 said:

Police can stop any car on a road at any time for any reason.

I was told that if I were seen in a certain part of the world I'd be pulled over & given the most thorough check the world has ever known.

The reason was that I was sleeping with the policeman's wife.

A friend of mine who is a judge told me that this would be abuse of power & the constable in question could be nailed to the wall for it, so I suggest that you're wrong.

misuse of power by the constable in Question and any of his mates acting on this unofficial intelligence ...

however the police require no reason to stop a vehicle and verify the legality of the vehicle and the driver.

[eldar]

Snowboy said:

Would you object to the principle if the police were asked to assist in finding someone who had been left a substatial sum of money but couldn't be traced?

1.The police objective is to to prevent and detect crime, that is behaviours against criminal law, and punishable, ultimately, by a criminal court.

2.Civil courts act to deal with disputes which do not fall within criminal law. The police are not empowered, subject to specific codes of conduct, trained or equipped to deal with civil matters.

3.The Police are expected to behave impartially, and within the codes of practice specified within PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Note Criminal, not Civil.

4.Bailiffs act within a set of legal regulations.

5.It appears that police assisting in the enforcement of civil debt of behalf of a commercial profit making organisation, Newlyn, for example, conflates the role of law enforcement and debt collection without a proper legislative framework.

6. This will backfire and tarnish, yet again, the reputation of the police.

[ED209]

eldar said:

Snowboy said:

Would you object to the principle if the police were asked to assist in finding someone who had been left a substatial sum of money but couldn't be traced?

1.The police objective is to to prevent and detect crime, that is behaviours against criminal law, and punishable, ultimately, by a criminal court.

2.Civil courts act to deal with disputes which do not fall within criminal law. The police are not empowered, subject to specific codes of conduct, trained or equipped to deal with civil matters.

3.The Police are expected to behave impartially, and within the codes of practice specified within PACE - Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Note Criminal, not Civil.

4.Bailiffs act within a set of legal regulations.

5.It appears that police assisting in the enforcement of civil debt of behalf of a commercial profit making organisation, Newlyn, for example, conflates the role of law enforcement and debt collection without a proper legislative framework.

6. This will backfire and tarnish, yet again, the reputation of the police.

There is nothing at all in PACE with regards to the stopping of vehicles except section 4 which is very very rarely used.

With regards to point 5 do the police not act on behalf of commercial profit making organisations when they deal with shoplifters, people for insurance fraud, bank fraud, etc etc etc.

[FiF]

ED209 said:

There is nothing at all in PACE with regards to the stopping of vehicles except section 4 which is very very rarely used.

With regards to point 5 do the police not act on behalf of commercial profit making organisations when they deal with shoplifters, people for insurance fraud, bank fraud, etc etc etc.

No they don't act on behalf of commercial organisations, they act on behalf of the state to deal with a reported crime

shoplifting = crime of theft
fraud be it insurance or bank is crime.

Fail.

[10 Pence Short]

340600 said:

Yes, they can.

Vehicles get stopped based on a hunch all the time and those stops often yield decent results.

On the 'basis of a hunch' is not the same as 'for any reason'. The stop must be for genuine Police purposes and not capricious or oppressive.

If I must go and dig out the authorities I will when I'm sat at a proper computer.

[340600]

10 Pence Short said:

The stop must be for genuine Police purposes and not capricious or oppressive.

I don't think that part was ever up for debate. The assumption would be that the stop is for genuine Police purposes from the outset IMO.

[10 Pence Short]

340600 said:

I don't think that part was ever up for debate. The assumption would be that the stop is for genuine Police purposes from the outset IMO.

In that case, we would agree.

[Cooperman]

It is accepted that the Police may stop any driver for the purposes of establishing that he/she is driving lawfully in a road-worthy vehicle.
Once it is established that the vehicle is being driven lawfully, what rights does a police officer have to continue to detain a driver. Is a bailiff entitled to detain a driver and can he/she stand in front of a legally taxed & insured vehicle thereby causing an obstruction? Can a driver just drive away?
If, having stopped as required by the law and identified him/her-self to the police officer and provided name, address, identification, licence, insurance, etc., a driver ignores the bailiff and declines even to acknowledge their presence and simply drives away, what, if any, driving offence has the driver committed?

[Oilchange]

I have derived from this that a copper can't stop a car just because he/she feels like it, there either has to be an obvious reason or hunch of crime/impropriety.
Also, a bailiff has no rights whatsoever to stop or detain a driver and the policeman must not support the bailiff unless said bailiff has a court order.

Basically, the copper that 'backed up' the bailiff was an ahole and needs a good 'talking to' by his chief inspector.





and bailiffs are aholes too

[rambo19]

Cooperman said:

It is accepted that the Police may stop any driver for the purposes of establishing that he/she is driving lawfully in a road-worthy vehicle.
Once it is established that the vehicle is being driven lawfully, what rights does a police officer have to continue to detain a driver. Is a bailiff entitled to detain a driver and can he/she stand in front of a legally taxed & insured vehicle thereby causing an obstruction? Can a driver just drive away?
If, having stopped as required by the law and identified him/her-self to the police officer and provided name, address, identification, licence, insurance, etc., a driver ignores the bailiff and declines even to acknowledge their presence and simply drives away, what, if any, driving offence has the driver committed?

Agree.
It would be interesting to try it.

[FiF]

Oilchange said:

and the policeman must not support the bailiff unless said bailiff has a court order.

That's not strictly true.

The role of the police when a bailiff is attending premises to execute a warrant is ONLY if there is likely to be a breach of the peace or interference with the bailiff performing his duties, eg preventing seized goods which are property of court being removed.

Let's say premises are a convenience / off licence shop to keep it simple. Negotiations over a payment have gone nowhere and goods are to be seized. Bailiff has identified several cases of spirits and tobacco and is starting to move them out of store to put in his van.

Shop owner stops this and starts putting goods back in his store. At that point he is interfering with goods which are the property of the court. Police asked to attend, if he doesn't stop this obstruction, even if now it's just standing in the way of the bailiff accessing the goods he WILL be arrested. Or at least he should be. Obviously if he gets physical with the bailiff that's also arrestable.

Problem is it works both ways. But if the police are called then the bailiffs suddenly start behaving themselves when we know some clearly don't.

Watch the Panorama programme. Taxi driver has his car clamped and is dragged out of bed off nights. He owes 1800 and is persuaded to borrow 600 off a neighbour,and set up a payment plan for the rest under the threat of his taxi being removed which is his only source of income. OK he owes the money from 3 x 55 tickets. Chap is being treated for cancer, and therefore should be regarded as a vulnerable debtor, different procedures apply. Also as the taxi is his tool of the trade it shouldn't be clamped and can't be seized, but the taxi driver doesn't know that.

On the way out the bailiff brags that he conned the bloke because he knew he couldn't seize his taxi but just wanted to frighten him in order to get something out of him. All he was concerned about was securing his 140 quid cut from the proceeds.

[DoubleSix]

Surprised this thread hasn't reignited with this program on BBC 1 'parking mad'.

[FiF]

Well I think people are just depressed seeing the police present when bailiffs are threatening to seize a vehicle that a) is not owned by the driver which is not allowed and b) a taxi which is the driver's tool of his trade also not allowed.

Not to mention numpty West Bromwich council putting parking limits on planning for the nick.

[johno1066]

Statute of Marlborough 1267 makes it unlawful to levy on the Highway, the Bailiffs are breaking the oldest statute on the books and the Police are aiding and abetting in that process:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Hen3cc1415/52/1/...

http://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/excessive-lev...


XV In what Places Distresses shall not be taken..

"It shall be lawful for no Man from henceforth, for any manner of cause, to take Distresses out of his Fee, nor in the King’s Highway, nor in the common Street, but only to the King or his Officers, [having special authority to do the same. "



Aldo look up:

BA TU DINH v DRAKES GROUP LTD (2000)

Edited by johno1066 on Thursday 24th April 22:11

[DoubleSix]

FiF said:

Well I think people are just depressed seeing the police present when bailiffs are threatening to seize a vehicle that a) is not owned by the driver which is not allowed and b) a taxi which is the driver's tool of his trade also not allowed.

Not to mention numpty West Bromwich council putting parking limits on planning for the nick.

Certainly a sorry state of affairs.

[jimmyboy85]

DoubleSix said:

Surprised this thread hasn't reignited with this program on BBC 1 'parking mad'.

That was quite strange. I know at the start of this thread people were stating that the police can pull you over for what ever reason they so wish, which is fair enough and if the bailiffs happen to be there after the police have finished with you then that is unlucky/your own fault.

However the impression I got from the programme was that the police ANPR data was used to directly target people the bailiffs were looking for, the police effectively working for/with the bailiffs to collect money for a private company and the council, rather than the police deciding who to pull then the bailiffs carrying out there own checks.

Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick but that is how it seemed to me.

Once they were stopped it appeared the drivers were then handed over to the bailiffs to sort out the rest, while the police stopped more cars and to act as a deterrent from abusive behaviour or indeed doing a runner.

I do wonder what would happen if, once the police had finished with you, you simply rolled your windows up, refused to acknowledge the bailiffs and drove off in a safe and legal manner.

[deltaevo16]

Just finished watching The parking prog on BBC 1, it did appear as though the police were just there to ping cars and wave them to stop. I am gobsmacked. Aiding and abetting bailiffs in collecting parking fines is a civil matter, not one for the police. What a waste of manpower.

[Variomatic]

jimmyboy85 said:

However the impression I got from the programme was that the police ANPR data was used to directly target people the bailiffs were looking for, the police effectively working for/with the bailiffs to collect money for a private company and the council, rather than the police deciding who to pull then the bailiffs carrying out there own checks.

Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick but that is how it seemed to me.

Once they were stopped it appeared the drivers were then handed over to the bailiffs to sort out the rest, while the police stopped more cars and to act as a deterrent from abusive behaviour or indeed doing a runner.

I do wonder what would happen if, once the police had finished with you, you simply rolled your windows up, refused to acknowledge the bailiffs and drove off in a safe and legal manner.

I got the same impression, so did a little digging into previous FOIA requests about these operations. In response to this one:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff

the MPS eventually provided their SOPs for ANPR teams working alongside bailiffs. Two points from the SOPs was that only MPS ANPR systems could be used to identify vehicles to stop, and that a driver who refused to leave his car if the bailiffs required should be warned that they could be arrested for breach of the peace.


That prompted me to slap in an FOI request of my own, which is available here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/powers_to_s...


For those how might be interested, but can't be bothered to click a link:

FOI Request said:

Dear Metropolitan Police Service (MPS),

A BBC One program, "Parking Mad" has recently highlighted combined
operations involving officers from the Metropolitan Police Service
and bailiffs acting to collect parking debts.

In the program it appears quite clear, from both commentary by the
narrator and comments made by the bailiffs, that the bailiffs are
actively identifying vehicles using their own ANPR system and
asking for them to be stopped.

As an example, at one point in the second episode, the bailiff
explains to a driver that "you've been stopped today BECAUSE
there's an outstanding parking ticket" At another point, one of the
bailiffs is clearly heard to say "We've got a Golf" and the police
are seen to move to stop that vehicle AFTER that statement.

The footage indicates clearly that stops are being made at the
behest of the bailiffs, using their own ANPR system, rather than as
a result of a police interest in the vehicle.

In response to a previous FOI request, SOPs for CO15 ANPR Teams
working with Court Enforcement Officers / Bailiffs were provided.

Section 2.3 of those SOPs state that "Police officers must ensure
that they are acting impartially and not be seen to be acting as
civil debt recovery agents."

Section 2.4.6 of those SOPs clearly state that the operations are
Police led and only MPS ANPR systems may be used to identify
vehicles to stop.

Section 2.4.15 states that police will remain neutral while the CEO
deals with a driver of interest to them, but will warm of a risk of
arrest to prevent breach of The Peace if a driver asked to leave
his vehicle by the CEO reufuses to do so.

Question (1):

On the face of it, stopping cars identified by the bailiff's ANPR
system would appear to be a possible abuse of the powers of police
to stop vehicles, and is certainly in contravention of the two
sections of the SOPs quoted above.

Under what powers are these stops made, and how does the MPS
justify those powers being extended to stops clearly made for the
express purpose of a civilian third party?

Question (2):

R v Howell[1982] QB 416 defined a breach of the peace as occurring:

"whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person
or in his presence to his property or a person is in fear of being
so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly
or other disturbance."

So, there must be some threatened, or actual, violence for a breach
of the peace to occur.

In light of that case law, how does the MPS justify warning a
driver, who is sitting calmly and politely in his vehicle and
showing no signs of potential violence, that he may be arrested for
a breach of the peace?

Yours faithfully,

Variomatic

Will be interested to get their response......

Edited by Variomatic on Thursday 24th April 22:37

[Red 4]

A driver refusing to get out of his car at the request of a bailiff is not a breach of the peace

Who the fk wrote the Met's policy ?

I foresee a sizeable lawsuit if a Metropolitan Police Officer is dumb enough to arrest in such circumstances .....

[Variomatic]

Red 4 said:

A driver refusing to get out of his car at the request of a bailiff is not a breach of the peace

Who the fk wrote the Met's policy ?

As long as the driver refuses calmly (and remains calm, polite and non-confrontational) I totally agree. Any breach of the peace would come from the bailiffs if they attempted to force the matter, and I'm not sure on the legality of arresting the potential victim of a breach (the one fearing violence) in order to prevent the offender commiting it - it'd be a bit like arresting the old dear at the cashpoint to prevent the thief snatching her cash!