Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
Snowboy said:
DoubleSix said:
My understanding from what I read in this thread, admittedly some weeks ago, was that the Police were being indirectly funded in return for this sort of 'support'.
Righto.So how's it a drain on police resources if it's being funded separately then?
DoubleSix said:
Which bring us back to ethics doesn't it... rent-a-cop etc etc
I would agree with you.Except the baillifs carry a warrant granted by a court.
If it was just one party demanding money from another I would agree that the police have no business getting involved.
But once it's gone to court and a warrant issued then I don't see a bit of police assistance being a problem.
Edit to say;
It's also an unusual debt where the debt is attached to a car/car owber, but the owner or address of the car appears to be incorrect at the DVLA, otherwise the debt would be handled by a home visit.
Edited by Snowboy on Friday 25th April 11:38
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?
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?
DoubleSix said:
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
Why do you think that?
If we have to explain, you won't understand.Clearly last night there were shown scenes where two different bailiff companies were chasing the same debt and were not adequately communicating.
Clearly it's a surprise to me just how many people are stopped on one road in Croydon. If people upon getting a ticket adopted the stance of the French guy and yes it's a fair cop and pay it or appeal if they thought it wasn't a fair cop instead of ignoring it then none of this would be necessary.
A question. I'm not sure of the position here. The guy who was stopped driving a vehicle that was not his own and therefore could not legally be seized though that didn't stop the threats. What was the legality of the bailiff rooting through the contents of the boot to see if there was anything worth seizing. We didn't see if he had permission to look inthe boot bbut to me that looked very dodgy.
Personally interested to see Met response to variomatic and agree with Red 4 regarding which imbecile wrote up their SOP. I hope this bites them hard on the arse.
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?
I don't believe so.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?
In fact, they might even come to your assistance if there's any bother.
I'd actually hope for scenario 3.
3. It's clearly not your debt sir. Let me update our records so you don't get stopped again or your car doesn't get impounded. Do you happen to remember the name or address of the person you bought the car off.
Because in the case of the first two scenarios the problem still exists. Your car is still wanted by the baillifs and they are still likely to tow it if they see it parked somewhere.
Snowboy said:
Yes, absolutely.
Discussing ethics rather than legality gives a much broader scope for opinions rather than quoted legislation.
I'd suggest that discussing ethics rather than law actually works the wrong way:Discussing ethics rather than legality gives a much broader scope for opinions rather than quoted legislation.
It may, or may not, be unethical to have bailiffs claiming you owe money
It's usually unethical to break the law.
It's always unethical for a person or organisation in authority to use powers granted for one reason in a different, unauthorised, way.
So, we have a (possibly) unethical debtor (very much depending on circumstances) being (probably) unethically stopped in an illegal way by police who are (definitely) using powers granted for one purpose for a whole new purpose that those granting their powers (Parliament) haven't authorised.
On balance, that makes the stops unethical.
Snowboy said:
Edit to say;
It's also an unusual debt where the debt is attached to a car/car owber, but the owner or address of the car appears to be incorrect at the DVLA, otherwise the debt would be handled by a home visit.
Given the demonstrable track record of bailiff companies that is one HUGE assumption to be making. Why go to all that home visit stuff trouble when they can just sit by the road and wait for the target to appear then get guaranteed results by relying on misused police powers?It's also an unusual debt where the debt is attached to a car/car owber, but the owner or address of the car appears to be incorrect at the DVLA, otherwise the debt would be handled by a home visit.
Edited by Snowboy on Friday 25th April 11:38
Snowboy said:
I don't believe so.
In fact, they might even come to your assistance if there's any bother.
You didn't follow the link I provided for their SOPs (which they seem to be ignoring in important ways anyway) for these operations, did you?In fact, they might even come to your assistance if there's any bother.
If you refuse to leave the car they'll threaten to arrest you for potential breach of the peace, even if you refuse peacefully and politely. If you try to drive off they'll probably throw in abuse of a kitten for good measure.
Snowboy said:
Ethics again.
If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
Bailiffs don't collect money on "behalf of the courts". They collect it on behalf of private individuals, partnerships and companies which have obtained judgments. If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
"It's all broadly the same legal system" is nonsense.
Variomatic said:
Snowboy said:
I don't believe so.
In fact, they might even come to your assistance if there's any bother.
You didn't follow the link I provided for their SOPs (which they seem to be ignoring in important ways anyway) for these operations, did you?In fact, they might even come to your assistance if there's any bother.
If you refuse to leave the car they'll threaten to arrest you for potential breach of the peace, even if you refuse peacefully and politely. If you try to drive off they'll probably throw in abuse of a kitten for good measure.
If it's the former then the baillifs are doing the right thing.
If it's the latter there's a problem, and that's when I'd expect police to help if there was a problem.
The cropped quotes are losing context.
One of the principles of Policing by Consent: [quote=Robert Peel’s 9 Principles of Policing]To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
[/quote]They will be failing that one if they carry on this sort of thing.
[/quote]They will be failing that one if they carry on this sort of thing.
One of the principles of Policing by Consent:
Robert Peel Principles of Policing said:
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
They will be failing that one if they carry on this sort of thing.Snowboy said:
Are these people who are refusing to leave their cars the correct debtors, or new car owners.
If it's the former then the baillifs are doing the right thing.
If it's the latter there's a problem, and that's when I'd expect police to help if there was a problem.
The cropped quotes are losing context.
The thing is, the Police have no way of knowing which of those situations (or possibly others) apply at the scene. Yet their standard instructions are to threaten the driver out of the vehicle using the threat of an unlawful arrest for an offence that doesn't apply.If it's the former then the baillifs are doing the right thing.
If it's the latter there's a problem, and that's when I'd expect police to help if there was a problem.
The cropped quotes are losing context.
They are told (by their SOPs) to do that in every case, regardless of the circumstances. So, no, they wouldn't "help" the motorist if there was a problem, they would follow their SOPs (that's what SOPs are for) and help the bailiff. Regardless of what "you'd expect", that is clearly written down in the FOI answer I linked to.
A person sitting calmly in their car isn't committing a breach of the peace, nor are they likely to cause one. Case law has made it clear what BoP requires, and that situation doesn't meet the requirements in any shape or form. So threatening arrest is effectively blackmail in order to support
civil debt collection.
Snowboy said:
Ethics again.
If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
If the Police are doing the job for them why do they get to add charges ten times the original fine.If we accept that private bailiff companies are the legal and lawful means of collecting money owed for the courts then I have no problem with the police helping.
It's all broadly the same legal system.
However, I personally think private companies collecting debt on behalf of the courts is a terrible idea.
I'd rather see CCJ debt collected by a govt agency rather than a private company.
Interesting little side-note, it seems that Parliament may have agreed with the majority of posters on here who think this is wrong.
The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts order 1993 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2073/conte... ) applies the County Courts Act 1984 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/conten... ) to the recovery of road traffic debts against a warrant.
Section 85(4) of the County Courts Act says that
S.6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order specifically says:
The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts order 1993 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2073/conte... ) applies the County Courts Act 1984 ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/28/conten... ) to the recovery of road traffic debts against a warrant.
Section 85(4) of the County Courts Act says that
County Courts Act said:
It shall be the duty of every constable within his jurisdiction to assist in the execution of every such warrant.
BUT:S.6 of the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order specifically says:
ERTDO said:
6. Sections 85(4) and 86 shall not apply.
So, Parliament obviously thought that involving the Police in recovery of traffic warrants is enough of a "bad idea" to make a specific rule about it, even though they have a duty to help in recovery of other warrant debts.Edited by Variomatic on Saturday 26th April 10:31
Rovinghawk said:
No. One is civil law, the other is criminal law.
The police are not there to be involved in civil matters, even for people who pay them. How many times does it need to be said before you understand this very simple concept?
They've never helped me with any civil matters, perhaps I should have mentioned payment The police are not there to be involved in civil matters, even for people who pay them. How many times does it need to be said before you understand this very simple concept?
TX.
Another point that might be answerable by some of the legal bods on here.
The pwer used for these stops appears to be s.163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. All well and good, that's usually the power quoted for such things.
Except that, reading the section, it could ppossibly be argued that it doesn't actually confer any power to the police to stop vehicles. It imposes a duty on the driver to stop if required, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.
As an example of what I mean: I have a duty to pay any fine imposed on me by a court and failing to do so opens me up to various additional penalties. But that doesn't give courts a corresponding right to issue random fines for no reason other than "they feel like it". Is there any case law that anyone's aware of that confirms the commonly held interpretation of S.163?
Eta: Incidentally, before someone posts it, "everyone knows that's what it means" doesn't count as case law
The pwer used for these stops appears to be s.163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. All well and good, that's usually the power quoted for such things.
Except that, reading the section, it could ppossibly be argued that it doesn't actually confer any power to the police to stop vehicles. It imposes a duty on the driver to stop if required, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing.
As an example of what I mean: I have a duty to pay any fine imposed on me by a court and failing to do so opens me up to various additional penalties. But that doesn't give courts a corresponding right to issue random fines for no reason other than "they feel like it". Is there any case law that anyone's aware of that confirms the commonly held interpretation of S.163?
Eta: Incidentally, before someone posts it, "everyone knows that's what it means" doesn't count as case law
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff