Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
Snowboy said:
All good points.
As far as I'm aware, the police are currently only requested to assist in matters where a car is the reason for the debt.
And the debt and car are linked.
I was trying to find out the bailiffs work the other way and impound cars registered at addresses to pay other debts.
I can't find any proof either way.
I hope this is not the case.
So, as far as I'm aware we're only talking about CCJ's assigned to cars.
And there aren't than many bodies that can assign debt to cars, which become CCJ's.
You might have your wires crossed. As far as I'm aware, the police are currently only requested to assist in matters where a car is the reason for the debt.
And the debt and car are linked.
I was trying to find out the bailiffs work the other way and impound cars registered at addresses to pay other debts.
I can't find any proof either way.
I hope this is not the case.
So, as far as I'm aware we're only talking about CCJ's assigned to cars.
And there aren't than many bodies that can assign debt to cars, which become CCJ's.
The only debt that is "assigned", so to speak, to a car is one that is secured on it - eg a loan for which the car is given as security.
Parking fines, bus lane fines etc are not "assigned" or "linked" to the car in question. The car is used to incur the fine, but the fine and associated costs can be taken from any of the assets of the person responsible. You can't "assign" a debt such as this to a car, short of getting a post-judgment charging order over the car (which any judgment creditor can do).
As for the wisdom of allowing Police to intervene in car-related civil matters, look at it this way: if someone has a whiplash and damage claim against you after an RTA, and gets judgment, do you think the Police should be pulling you over at that person's behest?
Greg66 said:
You might have your wires crossed.
The only debt that is "assigned", so to speak, to a car is one that is secured on it - eg a loan for which the car is given as security.
Parking fines, bus lane fines etc are not "assigned" or "linked" to the car in question. The car is used to incur the fine, but the fine and associated costs can be taken from any of the assets of the person responsible. You can't "assign" a debt such as this to a car, short of getting a post-judgment charging order over the car (which any judgment creditor can do).
As for the wisdom of allowing Police to intervene in car-related civil matters, look at it this way: if someone has a whiplash and damage claim against you after an RTA, and gets judgment, do you think the Police should be pulling you over at that person's behest?
I'm well aware of how CCJ's generally work.The only debt that is "assigned", so to speak, to a car is one that is secured on it - eg a loan for which the car is given as security.
Parking fines, bus lane fines etc are not "assigned" or "linked" to the car in question. The car is used to incur the fine, but the fine and associated costs can be taken from any of the assets of the person responsible. You can't "assign" a debt such as this to a car, short of getting a post-judgment charging order over the car (which any judgment creditor can do).
As for the wisdom of allowing Police to intervene in car-related civil matters, look at it this way: if someone has a whiplash and damage claim against you after an RTA, and gets judgment, do you think the Police should be pulling you over at that person's behest?
But what we're seeing is a new way of dealing with them.
My language may be open to different interpretation, but the sentiment is correct.
If a car parking ticket has resulted in a CCJ then that car can be pulled over or impounded, regardless of the person driving it or where the owner/keeper lives.
They can then update the correct address on the warrant once the owner/keeper comes forward.
So, to all intents and purpose, the CCJ is linked to the car reg no.
It's not dissimilar to what a previous poster suggested.
Except the bailiff is present at the point the address is updated.
For your last question.
It would depend on whether there was a CCJ assigned to person expected to pay injuries and if they couldn't be traced except for their reg no.
FiF said:
Snowboy said:
I don't think anyone is questioning whether the police are pulling cars over on the request of the bailiffs.
There was a question about whether they were also pulling over other cars too. Whether it's a mix of bailiff and regular stops, or if it's only bailiff stops.
I'd like to think the former, but I have no proof either way.
Sorry but for much of this thread that has been the very contention by such as yourself and vonhosen. There was a question about whether they were also pulling over other cars too. Whether it's a mix of bailiff and regular stops, or if it's only bailiff stops.
I'd like to think the former, but I have no proof either way.
vonhosen said:
I also clearly stated I didn't support stopping where there was no Police purpose. My position has therefore been entirely cogent with the SOP criteria for stopping vehicles.
To be clear:Are you stating that you do not support those operations where the purpose of the police stop is purely as a pretext for the bailiff operation?
Are you accepting that such stops are either unlawful or illegal as an abuse of power?
Do you accept that on the evidence we have seen here that the Met police appear to have been naughty?
Rovinghawk said:
vonhosen said:
I also clearly stated I didn't support stopping where there was no Police purpose. My position has therefore been entirely cogent with the SOP criteria for stopping vehicles.
To be clear:Are you stating that you do not support those operations where the purpose of the police stop is purely as a pretext for the bailiff operation?
Are you accepting that such stops are either unlawful or illegal as an abuse of power?
Do you accept that on the evidence we have seen here that the Met police appear to have been naughty?
As to what 'evidence we've seen here', I haven't looked at or seen any of the TV programmes being discussed by others. My personal support is still limited to the circumstances I've outlined.
vonhosen said:
As I said I clearly stated my support was for Police led operations where each stop was for a Police purpose & that I didn't support stops that were not for a Police purpose.
I would hope that position is something everyone on this thread could finally agree on 
vonhosen said:
As to what 'evidence we've seen here', I haven't looked at or seen any of the TV programmes being discussed by others. My personal support is still limited to the circumstances I've outlined.
That's fair enough. In fact, it would really be inappropriate for you to comment even if you had watched any of the program seeing as your correct response as a serving officer would (presumably) be to raise any such concerns within the force rather than engage in idle speculation elsewhere!
vonhosen said:
My position from the outset has been to support Police led operations, where all the stops are for a Police purpose (& that would naturally include there being stops other than just those originating from bailiff's intelligence files loaded on to the ANPR). I also clearly stated I didn't support stopping where there was no Police purpose. My position has therefore been entirely cogent with the SOP criteria for stopping vehicles.
Yes correct that has been your position. I'm being a bit unfair and certainly your position was only expressed prior to the screening of the show iirc. So apologies. presumably as we can see the SOP being blatantly broken is there going to be any change in the actions on the ground or are the SOPs going to be amended.
Any comments on the way the Met tried to avoid the FOI request?
vonhosen said:
My position from the outset has been to support Police led operations, where all the stops are for a Police purpose (& that would naturally include there being stops other than just those originating from bailiff's intelligence files loaded on to the ANPR). I also clearly stated I didn't support stopping where there was no Police purpose. My position has therefore been entirely cogent with the SOP criteria for stopping vehicles.
Yes correct that has been your position. I'm being a bit unfair and certainly your position was only expressed prior to the screening of the show iirc. So apologies. presumably as we can see the SOP being blatantly broken is there going to be any change in the actions on the ground or are the SOPs going to be amended.
Any comments on the way the Met tried to avoid the FOI request?
It still isn't clear how a Police Officer can introduce a bailiff to a driver in a stationary vehicle unless the Police Officer requires the driver to remain stopped for the purpose of introducing the bailiff. If that is the case then the driver has been stopped for a reason other than a Police purpose.
The requirement to stop is not complied with simply by bringing the vehicle to a halt. It is a continuing act. If you drive off prior to the Police Officer informing you he no longer requires you to stop, you are liable to be convicted for failing to stop.
The requirement to stop is not complied with simply by bringing the vehicle to a halt. It is a continuing act. If you drive off prior to the Police Officer informing you he no longer requires you to stop, you are liable to be convicted for failing to stop.
Well last programme of the series.
It's all in the edit but it certainly looked as if the shaven headed CEO in Croydon was sent down the road to stop vehicles.The voiceover even said he'd stopped a vehicle.
That is not definite proof naturally but simply an observation.
PC standing and about to interject whilst a roofer was being threatened to have his vehicle seized contrary to the rules. Clearly again he was lucky that he kept his mouth shut as that could have been embarrassing for somebody.
Thought the CEO threatening to inform Motability of the driver of the Qashqai that he hadn't paid a ticket contrary to the terms and conditions of his lease was more than below the belt.
Finally the guy who claimed the car was his and these tickets were nothing to do with him. Initially reports from DVLA that the name on the warrants and tickets was still somehow attached to the car. 45 minutes later it's shown that DVLA cannot differentiate arse from elbow and the information they initially provided to the police supporting the bailiff operation was just flat out wrong.
Nothing surprising. There's a comment from someone on the corresponding thread in Films and TV section that has dealt with that adjudicator Carolyne Shepherd that suggests she isn't all that independent minded.
It's all in the edit but it certainly looked as if the shaven headed CEO in Croydon was sent down the road to stop vehicles.The voiceover even said he'd stopped a vehicle.
That is not definite proof naturally but simply an observation.
PC standing and about to interject whilst a roofer was being threatened to have his vehicle seized contrary to the rules. Clearly again he was lucky that he kept his mouth shut as that could have been embarrassing for somebody.
Thought the CEO threatening to inform Motability of the driver of the Qashqai that he hadn't paid a ticket contrary to the terms and conditions of his lease was more than below the belt.
Finally the guy who claimed the car was his and these tickets were nothing to do with him. Initially reports from DVLA that the name on the warrants and tickets was still somehow attached to the car. 45 minutes later it's shown that DVLA cannot differentiate arse from elbow and the information they initially provided to the police supporting the bailiff operation was just flat out wrong.
Nothing surprising. There's a comment from someone on the corresponding thread in Films and TV section that has dealt with that adjudicator Carolyne Shepherd that suggests she isn't all that independent minded.
Asked before and don't think it was answered by anyone in the know (plod or a legal eagle) but what's stopping you from getting back in your car, once the Police have determined you are insured, taxed etc, and just driving off?
Would the Police chase you down? What would the reason for stopping you a second time, having determined the first time that you are fully legal behind the wheel? At what point does it become harassment?
Loved the guy in the motability car "I worked all my life, paid my taxes before I lost my legs" - see the Bailiffs shut up and realise they look a little silly on camera.
And as for the idiots paying other people's parking fines and then high-5ing and congratulation each other - "I'm proud of you mate" - really? Proud of posting footage online of harassing a parking attndant doing his job?
Would the Police chase you down? What would the reason for stopping you a second time, having determined the first time that you are fully legal behind the wheel? At what point does it become harassment?
Loved the guy in the motability car "I worked all my life, paid my taxes before I lost my legs" - see the Bailiffs shut up and realise they look a little silly on camera.
And as for the idiots paying other people's parking fines and then high-5ing and congratulation each other - "I'm proud of you mate" - really? Proud of posting footage online of harassing a parking attndant doing his job?
OpulentBob said:
Asked before and don't think it was answered by anyone in the know (plod or a legal eagle) but what's stopping you from getting back in your car, once the Police have determined you are insured, taxed etc, and just driving off?
The general view is that the police would arrest you for a breach of the peace (by not "co-operating" with the bailiff) rather than arrest the bailiff for obstructing the highway. The rights and wrongs of that are a different issue altogether. Greg66 said:
OpulentBob said:
Asked before and don't think it was answered by anyone in the know (plod or a legal eagle) but what's stopping you from getting back in your car, once the Police have determined you are insured, taxed etc, and just driving off?
The general view is that the police would arrest you for a breach of the peace (by not "co-operating" with the bailiff) rather than arrest the bailiff for obstructing the highway. The rights and wrongs of that are a different issue altogether. If you are innocent you're better off sticking around and sorting it out.
If you're a dodgy git trying to avoid the debt it's good that you get stopped.
Snowboy said:
Greg66 said:
OpulentBob said:
Asked before and don't think it was answered by anyone in the know (plod or a legal eagle) but what's stopping you from getting back in your car, once the Police have determined you are insured, taxed etc, and just driving off?
The general view is that the police would arrest you for a breach of the peace (by not "co-operating" with the bailiff) rather than arrest the bailiff for obstructing the highway. The rights and wrongs of that are a different issue altogether. If you are innocent you're better off sticking around and sorting it out.
If you're a dodgy git trying to avoid the debt it's good that you get stopped.
If a car parking ticket has resulted in a CCJ then that car can be pulled over or impounded, regardless of the person driving it or where the owner/keeper lives.
They can then update the correct address on the warrant once the owner/keeper comes forward.
Really!!! Not if the car don't belong to the transgressor anymore..........
But you MIGHT NOT OWE THE MONEY !! If you've just bought the dam car, and it was the previous owner who got the ticket, it's sod all to do with you. And if you tell the bailiff to stick it and drive off, the Fuzz is going to have a lot of explaining if they go after you with blues and two's. One other point. On a recent Police Motorway programme, the fuzz were following a driver who had run out of fuel, got a can from the garage, filled it up, and set off. He was reported as smelling of alchol. The fuzz following him said 'WE CAN'T STOP HIM UNTIL HE COMMITS A DRIVING INFRINGEMENT' They got him because he pulled off the motorway without indicating, and had no seat belt on.
Edited by robinessex on Friday 9th May 14:34
robinessex said:
But you MIGHT NOT OWE THE MONEY !! If you've just bought the dam car, and it was the previous owner who got the ticket, it's sod all to do with you. And if you tell the bailiff to stick it and drive off, the Fuzz is going to have a lot of explaining if they go after you with blues and two's. One other point. On a recent Police Motorway programme, the fuzz were following a driver who had run out of fuel, got a can from the garage, filled it up, and set off. He was reported as smelling of alchol. The fuzz following him said 'WE CAN'T STOP HIM UNTIL HE COMMITS A DRIVING INFRINGEMENT' They got him because he pulled off the motorway without indicating, and had no seat belt on.
If you just drive off the baillifs will still have you on their lists.Sooner or later they will snag the car and you'll be even more screwed when you find your car missing from the car park after a day shopping.
IMO, if you do not owe the money you're better off sticking around and dealing with it there and then.
If it gets ugly then you can ask the police for help.
Snowboy said:
If it gets ugly then you can ask the police for help.
That'll be the police who'll tell you "it's a civil matter" and refuse to get involved unless they can arrest you for a breach of the peace.In case you didn't watch it, there was a guy on this week's episode who was delayed for 45 minutes protesting his "innocence" because he was innocent and DVLA had screwed up.
So, what was that 45 minutes? Late back from lunch and a bloocking from the boss? Loss of an hour's pay? Loss of a contract he was going to estimate on? Kids left outside a school on their own? That month's shopping in his boot defrosted?
He even had to hint heavily to get a "sorry" out of Biatch-face for getting it wrong and effectively detaining him for nearly an hour.
Variomatic said:
Snowboy said:
If it gets ugly then you can ask the police for help.
That'll be the police who'll tell you "it's a civil matter" and refuse to get involved unless they can arrest you for a breach of the peace.In case you didn't watch it, there was a guy on this week's episode who was delayed for 45 minutes protesting his "innocence" because he was innocent and DVLA had screwed up.
So, what was that 45 minutes? Late back from lunch and a bloocking from the boss? Loss of an hour's pay? Loss of a contract he was going to estimate on? Kids left outside a school on their own? That month's shopping in his boot defrosted?
He even had to hint heavily to get a "sorry" out of Biatch-face for getting it wrong and effectively detaining him for nearly an hour.
We even had the old adage from the guy who I took to be the boss, 'well evidence suggests that people who don't pay parking tickets are also involved in crime.' So if they are involved in crime let the police deal with it then.
Far be it from me to say that there was also evidence that some people who don't pay parking tickets are also completely skint and right on the edge financially.
Got the same bailiff team on "Britcam: Emergency on our streets" (on Pick) just now, and one of the team has just said, straight to camera, that "we spot them with the ANPR, we tell the police, and they pull them".
So that makes it pretty clear that they're NOT being pulled over for police purposes, and that ANPR other than the Police system is being used to identify stops - against the express requirements of the Police's own SOPs.
So that makes it pretty clear that they're NOT being pulled over for police purposes, and that ANPR other than the Police system is being used to identify stops - against the express requirements of the Police's own SOPs.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff