Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
dacouch said:
I like how they blur everything with trust and confidence b
ks. Was it legal or not?CoolHands said:
dacouch said:
I like how they blur everything with trust and confidence bks. Was it legal or not?Devil2575 said:
You might have though they would have considered this before starting in the first place.
I don't have an issue with what they were doing though. I find the whole issue of certain things being a civil matter rather perplexing.
They must of I expect someone was getting kick backs I cant see why else anyone ever authorised them to do it and worst of all it went on national telly.I don't have an issue with what they were doing though. I find the whole issue of certain things being a civil matter rather perplexing.
I cannot see how baliffs can legally sieze cars when they are being driven.
dacouch said:
"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands."Douglas Adams
The Met spent 5 months obfuscating and/or trying hard not to give proper answers to FoI requests.
They were outed when one complainant took the matter to the Commissioner, the ICO, and her MP.
I suspect the possibility of a question in the House may have helped concentrate their minds.
The PR spin about the reasons for binning the operations is a pure face-saving exercise.
The routine breaching of their SoPs has come back to bite them on the a**e.
Some on here predicted that it was all highly dodgy but the usual suspects thought it was just the ticket.
Maybe they will now admit that there is a clear distinction between criminal and civil matters.
One might think that they would be able to twig what the D in DPE stands for.
Check the second video around 6.20 - Cops havent a clue why theyre pulling cars
http://crimebodge.com/police-assist-bailiffs-with-...
http://crimebodge.com/police-assist-bailiffs-with-...
Red Devil said:
The Met spent 5 months obfuscating and/or trying hard not to give proper answers to FoI requests.
They were outed when one complainant took the matter to the Commissioner, the ICO, and her MP.
I suspect the possibility of a question in the House may have helped concentrate their minds.
And the sad thing is the ICO is a toothless bulldog and all they are good for is writing letters. They were outed when one complainant took the matter to the Commissioner, the ICO, and her MP.
I suspect the possibility of a question in the House may have helped concentrate their minds.
The police know this so they carry on breaking the law without worry. My mate made a subject access request over 11 months ago (by law, a SAR should be actioned within 40 days) and still nothing despite the police admiting the existence of the requested recording. Complained to ICO but the police ignored their directive.
A big shame considering these are the same people who should be upholding the law.
jbsportstech said:
They must of I expect someone was getting kick backs I cant see why else anyone ever authorised them to do it and worst of all it went on national telly.
I cannot see how baliffs can legally sieze cars when they are being driven.
Sorry, English is not my first language. I thought I was quite fluent but I don't have any idea what you are trying to say.I cannot see how baliffs can legally sieze cars when they are being driven.
Not long after my original post i made an official complaint to the met. asking the question why were they getting involved in civil matters ? After a considerable length of time after being passed from one department to another i was finally contacted by the person in charge of setting up these operations, Sgt.Guy Ellwood. He is the planner for deploying traffic stopping sites in Westminster. Whilst he seemed a nice enough person his reply really was that expected of a civil servant. He explained that as far as the met were concerned bailiff's were officers appointed by the court therefore they were following through the law of the land. He did not see why the met should not get involved. Whilst he sympathized with me about my matter he also went on to say how the met had seized over 100,000 vehicles since traffic stopping was deployed. However he did concede that since some of these operations had been on television that there had been a public backlash and that they had decided to suspend the bailiff stop operations for a while. Obviously this has now become permanent. He also mentioned that each borough in London has had a directive to conduct a traffic stop operation at least once a month. If anyone wishes to contact Sgt. Ellwood about any of these operations then you can contact him on 0207-321-8879 or email him guy.ellwood@met.pnn.police.uk
testosterone2 said:
Whilst he seemed a nice enough person his reply really was that expected of a civil servant. He explained that as far as the met were concerned bailiff's were officers appointed by the court therefore they were following through the law of the land. He did not see why the met should not get involved. Whilst he sympathized with me about my matter he also went on to say how the met had seized over 100,000 vehicles since traffic stopping was deployed.
It is deeply depressing that he appears to have been (and may be still is) ignorant of, or deliberately going beyond, the Met's SoP.Section 85 County Courts Act 1984
This relates to the execution of judgements or orders for payment of money.
It has been often quoted that police officers have a duty to assist officers of the court executing these warrants by virtue of Section 85(4), which states “It shall be the duty of every constable within his jurisdiction to assist in the execution of every such warrant”
However this section has been restricted by virtue of Statutory Instrument 1993/2073 - The Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 (article 6)
This section does not afford police officers with a power to execute the warrant and there is no power for police officers to detain a person in order for CEOs to execute the warrant. Police officers powers in relation to these warrants would be limited to the common law power to prevent a breach of the peace.
Nor do I see the relevance of quoting the number of vehicles seized by the Met. Those will have been to do with offences (e.g. no insurance). What the
has that got to do with civil debt collection? The fact that he can't or won't understand the total non sequitur in trotting out that statistic is worrying. testosterone2 said:
Not long after my original post i made an official complaint to the met. asking the question why were they getting involved in civil matters ? After a considerable length of time after being passed from one department to another i was finally contacted by the person in charge of setting up these operations, Sgt.Guy Ellwood. He is the planner for deploying traffic stopping sites in Westminster. Whilst he seemed a nice enough person his reply really was that expected of a civil servant. He explained that as far as the met were concerned bailiff's were officers appointed by the court therefore they were following through the law of the land. He did not see why the met should not get involved. Whilst he sympathized with me about my matter he also went on to say how the met had seized over 100,000 vehicles since traffic stopping was deployed. However he did concede that since some of these operations had been on television that there had been a public backlash and that they had decided to suspend the bailiff stop operations for a while. Obviously this has now become permanent. He also mentioned that each borough in London has had a directive to conduct a traffic stop operation at least once a month. If anyone wishes to contact Sgt. Ellwood about any of these operations then you can contact him on 0207-321-8879 or email him guy.ellwood@met.pnn.police.uk
If that is his opinion and is correct does that mean the met are going to be collecting unpaid council tax were the council has a court order? I doubt it!Am I right in my understanding of the thread that the plod responsible for this fiasco is a Sgt? A paper pusher one step up from a newly recruited Constable is making policy decisions like this? What the hell are the thousands of senior ranks up to? Hiding from the fallout?
I just hope this intellectual giant doesn't team up with DFS to pursue people who have missed a payment on their sofa.
I just hope this intellectual giant doesn't team up with DFS to pursue people who have missed a payment on their sofa.
Am I right in my understanding of the thread that the plod responsible for this fiasco is a Sgt? A paper pusher one step up from a newly recruited Constable is making policy decisions like this? What the hell are the thousands of senior ranks up to? Hiding from the fallout?
I just hope this intellectual giant doesn't team up with DFS to pursue people who have missed a payment on their sofa.
I just hope this intellectual giant doesn't team up with DFS to pursue people who have missed a payment on their sofa.
FiF said:
So pretty much what a number of us on this thread were saying and were rubbished for doing so.
Worth quoting.These types of threads are always great to look back on and remember for future use..Red Devil said:
Some on here predicted that it was all highly dodgy but the usual suspects thought it was just the ticket.
But now you either get to watch them squirm, or chuckle at how they are suddenly ignoring the thread. 
Edited by Digby on Saturday 24th January 03:53
Bigends said:
Check the second video around 6.20 - Cops havent a clue why theyre pulling cars
http://crimebodge.com/police-assist-bailiffs-with-...
"But because the bailiffs are using out-dated unauthorised ANPR datasets, at least a third of all drivers stopped are being bullied for debts that don’t even belong to them. Usually because they have just bought the vehicle from the person on the warrant, or the warrant details are incorrect.http://crimebodge.com/police-assist-bailiffs-with-...
Worst still, many of the court warrants are issued on behalf of private car park owners and supermarkets and have incurred ridiculous bailiff fees that can’t even be challenged or clarified because the bailiffs don’t have access to the information."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff