Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters
Discussion
Red 4 said:
How are police officers acting impartially if they are detaining people and then "introducing" a bailiff who is there to recover a civil debt as part of a joint operation ?
Because as the SOP sets out they are dealing with Police matters & then they step back as they are finished dealing with Police matters & the CEO is at liberty to talk with them Re their court warrant. The Police are (once they've finished with the Police business) there to prevent a breach of the peace (as common when they get called by either party to such an event).The CEO isn't at liberty to to talk to the driver unless the driver remains stationary and the driver will only remain stationary if he believes he is required to do so by the Police Officer. What is the point of advising the driver that the Police business is finished if not to be able to argue that the requirement to stop under S163 has also ceased and the driver is free to go?
vonhosen said:
Because as the SOP sets out they are dealing with Police matters & then they step back as they are finished dealing with Police matters & the CEO is at liberty to talk with them Re their court warrant. The Police are (once they've finished with the Police business) there to prevent a breach of the peace (as common when they get called by either party to such an event).
The word is 'pretext'.Another similar word is 'pretence'.
Weasel words don't make your position seem any better.
One thing that seems to keep getting missed here is that these people legally owe money.
If the police did not help then the balifs could still impound the cars or request the money, it would just be a little more difficult, and result in more charges.
The police are just assisting in a stop, they aren't fabricating evidence or making malicious arrests.
In terms of the TV show the director will edit it to show the most controversial clips. It's not showing the full story.
If the police did not help then the balifs could still impound the cars or request the money, it would just be a little more difficult, and result in more charges.
The police are just assisting in a stop, they aren't fabricating evidence or making malicious arrests.
In terms of the TV show the director will edit it to show the most controversial clips. It's not showing the full story.
Snowboy said:
In terms of the TV show the director will edit it to show the most controversial clips. It's not showing the full story.
That's not really the point.Like it or not, the police are required to play absolutely by the rules 100% of the time. Maybe they do, maybe they don't in real life, but that's what's required of them. That's what the public has an absolute right to expect of them.
So, if it's possible to "carefully select" even one clip from a hundred hours of footage that clearly shows them bending the rules (ad several clips in thsi program so far do just that) then they should be taken to task over it.
@ snowboy
Of course it's par for the course that it's all in the edit and if they want to show you to be an arse they will concentrate on the 5 seconds when you lost it and ignore the rescue of several winsome and scantily dressed maidens from a burning building while simultaneously arresting a drugs dealer and lending a tenner to a granny for the bus fare home.
In this instance it appears that they wish at times to portray the police doing things contrary to their procedures and ignoring bailiffs threatening to do things that they are not legally allowed to do.
Perhaps all the incidents where the police stopped a serial drunk uninsured untaxed driver who happened to have also ignored a parking ticket ended up on the cutting room floor due to editorial bias.
Like my bias in refusing to point out that you appear to be unable to spell bailiff and some readers may think that makes you appear a cretin. I could point that out but it's down there on the cutting room floor.
Of course it's par for the course that it's all in the edit and if they want to show you to be an arse they will concentrate on the 5 seconds when you lost it and ignore the rescue of several winsome and scantily dressed maidens from a burning building while simultaneously arresting a drugs dealer and lending a tenner to a granny for the bus fare home.
In this instance it appears that they wish at times to portray the police doing things contrary to their procedures and ignoring bailiffs threatening to do things that they are not legally allowed to do.
Perhaps all the incidents where the police stopped a serial drunk uninsured untaxed driver who happened to have also ignored a parking ticket ended up on the cutting room floor due to editorial bias.
Like my bias in refusing to point out that you appear to be unable to spell bailiff and some readers may think that makes you appear a cretin. I could point that out but it's down there on the cutting room floor.
Snowboy said:
One thing that seems to keep getting missed...
You've been pointed to the legislation, case law, Met policy and TV programmes showing it not being followed.Yet none of this is good enough for you, because "these people legally owe money" (which in itself may or may not be true at the time the stop is initiated).
vonhosen said:
Because as the SOP sets out they are dealing with Police matters & then they step back as they are finished dealing with Police matters & the CEO is at liberty to talk with them Re their court warrant. The Police are (once they've finished with the Police business) there to prevent a breach of the peace (as common when they get called by either party to such an event).
Say the driver gets back into his car, ignoring the CEO. He makes to pull away. The CEO stands in front of the car, stopping it from moving without a collision occurring. Do the police tell the CEO he will be arrested for obstructing the highway unless he moves?
10 Pence Short said:
You've been pointed to the legislation, case law, Met policy and TV programmes showing it not being followed.
Yet none of this is good enough for you, because "these people legally owe money" (which in itself may or may not be true at the time the stop is initiated).
Unfortunately, more and more people in this country seem to be adopting a "the ends justify the means" ideology where the law's concerned. So what if the police bend rules when dealing with the bad guys, eh?Yet none of this is good enough for you, because "these people legally owe money" (which in itself may or may not be true at the time the stop is initiated).
These people have neither the imagination nor the historical understanding to see how dangerous that is and how damaging to Society - not least because the courts (rightly) do not bend rules, so arrests etc of perfectly guilty people are quite likely to come to nothing if they're not done "by the book".
10 Pence Short said:
No, they'll arrest the driver for breach of the peace.
Yes - since found this:"The attached Standard Operating Procedure states at 2.4.15. ‘The officer
dealing with the vehicle will:
o Explain clearly to the occupants that police enquiries are complete.
o Explain clearly to the occupants the role of the CEO who would like
to speak to them.
o Explain clearly to the occupants that if necessary, officers may use
power of arrest for 'breach of the peace' and detain those who are
obstructing the bailiff. However, officers are advised to avoid using this
power by making it plain what the position is, and what will happen if the
bailiff is resisted.
o Explain clearly that police involvement, unless other criminal
offences come to light will be to prevent a breach of the peace.
o Police will withdraw unless required to deal with a Breach of the
Peace or other criminal offences that come to light."
And thereby the bailiff gets a de facto stop power, assisted by the Police.
Please - stop cropping posts in quotes and arguing out of context.
It doesn't help the discussion at all.
I think a lot of this is down to peoples outlook.
I think people who owe money should be forced to pay back then money.
I don't especially care how it's done within reason.
I've yet to hear a story of an innocent person being stopped.
So from my perspective everything is working just fine.
I don't have a problem with the police helping any sort of legal activity at all.
The stories here suggesting the baillifs are breaking the law are missing too much detail.
In fact.
I think the law should be that no car can be taken without the owner being present.
To me, this discussion is arguing against the wrong thing, and totally ignoring the bigger problem.
It doesn't help the discussion at all.
I think a lot of this is down to peoples outlook.
I think people who owe money should be forced to pay back then money.
I don't especially care how it's done within reason.
I've yet to hear a story of an innocent person being stopped.
So from my perspective everything is working just fine.
I don't have a problem with the police helping any sort of legal activity at all.
The stories here suggesting the baillifs are breaking the law are missing too much detail.
In fact.
I think the law should be that no car can be taken without the owner being present.
To me, this discussion is arguing against the wrong thing, and totally ignoring the bigger problem.
Snowboy said:
I think people who owe money should be forced to pay back then money.
I don't especially care how it's done within reason.
I don't especially care how it's done within the law.I don't especially care how it's done within reason.
Snowboy said:
I don't have a problem with the police helping any sort of legal activity at all.
It's actually the unlawful activity that some of us have the problem with.Snowboy said:
The stories here suggesting the baillifs are breaking the law are missing too much detail.
The story here is actually that the police are acting unlawfully & supporting unlawful activities.Snowboy said:
Please - stop cropping posts in quotes and arguing out of context.
It doesn't help the discussion at all.
I think a lot of this is down to peoples outlook.
I think people who owe money should be forced to pay back then money.
I don't especially care how it's done within reason.
I've yet to hear a story of an innocent person being stopped.
So from my perspective everything is working just fine.
I don't have a problem with the police helping any sort of legal activity at all.
The stories here suggesting the baillifs are breaking the law are missing too much detail.
In fact.
I think the law should be that no car can be taken without the owner being present.
To me, this discussion is arguing against the wrong thing, and totally ignoring the bigger problem.
The reason for cropping posts in't to put things out of context. It's entirely accepted to crop the relevant parts of any written material when quoting, in order to keep things to a reasonable length. Still, to avoid your strawman complaint, I've obliged this time and quoted your entire post.It doesn't help the discussion at all.
I think a lot of this is down to peoples outlook.
I think people who owe money should be forced to pay back then money.
I don't especially care how it's done within reason.
I've yet to hear a story of an innocent person being stopped.
So from my perspective everything is working just fine.
I don't have a problem with the police helping any sort of legal activity at all.
The stories here suggesting the baillifs are breaking the law are missing too much detail.
In fact.
I think the law should be that no car can be taken without the owner being present.
To me, this discussion is arguing against the wrong thing, and totally ignoring the bigger problem.
According to that post, you believe that people who owe money should be made to pay it back. I totally agree, so let's set up a reasonable hypothetical situation:
You sell me a TV in "perfect working order" for £100, which turns out to be defective (the tuner won't pick up 4 stations I like but you never watched them and didn't know) and I want (and am entitled to) my money back. You disagree, so I take you to court. The court agrees that the description was wrong and I obtain a court order stating that you should pay.
You now owe money (the court has said so), but you still refuse to pay because you didn't do it deliberately. So I decide to collect. Should I have a free reign in how I do that?
You say you "don't particularly care" how i do it "within reason". But what is "within reason"?
Is it reasonable for me to camp outside your door, accosting you every time you try to leave the house and making a big public show in front of your neighbours about you being a bad debtor? I think it is.
Is it reasonable for me to get the local policeman, who happens to be feeling unusually helpful, to turn up as you try to get past me and threaten to arrest you for a breach of the peace in case I start my public show trick?
Is it reasonable for me to stop you in a car park and recover the money by taking your car (which is worth fifty times what you owe)?
As the creditor, I think all the above would be perfectly reasonable, but the law doesn't agree. It has set procedures that I, or anyone collecting on my behalf (such as a bailiff company) must follow. In te case of bailiffs, those procedures include (but are not limited to):
(1) Writing to you at least 7 days before attempting collection
(2) Visiting at your home
(3) Not taking goods that are "clearly of significantly greater value than the debt" unless there is nothing else available - so taking a car for a £100 tv, or even a £800 (including fees) parking ticket, is actually unlawful in itself.
No, I understand that you will say "but they don't know how else to find these people". There are two things wrong with that:
Firstly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the bailiffs in these opertions have previously tried to contact the debtor by other means. They simply rock up to the operation with a list of registrations and say which ones they'd like stopped. The repeated suggestion on here that it's only people who've got incorrect details with DVLA is pure supposition with not a shred of evidence at all to back it up.
Secondly, even it it was true that these people have incorrect details registered, that is a legitimate policing matter. It would be perfectly reasonable for the bailiff companies to periodically notify the police of cars that appeared to be mis-registered and for the police to stop those cars to have the details corrected. Job jobbed - the (supposedly) "untraceable" debtor has been traced, and the bailiffs can now deal with then through legitimate means without holding them to ransom when they could need to be elsewhere urgently and have no way to pay except for the vastly overvalued (compared to the debt) car.
Edited by Variomatic on Monday 28th April 09:14
In order to get a CCJ there would have been many attempts to notify the debtor, including a court summons.
Through accident or design these people can not be traced.
The rules and laws about what is 'reasonable' in terms of collecting money are already written down somewhere. They seem to be working in most cases; although I'm sure there's a huge discussion to be had about that if we wanted to.
The question is about whether the police stops are legal.
There have been arguments saying yes and arguments saying no.
Some good arguments on both sides, some wibble on both sides.
For me, I think it's legal.
The fact it's happening and it's telivised means that some quite senior legal people will have looked at this and agreed it's legal.
If some judge rules it to be illegal, the I won't disagree and I'll change my stance.
I might still think it 'should be' legal, but I would accept it wasn't.
But internet opinions on what 'should be' don't mean much.
Through accident or design these people can not be traced.
The rules and laws about what is 'reasonable' in terms of collecting money are already written down somewhere. They seem to be working in most cases; although I'm sure there's a huge discussion to be had about that if we wanted to.
The question is about whether the police stops are legal.
There have been arguments saying yes and arguments saying no.
Some good arguments on both sides, some wibble on both sides.
For me, I think it's legal.
The fact it's happening and it's telivised means that some quite senior legal people will have looked at this and agreed it's legal.
If some judge rules it to be illegal, the I won't disagree and I'll change my stance.
I might still think it 'should be' legal, but I would accept it wasn't.
But internet opinions on what 'should be' don't mean much.
Snowboy said:
For me, I think it's legal.
The fact it's happening and it's telivised means that some quite senior legal people will have looked at this and agreed it's legal.
Have you read the link provided to the Met policy?The fact it's happening and it's telivised means that some quite senior legal people will have looked at this and agreed it's legal.
(It's here, scroll down > https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bailiff#inc... )
If you have read it, you will note that it acknowledges there is a fine line between what would be a legal use of s163 and what would not. It therefore describes in relative detail how to maintain legality.
As has been opined already on this thread, the policy agrees that to stop a motorist only on the say so of a bailiff chasing a civil warrant would not be lawful use of the power.
There are circumstances where the bailiff present might alert the Police to potential criminal offences being committed, that would justify the stop, but this does not include an outstanding warrant for a civil debt.
Note that the policy disallows bailiffs from loading outstanding civil warrants onto the Police ANPR at the scene, whereas warrants from Magistrates Court under s.125 (usually for unpaid criminal fines) can be.
What the evidence from people who've been stopped and the TV programme discussed appears to show, is the Met deviating from the policy and allowing the bailiffs to choose who to stop. This is unlawful use of the power, unless the Officer doing the stopping has another, genuine Police purpose for instigating the stop.
Snowboy said:
The question is about whether the police stops are legal.
There have been arguments saying yes and arguments saying no.
Some good arguments on both sides, some wibble on both sides.
For me, I think it's legal.
The fact it's happening and it's telivised means that some quite senior legal people will have looked at this and agreed it's legal.
If some judge rules it to be illegal, the I won't disagree and I'll change my stance.
I might still think it 'should be' legal, but I would accept it wasn't.
But internet opinions on what 'should be' don't mean much.
Please excuse the crop on this one, I don't think I've put the relevant bit out of context.There have been arguments saying yes and arguments saying no.
Some good arguments on both sides, some wibble on both sides.
For me, I think it's legal.
The fact it's happening and it's telivised means that some quite senior legal people will have looked at this and agreed it's legal.
If some judge rules it to be illegal, the I won't disagree and I'll change my stance.
I might still think it 'should be' legal, but I would accept it wasn't.
But internet opinions on what 'should be' don't mean much.
The fact it's televised etc doesn't mean very much except that they believe they'll get away with it until it's challenged. That's not likely to happen any time soon because:
The people stopped are faced with an immediate cirsis and don't have any realistic option to turn to the courts on the spot.
By the time they do have that option, the debt will have been settled one way or another because of the highly dubious tactics being used - they will either have paid or had their car removed, using very doubtful threats of breach of the peace if needed.
It would need someone as stroppy as I am when it comes to misbehaviour by authority to follow it through on a matter of principle. Seeing as (a)I live nowhere near these operations and (b) I haven't had a parking ticket in the past 15 years or more it won't be me.
Deliberately driving to London, parking illegally, ignoring the ticket, then driving back and going round in circles until they pulled me would be on the slightly unhealthy side of obsessional
Variomatic said:
Please excuse the crop on this one, I don't think I've put the relevant bit out of context.
-snip-
Deliberately driving to London, parking illegally, ignoring the ticket, then driving back and going round in circles until they pulled me would be on the slightly unhealthy side of obsessional
Contextual crops are all good. -snip-
Deliberately driving to London, parking illegally, ignoring the ticket, then driving back and going round in circles until they pulled me would be on the slightly unhealthy side of obsessional
I liked your last comment.
I'd like to do an exercise where I purchased a car with an outstanding parking fine and then deliberately get stopped while the paperwork is in the post to see exactly what happens.
Hopefully someone will challenge this process.
I'd like a judge to rule on it.
I think one problem is with the fuzzyness of the laws here.
If there was an added bit of legislation that said cops could assist bailiffs in pulling over car then that would be the end of it.
Well, except for all those complaining about it, but people b
hing laws are wrong is quite different to arguing interpretation.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff