Beware ! Traffic Police and civil parking matters

[Variomatic]

10 Pence Short said:

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.

It might be interesting if figures could be found for:

(a) The total number of cars stopped in these operations over the last year
(b) The number of those cars that "subsequently" proved to be of interest to the bailiffs
(c) The number of cars registered in the London area
(d) The number of cars with outstanding warrants for parking registered against them in London.


Allowing for the fact that some warrants will be issued against cars from out of town (which would skew the ratios in favour of things being legitimate), if the stops were genuinely random wrt warrants then you'd expect the ratio fo a:b to be broadly the same as the ratio of c because random stops should find "warranted" cars according to their relative frequency in the total car pool.

If, on the other hand, the figures showed that (say) 1 in 5 (or even 1 in 10) cars stopped were of interest to the bailiffs then that would show a clear selection bias because it's simply not believeable that 20% (or even 10%) of cars on the road have outstanding bailiff warrants against them for parking.

I suspect those figures would show a much higher than 1 in 10 "hit" rate - maybe time for another FOI request

[Variomatic]

Snowboy said:

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 bhing laws are wrong is quite different to arguing interpretation.

I agree with just about all of that, but draw your attention to my earlier post regarding the Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/2073/conte...

From memory, I believe this was made around the time that many traffic matters (including parking) were being decriminalised.

In his wisdom, the Secretary of State at the time decided to apply most of the powers in the County Courts Act 1984 to the enforcement of these fines except for the duty of constables to assist bailiffs, which was specifically excluded by S.6 of the ERTD. For other (criminal) fines that duty still applies, so it was an intentional and selective removal of that duty wrt traffic matters.

That very strongly suggests that Parliament doesn't (or, at least, didn't) intend for the police to assist with the collection of these specific debts when they became a civil matter.

Edited by Variomatic on Monday 28th April 10:08

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

I think one problem is with the fuzzyness of the laws here.

The law here is anything but fuzzy.

s.163 says;

S.163 Road Traffic Act said:

"Power of police to stop vehicles

(1)A person driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform or a traffic officer.

It is a power given only to a Police officer and they must be in uniform. The power can only be exercised in the course of their duties as a Police officer. If something falls outwith the duties of a Police officer, they cannot use the power.

Equally, the courts have held that Police officers cannot use the power capriciously (as in arbitrarily stopping people on a whim or maliciously) or oppressively.

The question you are left with is this; is recovery of a civil debt something a Police officer does in his duty as a Police officer? The answer to this is no, in which case, any stop made under s.163 purely to discuss a civil debt is unlawful.

[Variomatic]

10 Pence Short said:

The question you are left with is, is recovery of a civil debt something a Police officer does in his duty as a Police officer? The answer to this is no, in which case, any stop made under s.163 purely to discuss a civil debt is unlawful.

Especially "no" in light of my previous post - it was a duty that was specifically and deliberately removed when these matters became civil

[Snowboy]

And yet it's still happening and nobody is being arrested for doing it.

• shrug*

So, either all the police and lawyers who've approved this process are wrong, or a few people on the internet are wrong.

I'm normally quite happy to bet on the minority underdog, but in this case I think my money's on the police and lawyers.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

And yet it's still happening and nobody is being arrested for doing it.

• shrug*

So, either all the police and lawyers who've approved this process are wrong, or a few people on the internet are wrong.

I'm normally quite happy to bet on the minority underdog, but in this case I think my money's on the police and lawyers.

If you read the policy I kindly re-linked for you earlier today, you will see that the Police and their lawyers specifically do not approve stopping of motorists for civil debt collection using s.163. They and the 'people on the internet' agree.

The difference is that what is happening on the ground is seemingly not following the policies, and as such is straying into unlawful territory.

Oh, and nobody would be arrested for this, as being 'unlawful' does not make something a criminal offence.

[Snowboy]

That link, is that speaking for ALL police and ALL lawyers?

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

That link, is that speaking for ALL police and ALL lawyers?

If you mean, are we discussing the Met Police and is the document covering the Met Police and is it the Met Police doing the stopping and is the law for the Met Police the same as it is for other Police with regards s.163, then the answer is 'yes'.

I don't understand what else you could possibly be referring to, unless you think the Met policy has it wrong and they're preventing their officers from doing what is really legal?

[Snowboy]

There is nothing in any link or in anything posted that makes me agree it's illegal.

I know some people don't approve of it.
I know that it's not explicitly catered for under existing legislation that's been quoted and argued.

But, I also know that people have posted and explained legislation showing it's fine to do it.
I know that it's currently happening, and it appears that all police forces that do this consider it to be legal - and have probably checked with their lawyers.


I know that I approve of it.
So I'm perfectly happy with the situation.

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

But, I also know that people have posted and explained legislation showing it's fine to do it.
I know that it's currently happening, and it appears that all police forces that do this consider it to be legal - and have probably checked with their lawyers.

Nobody has shown you any legislation that says it is legal, because the legislation doesn't exist.

Secondly, not all Police forces think it is legal, as you've already been shown Met policy that shows it does not consider it legal. I suspect this is the only force you've considered on this subject, so I think that means of all the forces you know about who make these stops, 1 (one), 0 (zero) think stopping under s.163 for recovery of civil debt is legal.

Unless you care to name any others whose guidance contradicts that provided by the Met?

[10 Pence Short]

Snowboy said:

There is nothing in any link or in anything posted that makes me agree it's illegal.

Met Policy 1.3.7 said:

Only warrants that have been issued under S125 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 will be uploaded onto the MPS database as these are the only warrants that both CEOs and police have a power to execute, therefore giving police officers a lawful power to stop a vehicle to execute these warrants.

The warrants we are discussing are not issued under S125 Magistrates Court Act. "These are the only warrants...giving police officers a lawful power to stop a vehicle".

[jbsportstech]

10 Pence Short said:

The warrants we are discussing are not issued under S125 Magistrates Court Act. "These are the only warrants...giving police officers a lawful power to stop a vehicle".

If that's true the met officer(ceo's b*tch in this case as they certainly had nothing to say for themselves) stops a driver and then the ceo says I am going to seize this vehicle despite the fact its a motability car or tool of trade qualifying vehicle as this pair of vermin do on threaten on several occasions.

If after the driver has made it clear this is not the case and proceeds to drive off albeit in a peaceful manor are they guilty of failure to stop/comply with ceo's in met officer?

I dont even see why one should exit the vehicle I would talk to them through a small opening on my window and keep the doors locked. What they do in my is make threats that often exceed what theya re lawfully allowed to do and I am in half mind to complain to governing body/ceo company and the met.

[Variomatic]

One thing to bear in mind is that the law on "tools of the trade" has quietly changed at the start of April. They can now seize tools of the trade if they're (individually) over a certain value (currently £3.5k iirc).

That was brought in as part of the gubmint's "tough new measures to crack down on dodgy bailiffs" - go figure!

I believe the rationale was that, say you need a van for work, it doesn't need to be a flashy new £30k jobby - you can go get an old Transit instead. Obviously that doesn't apply in the real world to people like taxi drivers, where most local councils have licencing restrictions on the age and condition of the cars used. But things like that never stopped gubmint!

Edited by Variomatic on Monday 28th April 18:02

[robinessex]

robinessex said:

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?

This question prompted by further postings after the original

If, after the Police Officer has satisfied himself that you have committed NO criminal offence, and are free to go, upon the bailiff requesting you vacate your vehicle so he can take possession of it, you refuse to leave the drivers seat. Are you now ‘guilty’ of a ‘breach of the peace’, and can the Police Officer now arrest you?

No one has answered this yet, so I've repeated it.

[FiF]

Well on episode 1 the van driver who was not the registered keeper of the van which had been clamped and was his work vehicle and might have been worth £350 tops never mind the 3.5k new rule threatened to sit in the van for a week to stop them towing it.

He was not arrested and eventually allowed on his way.

Not sure if that answers the question if the vehicle could have been seized legally.

[Variomatic]

robinessex said:

No one has answered this yet, so I've repeated it.

It was already answered earlier in the thread. No, you're not guilty of a breach of the peace. But the Met's SOPs are to warn you that you might be arrested for one anyway. If you choose to ignore that warning its probably luck of the draw on the day what happens.

The problem being that, if they do decide to arrest you (whether they're allowed or not), if you resist then you ARE resisting arrest, for which they can arrest you. You're supposed to go along with being arrested (thereby losing your car) then make a complaint of wrongful arrest afterwards.

Personally I'd be quite happy to do that seeing as the compo for the arrest (and terrible emotional trauma of it, hardly slept a wink since and scared to go out me front door, your Honour) would probably be more than the parking fine etc

[FiF]

There is a bloke arrested on next week's show. He will probably deserve it though.

[Variomatic]

Yeah. Unfortunately, unless you can keep cool while they're doing what they can to wind you up (politely of course), sooner or later you'll breach that peace. And they know it.

[Red Devil]

robinessex said:

robinessex said:

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?

This question prompted by further postings after the original

If, after the Police Officer has satisfied himself that you have committed NO criminal offence, and are free to go, upon the bailiff requesting you vacate your vehicle so he can take possession of it, you refuse to leave the drivers seat. Are you now ‘guilty’ of a ‘breach of the peace’, and can the Police Officer now arrest you?

No one has answered this yet, so I've repeated it.

As far as driving off is concerned the answer is in the FoIA request linked to earlier.

2.4.23. Police will only detain a person if there is a power to do so. There is no power for police to detain a person on behalf of a CEO.

2.4.24. Police will only pursue a person or vehicle if there is a power to do so. There is no power for police to pursue a person or vehicle only by virtue of them declining to speak to the CEO.

Couldn't be much clearer could it?

So what you should do as soon as the officer has finished his/her enquiries and follow up spiel is ask him if he/she is finished with you. Then leave before the CEO can get involved. The latter should keep their nose out while the police are carrying out their own duties.

2.4.16. Any actions taken by CEO will only be after police enquiries are complete. A CEO will not seize or immobilise a vehicle until police have completed their enquiries and only if it is established that the vehicle is owned or controlled by the person named on the warrant.

The SOPs were clearly being ignored by the husband and wife team in the programme. Not to mention, as 10PS has already pointed out, that only s125 Magistrate Court warrants can be acted upon, not ones arising from civil County Court judgement debts.

Snowboy has made it quite clear that he is happy to conflate criminal and civil law. A very slippery slope. I find people with that mindset scary. They need to be careful what they wish for. They might be surprised to find themselves one day being led, protesting loudly, to the guillotine.

[Snowboy]

Red Devil said:

-snip-
Snowboy has made it quite clear that he is happy to conflate criminal and civil law.

In this case, yes I am.
Because it's an odd situation.

If the police didn't do it then we'd soon be seeing legislation changes giving bailiffs powers to stop cars.
Or the option to follow the car till it's stopped, then impound it, then add the cost of following to the fee.

I don't object to it because compared to the alternatives it's the least bad option.