TIMES ARTICLE - 27 AUGUST 2011
The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helping
bailiffs to collect disputed parking fines
The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helping
bailiffs to collect disputed parking fines.
An investigation by The Times has discovered that
forces across the UK, including the Metropolitan and Kent Police, have been
regularly assisting bailiffs to seize the cars of motorists with outstanding
penalties, even though campaigners say they do not have the legal authority
because parking enforcement in most parts of the UK is a civil, not criminal
matter.
In one case, the police helped Newlyn, a bailiff company that has been
accused of adding extra costs to debts, cutting corners and aggressively
chasing people for money that they say they do not owe. The Times has
obtained video evidence of how the police confiscated the car keys of one
driver and handed them to Newlyn even though the bailiff provided documentation
of disputed authenticity and the driver denied that he owed any money.
In 2009 a district judge branded a director of Newlyn a liar in a
hearing about the renewal of a bailiff’s licence. The driver who had his car
confiscated has since taken his case to the Independent Police Complaints
Commission.
The law states that the police should assist bailiffs only if there is
likely to be a breach of the peace, but officers appear to be routinely going
on joint operations to stop motorists.
Ron Clark, of Fairparking.com, a website that champions the cause of
motorists, said: “The permission to engage in such activity was removed by the
Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order of 1993. Police should no more be
assisting bailiffs to chase up parking contraventions than they should be
assisting utility companies in securing payment of their energy bills.”
Barrie Segal, of Appealnow.com, which helps people fight unfair parking
penalties, said: “Shouldn’t the police be concentrating on chasing people who
break the criminal law? I’m all for police stopping motorists where they
suspect a crime has occurred. I just don’t think they should team up with
bailiffs because it misleads the public into thinking that bailiffs have
greater powers than they do.”
Legal experts consulted by The Times said the police
could be acting beyond their authority. District Judge Stephen Gerlis, of
Barnet County Court, said: “I am not aware of any protocol or authority that
provides for the police to be involved in the enforcement of civil debts,
unless there is a suggestion that a criminal offence may be committed.”
The joint operations came to light after The Times obtained
a transcript of a court hearing about a bailiff’s licence renewal. In this
hearing, Leonard Brailey, an employee of Marston’s, a leading bailiff company,
admitted that the police had for the past seven years been assisting his
company with roadside stopping operations in Kent and other areas on the
outskirts of London. In the past six months, he had taken part in six to ten
operations, he said.
He explained that police would flag down oncoming cars for a roadside
check. Then, after completing the check, they would say to the motorist: “Here
is a bailiff. He is going to carry out checks as well.” Mr Brailey agreed that
the impression given was that this was some lawful stopping to which the
motorist had no right to object.
Kent Police confirmed it had conducted roadside police operations with
bailiffs. The Metropolitan Police said it also carried out roadside stop
operations with bailiffs “on rare occasions”. Both forces said they were
satisfied that their operations were legal.
According to Mr Brailey, after being introduced by the police, the
bailiff phones his office to check whether there are any outstanding warrants
for unpaid fines relating to the vehicle. But Mr Clark said: “The bailiff’s van
is equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology and a database
of vehicles on which there are outstanding parking contraventions. These are
the vehicles the police stop.”
Malcolm Hurlston, of Credit Action, the national financial education
charity, said: “The proposals for regulating bailiffs are already months
overdue. The whole area of bailiff activity is confusing and complicated and
urgently needs regulation.”
The Ministry of Justice said: “The majority of bailiffs are responsible,
but too many are not and this cannot continue. We will publish our consultation
as soon as we have exhausted our exploration of all the issues.”
Newlyn refused to comment but has previously denied any wrongdoing and
has said that its director’s incorrect statement in court was “merely an
administrative error”.
When the Times releases an article one has to wonder if it is through corrupt journalistic practises, or good old fashion investigative reporting?
ReplyDeleteThis is the type of action that makes victims of injustice by bailiffs furious. Not only have Lancashire Police not acknowledge that they were remiss in dealing with the family and death of victim Andy Miller, but to date have failed to release a single paper to his nephew who has applied to see then under FOI.
How can a Service claim to be protecting the public when a bailiff, sufficiently dressed to look like a policeman, informs a fairly senior officer that he is a bailiff and was/is accompanying Mr Miller to collect/pay fines, but ignores the complaint from another that he was trying to extract money when dressed like a policeman? And then to say there was no complaint made to the police.
Is this the duplicitous justice that the Hillsborough families had to endure for 22 years?
Thanks to The Times and at least one Judge prepared to put his name to correct illegality.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/32449
ReplyDeleteI am trying to get the government make the bailiff companies return charges the same as they have done with the banks, please sign this e-petition.
try and set the epetition up again
Delete