TIMES ARTICLE – 27 AUGUST 2011
The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helpingbailiffs to collect disputed parking fines
The police have been accused of acting beyond their authority by helpingbailiffs to collect disputed parking fines.
An investigation by The Times has discovered thatforces across the UK, including the Metropolitan and Kent Police, have beenregularly assisting bailiffs to seize the cars of motorists with outstandingpenalties, even though campaigners say they do not have the legal authoritybecause parking enforcement in most parts of the UK is a civil, not criminalmatter.
In one case, the police helped Newlyn, a bailiff company that has beenaccused of adding extra costs to debts, cutting corners and aggressivelychasing people for money that they say they do not owe. The Times hasobtained video evidence of how the police confiscated the car keys of onedriver and handed them to Newlyn even though the bailiff provided documentationof disputed authenticity and the driver denied that he owed any money.
In 2009 a district judge branded a director of Newlyn a liar in ahearing about the renewal of a bailiff’s licence. The driver who had his carconfiscated has since taken his case to the Independent Police ComplaintsCommission.
The law states that the police should assist bailiffs only if there islikely to be a breach of the peace, but officers appear to be routinely goingon joint operations to stop motorists.
Ron Clark, of Fairparking.com, a website that champions the cause ofmotorists, said: “The permission to engage in such activity was removed by theEnforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order of 1993. Police should no more beassisting bailiffs to chase up parking contraventions than they should beassisting utility companies in securing payment of their energy bills.”
Barrie Segal, of Appealnow.com, which helps people fight unfair parkingpenalties, said: “Shouldn’t the police be concentrating on chasing people whobreak the criminal law? I’m all for police stopping motorists where theysuspect a crime has occurred. I just don’t think they should team up withbailiffs because it misleads the public into thinking that bailiffs havegreater powers than they do.”
Legal experts consulted by The Times said the policecould be acting beyond their authority. District Judge Stephen Gerlis, ofBarnet County Court, said: “I am not aware of any protocol or authority thatprovides 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 obtaineda transcript of a court hearing about a bailiff’s licence renewal. In thishearing, Leonard Brailey, an employee of Marston’s, a leading bailiff company,admitted that the police had for the past seven years been assisting hiscompany with roadside stopping operations in Kent and other areas on theoutskirts of London. In the past six months, he had taken part in six to tenoperations, he said.
He explained that police would flag down oncoming cars for a roadsidecheck. Then, after completing the check, they would say to the motorist: “Hereis a bailiff. He is going to carry out checks as well.” Mr Brailey agreed thatthe impression given was that this was some lawful stopping to which themotorist had no right to object.
Kent Police confirmed it had conducted roadside police operations withbailiffs. The Metropolitan Police said it also carried out roadside stopoperations with bailiffs “on rare occasions”. Both forces said they weresatisfied that their operations were legal.
According to Mr Brailey, after being introduced by the police, thebailiff phones his office to check whether there are any outstanding warrantsfor unpaid fines relating to the vehicle. But Mr Clark said: “The bailiff’s vanis equipped with Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology and a databaseof vehicles on which there are outstanding parking contraventions. These arethe vehicles the police stop.”
Malcolm Hurlston, of Credit Action, the national financial educationcharity, said: “The proposals for regulating bailiffs are already monthsoverdue. The whole area of bailiff activity is confusing and complicated andurgently 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 consultationas soon as we have exhausted our exploration of all the issues.”
Newlyn refused to comment but has previously denied any wrongdoing andhas said that its director’s incorrect statement in court was “merely anadministrative error”.
Res ipsa loquitur
Notareargunner's Weblog 
When the Times releases an article one has to wonder if it is through corrupt journalistic practises, or good old fashion investigative reporting?This 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/32449I 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.