With the moving out of the area I think this is to give the PPU chance to remove the software as the software varies from force to force. It would make more sense to have the same software throughout the UK really.

My contract does say at the end that if I breach it they may go to a magistrates court to get my SHPO amended. This I don't believe will happen and is just an empty threat.

My paperwork says to report in 3 days but if you go to the station they often have no idea what to do when you report a new device. I have been told different things by different front desk officers but mostly they don't know what to do and just say you have to report it directly to the VISOR team.

My offender manager says just to email the details but often the reply takes longer than 3 days to acknowledge they have got my email. My PPU does say I can use the device as long as I have emailed within 3 days.

Don't think my police station would allow me to deliver the tech direct as it is a city centre station and would probably get lost.

It is wrong how different forces handle what is basically the same SHPO

Obligatory "I'm in Scotland so might vary" but I'd be very surprised if this is different in England & Wales.

I'll need to look out the paperwork but they are not allowed/supposed to turn you away when you come to register details. Whether that's a new device, updating a bank card, or your annual notification etc. Someone has to deal with it when you turn up.

EDIT:
Here we go, again, this the Police's official guidelines for Scotland but I suspect England will have something similar.

On Page 5 under Police Roles and Responsibilities. (Emphasis is their own)

"...All RSOs must be dealt with and never asked to return when someone is available to deal with them. By attending for the purposes of notification, the RSO has complied with their obligation under the Act. It is therefore imperative the required information is obtained on every occasion they attend for the purposes of SONR..."
Police Scotland SOR Guidelines PDF

When I’ve reported a new device, the form they use for notification is what they use, in the box where it asks for bank details they just write it in there it’s a report of a new device, ask for the make, model and serial number. Not sure if that’s how there meant to do it but it’s how they have for over 4 years. I then get my dated and signed copy so I have my evidence.

In terms of selling on devices, or for example your contract is up on your mobile and you get a new one. I have always just asked them to come and do a check before I wipe and sell it. Not sure if they even have the jurisdiction to say you even have to tell them as it’s not on my SHPO just the acquisition.

Strange you should mention the turning away thing. That is exactly what happened when I went to my local station for my periodic notification. When they said "No, it's annual" and I told them that it is actually periodic, as I've notified in October, March and June before now, they decided I was being rude and aggressive and they wouldn't serve me. When I emailed my PPU officer, she quickly arranged an appointment for me to see her personally to notify. If the England & Wales guidelines are similar to those in Scotland, that would explain why she was keen to get me back to the station to notify and deal with it herself.

=========================================================================================================

If you are to punish a man retributively you must injure him. If you are to reform him you must improve him. And men are not improved by injuries. (George Bernard Shaw)

"Not sure if they even have the jurisdiction to say you even have to tell them as it’s not on my SHPO just the acquisition"

Simple answer is, they don't but do it anyway for control, power and authority. To make your life harder and potentially set up some people to fail, they rely on your ignorance to your rights and what the law actually says which they are supposed to know and enforce but instead impose unlawful restrictions that go beyond the notification requirements and SHPO's.

It was discussed in great detail before in other posts on the forums, the notification requirements do not ask you to provide device information of any device you own. Your only requirement is to allow them access to devices they wish to inspect at your premises which is part of your SHPO. Selling devices on the other hand if not informed could be considered a breach in their view due to retaining internet history, they would want to see it before it was sold. Plus informing your PPU of this desire to sell devices only goes in your favor to show "compliance" of the order.

If you challenged this and took it back to court, there is a good chance you could over turn these additional requirements and even amend the SHPO. But I understand it is better said than done. Living with it and adapting to it may seem the easiest option right now, but these people who are supposed to know the law and enforce it need to be held accountable so they stop ignoring the rule of law.

To be honest, I consulted a solicitor a while back and her advise was to leave it all in place and now that I only have nearly 10 months left, I think it’s best to just leave it.

In the past they just looked at the device, said right I’ve checked and told I could sell it, I also got that In writing.

One thing that annoys me is, at the moment they don’t even seem to be doing their job properly.

Last two visits they haven’t even checked my laptop just my mobile.

Again, it's down to how capricious they want to be and willingness to use colour of law. The differing wording of SHPOs across the courts is problematic, so I'd always counsel checking one's own specific order.

My order is: have monitoring software installed OR allow inspection and not delete internet history. Now, I've never deleted my internet history anyway, but an update to Windows turned it on in the background 3 years ago on a Windows tablet I had (it was to cope with small disk devices and this one only had 32Gb). I played a little more hardball than I usually do when questioned and could point to the exact setting that had done it and offered to give them the tablet so that they could have it inspected for deleted files. When my spare laptop gave up the ghost, I presented my PPO with the removed HDD. I got the impression that she didn't want it, but what could she do. You can't make up additional restrictions and then refuse when someone is being over compliant!

I had software installed on my laptop. I’ve had my second visit due to change of ppu officer she came around with the tech guy for the police to scan everything and look at router to check if any devices are connected to the Wi-Fi by using a third party app. At first said he couldn’t find the software 🤔🤔🤔🤔 even though it was him who installed it at the police station on my initial visit to install software. He then said you might of deleted I was like hold on no way would I do that. I started to panic and after a bit of digging he found it and said it hasn’t been running and now it is. Then the ppu officer was like we got keep a eye on this like I’m interfering with it when I haven’t even touch the damn thing. Very shifty or maybe was a genuine mistake by him. But I keep a open mind. I hardly use my laptop so I don’t really notice anything if it interferes with use. I always use my phone.

If you've got Guardware then apart form the incriminating splash screen, everything is monitored remotely and apart from it stealing clock cycles (I had a 20% performance improvement when they removed it) it's invisible.

Not sure why a visit was required at all. The looking for a 3rd party app excuse is quite laughable. A device with monitoring software is allowed things such as VPNs because the monitoring is done at the client level . A router reboot would delete all other connected devices from DHCP.

Bear in mind that the police are quite ignorant when it comes to computers. If it comes down to accusing you of interfering, it's "not working" is not sufficient. They would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in front of a judge that you had done it and you could demand forensics. It's scare tactics.

I'm not going to post it here, but any determined perp can get around the software on almost any computer without uninstalling it or interfering with it in any way. It would still be breaking the SHPO and a criminal offence but it would be undetectable. Most SHPO conditions are tick box measures to look like they are doing something, and I doubt whether they have done anything other than catch out the unwary rather than stop anyone bent on reoffending.