Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
As you have seen on this forum, I am totally against mass surveillance, such as ANPR. But I have found a possible opt-out clause, within the data protection act (this is theoretical at the moment, so please feel free to object). I will quote the data protection act section which refers first, then explain.
Data Protection Act 1998 Part 2:
10 Right to prevent processing likely to cause damage or distress (1) Subject to subsection (2), an individual is entitled at any time by notice in writing to a data controller to require the data controller at the end of such period as is reasonable in the circumstances to cease, or not to begin, processing, or processing for a specified purpose or in a specified manner, any personal data in respect of which he is the data subject, on the ground that, for specified reasons— (a) the processing of those data or their processing for that purpose or in that manner is causing or is likely to cause substantial damage or substantial distress to him or to another, and (b) that damage or distress is or would be unwarranted. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply— (a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or (b) in such other cases as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order. (3) The data controller must within twenty-one days of receiving a notice under subsection (1) (“the data subject notice”) give the individual who gave it a written notice— (a) stating that he has complied or intends to comply with the data subject notice, or (b) stating his reasons for regarding the data subject notice as to any extent unjustified and the extent (if any) to which he has complied or intends to comply with it. (4) If a court is satisfied, on the application of any person who has given a notice under subsection (1) which appears to the court to be justified (or to be justified to any extent), that the data controller in question has failed to comply with the notice, the court may order him to take such steps for complying with the notice (or for complying with it to that extent) as the court thinks fit. (5) The failure by a data subject to exercise the right conferred by subsection (1) or section 11(1) does not affect any other right conferred on him by this Part.
In (2) you will notice it says
Subsection (1) does not apply—
(a) in a case where any of the conditions in paragraphs 1 to 4 of Schedule 2 is met, or
So here is the full text for Schedule 2:
SCHEDULE 2 Conditions relevant for purposes of the first principle: processing of any personal data
1 The data subject has given his consent to the processing. 2 The processing is necessary— (a) for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is a party, or (b) for the taking of steps at the request of the data subject with a view to entering into a contract. 3 The processing is necessary for compliance with any legal obligation to which the data controller is subject, other than an obligation imposed by contract. 4 The processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject. 5 The processing is necessary— (a) for the administration of justice, (b) for the exercise of any functions conferred on any person by or under any enactment, (c) for the exercise of any functions of the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a government department, or (d) for the exercise of any other functions of a public nature exercised in the public interest by any person. 6 (1) The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case by reason of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject. (2) The Secretary of State may by order specify particular circumstances in which this condition is, or is not, to be taken to be satisfied.
Please notice it states only 1-4 - so justice is not covered.
Also Part 2, section 12 applies:
12 Rights in relation to automated decision-taking (1) An individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that individual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his performance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct. (2) Where, in a case where no notice under subsection (1) has effect, a decision which significantly affects an individual is based solely on such processing as is mentioned in subsection (1)— (a) the data controller must as soon as reasonably practicable notify the individual that the decision was taken on that basis, and (b) the individual is entitled, within twenty-one days of receiving that notification from the data controller, by notice in writing to require the data controller to reconsider the decision or to take a new decision otherwise than on that basis. (3) The data controller must, within twenty-one days of receiving a notice under subsection (2)(b) (“the data subject notice”) give the individual a written notice specifying the steps that he intends to take to comply with the data subject notice. (4) A notice under subsection (1) does not have effect in relation to an exempt decision; and nothing in subsection (2) applies to an exempt decision. (5) In subsection (4) “exempt decision” means any decision— (a) in respect of which the condition in subsection (6) and the condition in subsection (7) are met, or (b) which is made in such other circumstances as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State by order. (6) The condition in this subsection is that the decision— (a) is taken in the course of steps taken— (i) for the purpose of considering whether to enter into a contract with the data subject, (ii) with a view to entering into such a contract, or (iii) in the course of performing such a contract, or (b) is authorised or required by or under any enactment. (7) The condition in this subsection is that either— (a) the effect of the decision is to grant a request of the data subject, or (b) steps have been taken to safeguard the legitimate interests of the data subject (for example, by allowing him to make representations). (8) If a court is satisfied on the application of a data subject that a person taking a decision in respect of him (“the responsible person”) has failed to comply with subsection (1) or (2)(b), the court may order the responsible person to reconsider the decision, or to take a new decision which is not based solely on such processing as is mentioned in subsection (1). (9) An order under subsection (8) shall not affect the rights of any person other than the data subject and the responsible person.
Anyway - enough legal jargon, basically what it all means is that you can write to the DVLA and request that your data is not used for Automated data processing , or data processing liable to cause damage or distress and the DVLA will have to comply with that and take your details off any linked system, like ANPR.
Maybe with enough requests, the DVLA will start rethinking things.
As I stated before - this is purely hypothetical, based on the Data Protection Act, so I welcome any other views
As I stand firm behind my convictions - I emailed the DVLA, email content follows:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am emailing you to request that my personal data should not be processed automatically, via any DVLA or linked system.
I am requesting this under Part 2 of the data protection act, section 10.
My Licence Details are as follows:
Surname : XXXXXX First Names: XXXXXXXXXXX Date and Place of Birth: XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX Licence Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX
If my request is denied, I look forward to meeting a DVLA representative in court, where they can explain themselves fully to a judge.
I am sending this request by email, as the postal service is not (at this moment in time) reliable
When or if I get a reply - I will update this thread
If my request is denied, I look forward to meeting a DVLA representative in court,
I'm impressed with the militancy you have shown and the cause you demonstrate in that the motive behind ANPR may be financial over road safety. (or climate change as in the case of TfL) Its only one aspect of the government’s War on Motorists by taxing anything that moves.
Ultimately a Judge can decide what takes precedence when two points of law contradict each other, but in this case this is a government body and they can contradict the rules as much as they like - even the Magna Carta.
Your route to getting something done about the ethics of ANPR and its side effects (e.g. drivers not registering cars to an alternative address) might be better heard via your MP. Historically Judges that pass judgments against a government body dont normally remain Judges for much longer.
Since this would cause the London Congestion Charge to crater - how likely do you think a successful resolution will be?
I honestly don't know, but it's worth a try and it does appear on the surface to fall within the clauses of the data protection act.
I'd be happy if it could put a spoke in the wheels of the Congestion charges too, but the London congestion charge does have a certificate of exemption from certain parts of the data protection act, so it may not apply.
I can confirm that DVLA do not process applications or release details to any unauthorised persons without the licence holders permission.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further concerns.
Kind regards
XXXX XXXXXX
That seems to skirt around the issue a bit, so will have to reply.
I'm impressed with the militancy you have shown and the cause you demonstrate in that the motive behind ANPR may be financial over road safety. (or climate change as in the case of TfL) Its only one aspect of the government’s War on Motorists by taxing anything that moves.
Thankyou for that - but I wouldn't describe myself as being militant (with the stigma that goes with that), I am merely trying in my own way to object to the erosion of freedom which has slowly, and sneakily been happening. Hopefully I can make a difference, but if not at least I tried.
The motive behind ANPR, is (in my opinion) financially motivated, as is the road-pricing strategy. Wouldn't it be far simpler and cheaper to abolish road tax, then incorporate a levy on fuel, so that you pay for what you use. This would accomplish the following:
1) No need for £x billion to be spent on the white elephant of road pricing.
2) Would encourage people to use more economic/climate friendly vehicles
3) Take the cost of DVLA administration/court costs right down.
4) Would automatically apply to foreign cars (on holiday/visiting), whereas road pricing would not
Anyway, thats just my personal view.
Originally Posted by 10110001
Ultimately a Judge can decide what takes precedence when two points of law contradict each other, but in this case this is a government body and they can contradict the rules as much as they like - even the Magna Carta.
Quite true, but setting a precedent by overrulling the 3 unrepealed liberties in the Magna Carta (which one, by virtue of it's wordin, enables all the repealed ones to be in existence), could lead to habeus corpus being unavailable - then we really would be in a nazi-like state.
Originally Posted by 10110001
Your route to getting something done about the ethics of ANPR and its side effects (e.g. drivers not registering cars to an alternative address) might be better heard via your MP. Historically Judges that pass judgments against a government body dont normally remain Judges for much longer.
I have sent a letter to my MP, however with the current postal strike, who knows if it would get there.
1) No need for £x billion to be spent on the white elephant of road pricing.
2) Would encourage people to use more economic/climate friendly vehicles
3) Take the cost of DVLA administration/court costs right down.
4) Would automatically apply to foreign cars (on holiday/visiting), whereas road pricing would not
Im impressed, you have thought about this long & hard.
we had a fuel tax protests back in 2001 and the poll tax riots in the 1990's, it'll take a stern-faced government to increase fuel duty. ANPR is a back-door route to increasing tax revenue from motorists.
We are at the stage where muggers get a fair trial & the motorists doesn't. Same is true with differentiating bailiffs from burglars.
Originally Posted by danny_kiernan
4) Would automatically apply to foreign cars (on holiday/visiting), whereas road pricing would not
There's two sied to the argument here.
1. Foreign vehicles are owned by foreign drivers and are sometimes exempt from British taxes. The US Embassy in London recently argued it wasnt liable for TfL's C-Charge saying its a British tax and is unenforceable
2. Road pricing could include foreiogn vehicles much in the same way as the French Péage works.
The lowest rate of vehicle excise duty (road tax) is £0 (band A vehicles producing less than 100g/km of CO2) and the highest rate is £1850 for articulated vehicles. If you planned to abolish road tax and claw back the revenue lost by increasing the tax on petrol and diesel, what level would you set it at?
There is also the issue of insurance and MOT for vehicles. When you buy the VED you have to produce current insurance and MOT (if required)certificates before you can buy it. If the road tax was abolished there would still be a requirement for an insurance disc to show a vehicle is insured. Any savings made by abolishing road tax would no doubt be used to administer the insurance disc scheme.
The currrent emissions based VED (introduced in March 2001 for all vehicles registered after 1st March 2001) encourages people to buy more economical vehicles. Band A vehicles pay nothing, Band B between £15 and £35 per year with the highest band (G for vehicles producing more than 225g/km of CO2) being £300 (increasing to £400 from next year). I wouldn't be surprised if the government tinker with the bands in the future to try and encourage people into the more economical vehicles.
Foreign registered vehicles already pay to use our roads by virtue of the tax and duty on petrol/diesel. Roughly 75% of the price of a litre of fuel goes to the Treasury. If road pricing were introduced then foreign vehicles would be contributing even more to the Treasury.
If the road tax was abolished there would still be a requirement for an insurance disc to show a vehicle is insured. Any savings made by abolishing road tax would no doubt be used to administer the insurance disc scheme.
An insurance disc cannot work.
In the UK we insure the driver not the vehicle. Vehicle damage, etc, is an extension of the driver's policy.
If I am insured to drive my car and stick a disc on, what happens when my son drives it under DOC on hos insurance? The disc is no longer relevant.
Foreign registered vehicles already pay to use our roads by virtue of the tax and duty on petrol/diesel. Roughly 75% of the price of a litre of fuel goes to the Treasury. If road pricing were introduced then foreign vehicles would be contributing even more to the Treasury.
Closer to 66%. Fuel duty is currently 50p/litre, plus VAT on both the fuel and the duty. At 98p/litre the VAT is around 15p/
If road pricing were introduced (and fuel duty lowered to compensate) then foreign drivers would pay less to use our roads as there isn't a mechanism for billing a foreign plate - unless you insist on every vehicle entering the country fitting a transponder at the port of entry.
I can confirm that DVLA do not process applications or release details to any unauthorised persons without the licence holders permission.
Please do not hesitate to contact us again if you have further concerns.
Kind regards
XXXX XXXXXX
That seems to skirt around the issue a bit, so will have to reply.
Indeed: by 'authorised persons', they presumably mean anyone they unilaterally feel like authorising to receive your data.
Im impressed, you have thought about this long & hard.
Not really that long, it just seems to make sense to me, but thanks
Originally Posted by 10110001
we had a fuel tax protests back in 2001 and the poll tax riots in the 1990's, it'll take a stern-faced government to increase fuel duty. ANPR is a back-door route to increasing tax revenue from motorists.
Don't forget, that the last civil war, was also about poll tax.
Yes, ANPR is purely a revenue generating venture, firstly the government has to pay off the cost for the system, which currently stands at £3.4 billion (with the publicly declared costs), they will say it cost £24.7 million, but if you actually check the costs for Nationwide rollout, per unit, plus all the administrative costs - it hits 3.4 and beyond. I have no idea of the expenditure by MI5 (for their national security issues), so it could quite possibly be a lot higher. I'm sorry but within a company, with shareholders, the shareholders are given the choice (vote) on any company decisions and we are shareholders in the government as we pay all the taxes. So where is our vote?
I nearly forgot - the yearly running costs - which are estimated at 11.4 million - I am sorry but that does not strike me as an investment, but a money pit. As a law-abiding tax payer - I do not see why my money, or anyone elses should be spent on a system of mass surveillance, without first asking my and everyone elses permission.
Originally Posted by 10110001
We are at the stage where muggers get a fair trial & the motorists doesn't. Same is true with differentiating bailiffs from burglars.
The only difference between bailiffs and burglars is a piece of paper
Originally Posted by 10110001
There's two sied to the argument here.
1. Foreign vehicles are owned by foreign drivers and are sometimes exempt from British taxes. The US Embassy in London recently argued it wasnt liable for TfL's C-Charge saying its a British tax and is unenforceable.
I didn't know this, so spent a while looking at sites, apparently the US embassy does have to pay the Congestion chage in a couple of countries - but I am glad they are challenging it, thanks for the info
Originally Posted by 10110001
2. Road pricing could include foreiogn vehicles much in the same way as the French Péage works.
Not under the way they have suggested road pricing.
Closer to 66%. Fuel duty is currently 50p/litre, plus VAT on both the fuel and the duty. At 98p/litre the VAT is around 15p/
Hi Pat,
It is a ridiculous tax (the fuel tax), given that 0% of the tax goes on climate related problems, and less than 0.2% goes on roads - so where does the rest go? Probably into the MP's holiday fund - where they get to go abroad for summits and enjoy themselves on us mugs money.
Originally Posted by patdavies
If road pricing were introduced (and fuel duty lowered to compensate) then foreign drivers would pay less to use our roads as there isn't a mechanism for billing a foreign plate - unless you insist on every vehicle entering the country fitting a transponder at the port of entry.
ANPR opt-out
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by danny_kiernan
