Bailiff ANPR vehicles

[Dougal16T]

 

Afternoon everyone,

 

I'll answer those points from Green and Mean thus:

 

1. I do not know 'where' the details are - I am almost (not completely) sure that what I have said is right, I have read the text somewhere, I just cannot recall where!

 

2. It is not the reading of the plates by the computer that is at issue, it is the use of the equipment by person/s unauthorised to do so, and acting on the information received, when it may have been unlawfully received in the first place.

 

3.[see other posts regarding the Fraud Act, which has largely superseded the Theft Act.] If the bailiff/person using the equipment was not correctly certificated then that person would already have 'mens rea'. There would be no need to prove 'dishonesty'.

 

In the meantime, back to the plot...

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

[Dougal16T]

Only as regards obtaining goods/services by deception theft in itself is still covered by the act and taking goods without consent is not theft. If a colleague left a dvd on his desk at work and I took it without consent to view it and return the next day without intending to keep it it is NOT theft.

 

Afternoon,

 

Ask yourself this 'why is your action in relation to the DVD not theft?'.....see what answer you can come up with.....and I am sorry, but there is no relevance of your supposed act in relation to the removal of a motor vehicle in the context of this thread.....

 

Goodbye for now

 

Dougal

[green_and_mean]

Afternoon,

 

Ask yourself this 'why is your action in relation to the DVD not theft?'.....see what answer you can come up with.....and I am sorry, but there is no relevance of your supposed act in relation to the removal of a motor vehicle in the context of this thread.....

 

Goodbye for now

 

Dougal

 

Because there was no intent to keep the item it is not theft.

 

You obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about, your original claim that ANY removal of a vehicle without consent is theft is absolute rubbish as an ex PC you should know there are numerous reasons for taking someones vehicle without consent or are the Police that seize for no insurance guilty of theft, or Councils that tow for parking contraventions guilty of theft clearly not so your statement is wrong. Where in the fraud act does it state it is theft to tow away a vehicle as you originally claimed....

 

Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed.....

 

and when did TWOC stop being an offence?

[johno1066]

 

 

1. I do not know 'where' the details are - I am almost (not completely) sure that what I have said is right, I have read the text somewhere, I just cannot recall where!

 

 

When or if you find them Doug, they'd be an interesting read.

 

2. It is not the reading of the plates by the computer that is at issue, it is the use of the equipment by person/s unauthorised to do so, and acting on the information received, when it may have been unlawfully received in the first place.

 

Exactly, thus it is likely that any destraint would be ultra vires.

 

3.[see other posts regarding the Fraud Act, which has largely superseded the Theft Act.] If the bailiff/person using the equipment was not correctly certificated then that person would already have 'mens rea'. There would be no need to prove 'dishonesty'.

 

yes, Abuse of position, misrepresentation, especially where it is known that a warrant has expired etc etc.

Edited June 8, 2010 by johno1066

[johno1066]

The Information Commissioners Office have CONFIRMED that from 7 names that I have provided that NONE of them are registered as Data Controllers.

 

Tomtubby, can you confirm that the names you have are self-employed or contractors as opposed to employees?

 

It would also be interesting to find out whether as Bailiffs are certificated in their own right, whether every Bailiff would need to be registered as data-controllers in their own right.

[Dougal16T]

Because there was no intent to keep the item it is not theft.

 

You obviously haven't got a clue what you are talking about, your original claim that ANY removal of a vehicle without consent is theft is absolute rubbish as an ex PC you should know there are numerous reasons for taking someones vehicle without consent or are the Police that seize for no insurance guilty of theft, or Councils that tow for parking contraventions guilty of theft clearly not so your statement is wrong. Where in the fraud act does it state it is theft to tow away a vehicle as you originally claimed....

 

Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed.....

 

and when did TWOC stop being an offence?

 

Evening all

 

That's funny I don't remember saying that any taking of a vehicle was theft.....I wonder what green and mean did/does for a living - will we ever know...?

 

The Police are of course empowered by law to seize a MV for no insurance.

 

The situation with Councils is different and regard has to be had to the restrictions in place at the time.

 

Unfortunately the last sentence is not accurate, there are several defences, one is a defence of reasonably believing that the owners consent would have been given if the owner had known of the circumstances. There is of course a test for this, and that is whether that belief was 'reasonably held' by the offender.....

 

I am bored by going round in circles, and have no intention of explaining my thoughts any further...I suggest we concentrate on the matter in hand...that is the attempted removal of this vehicle, the attitude and remarks of the PC, and the attitude and remarks of the 'clampers', including their failure to display their ID or provide details.

 

Any other discussion of other matters must be left to the Courts [or to green and mean] to decide....in my humble opinion.

 

Best wishes

 

Dougal

[johno1066]

Evening all

 

 

That's funny I don't remember saying that any taking of a vehicle was theft.....I wonder what green and mean did/does for a living - will we ever know...?

 

 

 

It works for a Council, ignore it and it will go away.

Edited June 8, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

Evening all

 

 

That's funny I don't remember saying that any taking of a vehicle was theft.....I wonder what green and mean did/does for a living - will we ever know...?

 

 

You are obviously suffering from amnesia then in post #10 you enlightened us with the statement....

 

Finally, if you take from someone something which is rightfully theirs without their express or implied consent then the offence of theft is committed

 

If I therefore don't consent to the Police seizing my car they must be guilty of theft then? Unless of course your statement is wrong which is why this argument started.

[green_and_mean]

It works for a Council.

That is actually incorrect as are most of your statements.

[johno1066]

Using Green & Means saying "it's not rocket science". In fact bailiffs know the vehicle registration number because it is on the warrant of execution !!

 

Quite why or under what authority the VRN is allowed to be on a Warrant is simply beyond me.

 

Some local authorities report that they receive payment on approx 30% of warrants with some others like TfL stating that it is only about 15%.

 

The bailiffs "on the street"will return the warrants that they cant enforce back to their office. These will be warrants where the vehicle keeper had moved address or the address is incomplete or wrong address or postcode etc. The bailiff company will consider these warrants to be no longer recoverable and these are of interest to SELF EMPLOYED ANPR bailiffs.

 

With the recession, many bailiff companies prefer to use self employed ANPR owners/drivers as that way, they merely have to pay a commission.

 

Some bailiff companies RENT the ANPR vehicle to the bailiff on a weekly rental with some bailiffs jointly owning an ANPR vehicle. A self employer bailiff will simply contact the bailiff company OR the local authority and offer to take on their returned warrants for a commission.

 

As there is no fee to pay, the local authority or bailiff company are happy to pass the work over and all that this entails is for the bailiff to be provided with a MEMORY STICK with details of all outstanding warrants.

 

The memory stick (with out of date and inaccurate information) is then loaded onto his onboard computer and the ANPR operative will then drive around London streets, Bluewater and other super store car parks and they will be looking for the VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER and NOT the vehicle keeper.

 

Just today I received complaints that 2 vehicles had been taken by such self employed ANPR bailiffs where the vehicles are owned by new owners who were unaware that PCN's were outstanding by the previous owner.

 

Oh...and on the matter of the Data Protection Act and the local authority passing on personal data that is out of date and inaccurate to a bailiff who is not registered as a Data Controller all I would say is.....watch this space!!!

 

 

Tomtubby, are some of the Councils putting VRM details actually on the warrants or are they associated with other documentation provided to the Bailiffs?

[tomtubby]

Tomtubby, are some of the Councils putting VRM details actually on the warrants or are they associated with other documentation provided to the Bailiffs?

 

As far as I am concerned, the Vehicle Registration Mark should NOT be on a Warrant of Execution. As an example, if a vehicle owner is FINED for driving a car without insurance, road fund licence or even speeding the vehicle registration number does NOT appear on a Distress Warrant and I am at a lose to understand WHY it should appear on a Warrant of Execution for a far lesser contravention.

 

Councils will of course argue that they do not have DVLA access by this is nonsense as many of them use Shercar.

 

More importantly, the 1993 regulations do NOT provide for the vehicle registration number to be on a Warrant.

 

PS: This would appear to be a problem that is NOT caused by the local authority but by the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

[Dougal16T]

 

If I therefore don't consent to the Police seizing my car they must be guilty of theft then? Unless of course your statement is wrong which is why this argument started.

 

Morning

 

Just to put this to bed

 

The police do not need your consent.......

 

Regards

 

Dougal

 

PS: Johno1066, thanks for your advice yesterday at 21.16, I will take it!

[Fair-Parking]

Tom Tubby is on the right track with this. She and I both know from dealing with some appalling cases that the self employed ANPR bailiff is rife and has more in common with a wild west bounty hunter than a law enforcement officer.

 

As for 'getting his information from Councils' - in the vast number of cases he gets his information from those who contracts with - the bailiff companies. Standard of ethics used in passing on these personal details in violation of the Data Protection Act 1998 - none at all - and that's before our self employed bailiff meets his mates in the pub to share their bounty.

 

Registered with the ICO? - these two dimensional creatures wouldn't know that it existed. Nor will thet EVER have any warrants of execution on them.

[lamma]

As far as I am concerned, the Vehicle Registration Mark should NOT be on a Warrant of Execution. As an example, if a vehicle owner is FINED for driving a car without insurance, road fund licence or even speeding the vehicle registration number does NOT appear on a Distress Warrant and I am at a lose to understand WHY it should appear on a Warrant of Execution for a far lesser contravention.

 

Councils will of course argue that they do not have DVLA access by this is nonsense as many of them use Shercar.

 

More importantly, the 1993 regulations do NOT provide for the vehicle registration number to be on a Warrant.

 

PS: This would appear to be a problem that is NOT caused by the local authority but by the Traffic Enforcement Centre.

 

There is no reason at all why the VRN should appear on the warrant. The vehicle is not the subject of the warrant. And at time of service (some time after creation of the warrant) who knows what chattels will be owned by the true subject of the warrant (which is a 'legal person' as it has to be). Parking and speeding legislation takes account of this as it has to. I thought warrants were tied to an address as they get served under the Distress for Rent rules so how they be clamping anywhere they like I have no idea. Councils saying they don't have DVLA access is an outright lie in my opinion, they use it to produce the PCNs. Okay it may be outsourced but then their agent has access which means that they do. The " 'we' don't have access" story isn't just splitting hairs, its a deliberate attempt at a cover up. As for the data being passed on to private bailiffs via memory sticks etc - from what is written it seems that this is done after the council has given up on collecting. I would argue that the data is not being used for the purpose for which it was obtained and its a clear DPA breach by whoever hands over the data (the council or the 'real' bailiffs) and if its an expired warrant then its doubly clear that its a DPA breach by ALL parties. the council and the real bailiff will have DPA registrations so go after them.

[Fair-Parking]

Camden Council which often benefits from self employed ANPR bailiffs operating in the Stoke Newington and Hackney areas have no idea what is being done in their name. A letter from Camden Council dated 27th May states 'Our contract with the collection agents stipulates that they are not allowed to sub-contract to third parties unless the express written consent of the Camden Council is obtained. No sub contractors are currently being used by our collection agents'.

 

So that's official then. There are no self employed ANPR bailiffs operating for Camden on Stoke Newington High St, Evering Rd, Blackstock Rd or Victoria Park Rd and any you think that you may have seen along with attendant officers from Stoke Newington Police Station stopping vehicles for the benefit of the bailiff is clearly the figment of your imagination.

[tomtubby]

There is no reason at all why the VRN should appear on the warrant. The vehicle is not the subject of the warrant. And at time of service (some time after creation of the warrant) who knows what chattels will be owned by the true subject of the warrant (which is a 'legal person' as it has to be). Parking and speeding legislation takes account of this as it has to. I thought warrants were tied to an address as they get served under the Distress for Rent rules so how they be clamping anywhere they like I have no idea. Councils saying they don't have DVLA access is an outright lie in my opinion, they use it to produce the PCNs. Okay it may be outsourced but then their agent has access which means that they do. The " 'we' don't have access" story isn't just splitting hairs, its a deliberate attempt at a cover up. As for the data being passed on to private bailiffs via memory sticks etc - from what is written it seems that this is done after the council has given up on collecting. I would argue that the data is not being used for the purpose for which it was obtained and its a clear DPA breach by whoever hands over the data (the council or the 'real' bailiffs) and if its an expired warrant then its doubly clear that its a DPA breach by ALL parties. the council and the real bailiff will have DPA registrations so go after them.

 

 

Excellent post Lamma !!!

[buzby]

Just a thought...

 

Is a VRM 'personal information? They do not 'belong' to anyone, in much the same way as telephone numbers 'belong' to OFCOM. Add to the mix, that someone can decide their phone number is ex-directory (more properly NQR) and this number disappears. However, this cannot be done for VRM's so there is no 'exD' option here.

 

Now, I have a useful iphone App called MyCarReg and I can sit by the side of the road, entering VRM's as they pass, and read off the type of car it is, make colour, registration year etc. Now, if a cloned car passes, and I spot this and phone the police, how is this any different?

Edited June 9, 2010 by buzby

[tomtubby]

Just a thought...

 

Us a VRM 'personal information? They do not 'belong' to anyone, in mush the same way as telephone numbers 'belong' to OFCOM. Add to the mix, that someone can decide their phone number is ex-directory )more properly NQR) and this number disappears. However, this cannot be done for VRM's so there is no 'exD' option here.

 

Now, I have a useful iphone App called MyCarReg and I can sit by the side of the road, entering VRM's as they pass, and read off the type of car it is, make colour, registration year etc. Now, if a cloned car passes, and I spot this and phone the police, how is this any different?

 

Granted, there is the facility to obtain the make and model of the car from the VRM BUT your will not be given the NAME and HOME ADDRESS of the owner/keeper !!

 

There are a number of problems that are associated with the vehicle registration number appearing on a warrant.

 

Firstly, a ANPR operative will NOT be seeking payment from the debtor. Instead, he will be looking to find their VEHICLE and if parked on the roadside it will be taken.

 

Many times, the Warrant has incorrect data such as the wrong address and this in itself is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

So many times the vehicle has ben sold and the NEW OWNER will report his or her car as stolen only to find that it has been taken as there was an unpaid parking ticket in the name of the previous owner.

 

Today, one such query came my way and the new owner had to pay £1014 to have HER vehicle released from the car pound for a ticket that was incurred in January 2009 by the PREVIOUS VEHICLE OWNER!!

 

Finally, there is the small matter of Section 10.70 of the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities under the TMA 2004 where it CONFIRMS that:

 

"If the name or address on the County Court order was incorrect, the name or address on the Notice to Owner and the Charge Certificate may also have been incorrect and neither have been served on the motorist.

 

If the NtO and/or Charge Certificate were never served on the motorist the Warrant of Execution should NOT be served. A NtO or Charge Certificate should INSTEAD be served to the name or the address established by the bailiff".

.

 

PS: Working for a local authority, Green & Mean should be well aware of the above clause in the Operational Guidance.

.

[green_and_mean]

PS: Working for a local authority, Green & Mean should be well aware of the above clause in the Operational Guidance.

.

 

Different department I'm afraid I have nothing to do with collecting debts.

[johno1066]

Granted, there is the facility to obtain the make and model of the car from the VRM BUT your will not be given the NAME and HOME ADDRESS of the owner/keeper !!

 

There are a number of problems that are associated with the vehicle registration number appearing on a warrant.

 

Firstly, a ANPR operative will NOT be seeking payment from the debtor. Instead, he will be looking to find their VEHICLE and if parked on the roadside it will be taken.

 

Many times, the Warrant has incorrect data such as the wrong address and this in itself is a breach of the Data Protection Act.

 

So many times the vehicle has ben sold and the NEW OWNER will report his or her car as stolen only to find that it has been taken as there was an unpaid parking ticket in the name of the previous owner.

 

Today, one such query came my way and the new owner had to pay £1014 to have HER vehicle released from the car pound for a ticket that was incurred in January 2009 by the PREVIOUS VEHICLE OWNER!!

 

Finally, there is the small matter of Section 10.70 of the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities under the TMA 2004 where it CONFIRMS that:

 

"If the name or address on the County Court order was incorrect, the name or address on the Notice to Owner and the Charge Certificate may also have been incorrect and neither have been served on the motorist.

 

If the NtO and/or Charge Certificate were never served on the motorist the Warrant of Execution should NOT be served. A NtO or Charge Certificate should INSTEAD be served to the name or the address established by the bailiff".

.

 

PS: Working for a local authority, Green & Mean should be well aware of the above clause in the Operational Guidance.

.

 

 

After all the below, the Bailiff had clamped somebody elses car.

 

Bailiff shooting threat Cam Mu trial Bristol Crown Court

[tomtubby]

Different department I'm afraid I have nothing to do with collecting debts.

 

The Operational Guidance to Local Authorities under the Traffic Management Act 2004 concerns the entire process of parking enforcement and not just the part regarding warrants etc.

 

In fact, the Guidance is used extensively by parking departments and I would be surprised if an expert like you did not know the contents from memory.

[johno1066]

In fact, the Guidance is used extensively by parking departments and I would be surprised if an expert like you did not know the contents from memory.

 

Ouch!!! LOL

[buzby]

Is there evidence to support that what these bailiffs are using IS what we accept as ANPR? A camera capable of reading VRMs is one thing, being able to interrogate the DVLAs live database quite another.

 

If a bailiff only loads a list of hot VRMs to look for, this is just a CCTV alerting service, not ANPR!

[crem]

If a bailiff only loads a list of hot VRMs to look for, this is just a CCTV alerting service, not ANPR!

 

ANPR stands for automatic number plate recognition. Therefore if their "camera" can read a number plate and compare it to a list held in their system (in van computer or whatever), then by definition this is ANPR

[johno1066]

Is there evidence to support that what these bailiffs are using IS what we accept as ANPR? A camera capable of reading VRMs is one thing, being able to interrogate the DVLAs live database quite another.

 

If a bailiff only loads a list of hot VRMs to look for, this is just a CCTV alerting service, not ANPR!

 

I'll happily state that Tomtubby is an expert on destraint and Bailiffs but as I see it and from a data perspective, It is likely that the Bailiffs are using their own ANPR software and databases. With regards to Utilising a vrn or index for enforcement of a debt especially where it forms as part of a construction of a record, it is still classified as personal data. Bailiffs authority to destrain is by having a valid warrant or liability order, that warrant/lo contains personal information and it appears for some reason with relation to warrants,a vrn/index number as part of the warrant, the vrn number is therefore part of a record and would therefore constitute personal information.Were they to attempt to levy just on the VRN then I would logically expect the destraint to be unlawful.

Edited June 9, 2010 by johno1066