Bailiff ANPR vehicles

[Dougal16T]

Morning everyone

 

I agree completely with Johno1066...what seriously concerns me is mis-information provided by those who know exactly what is the TRUE position and the lack of attention by the authorities to whether a bailiff is actually certified at the time of either (a) execution of a warrant or (b) use of ANPR or information received from ANPR sources.

 

Something is very amiss here in my humble opinion, sorry to see green and mean has 'jumped ship' [ quote : "Different department I'm afraid I have nothing to do with collecting debts."]

 

Seriously this problem with bailiffs really needs addressing via the proper route and I am sure a good press officer/newshound would love to read some of the problems that have been posted on this (and other) sites. It really is a national scandal - apologies now, rant over...!

 

Best wishes as always to everyone (except bailiffs and some certain council employees...lol!)

 

 

Dougal

[johno1066]

Morning everyone

 

I agree completely with Johno1066...what seriously concerns me is mis-information provided by those who know exactly what is the TRUE position and the lack of attention by the authorities to whether a bailiff is actually certified at the time of either (a) execution of a warrant or (b) use of ANPR or information received from ANPR sources.

 

Something is very amiss here in my humble opinion, sorry to see green and mean has 'jumped ship' [ quote : "Different department I'm afraid I have nothing to do with collecting debts."]

 

Seriously this problem with bailiffs really needs addressing via the proper route and I am sure a good press officer/newshound would love to read some of the problems that have been posted on this (and other) sites. It really is a national scandal - apologies now, rant over...!

 

Best wishes as always to everyone (except bailiffs and some certain council employees...lol!)

 

 

Dougal

 

Indeed and there's evidence that TEC and Councils know full well what's going on; unfortunately even the Police have aided and abetted the unlawful levying of vehicles on the public highway in the past using anti-terrorism laws. The Bailiff industry is out of control and the blinkers are being worn so long as they bring in the cash. While it's not within the scope of this thread, With regards to liability orders, we also have Bailiffs ramping up fees by levying after they have been offered payment in order to obtain the higer percentage and van fee of 120 quid which is fraud. It's got to stop.

[Dougal16T]

Morning again,

 

I agree and as said although it relates to this forum (Bailiffs) it really is something that we should consider a separate forum for which could form a national petition for change to the law - or am I dreaming.....

 

I will fully support anyone who wishes to make a start on this, I regret that I do not have the computer skills to do so, but will assist wherever possible.

 

Best wishes to fellow caggers

 

 

Dougal

[johno1066]

Morning again,

 

I agree and as said although it relates to this forum (Bailiffs) it really is something that we should consider a separate forum for which could form a national petition for change to the law - or am I dreaming.....

 

I will fully support anyone who wishes to make a start on this, I regret that I do not have the computer skills to do so, but will assist wherever possible.

 

Best wishes to fellow caggers

 

 

Dougal

 

I think that's an excellent proposition, I'm afraid that deemed Courts and complaints procedures cannot be relied upon, what is happening at the TEC must warrant an investigation in its own right. I know of one person who is doing some sterling work behind the scenes by lobbying Ministers and informing various departments of the situation and there are arguments that the message needs to get out to the wider world just how badly HMCS, Councils and the bailiff Companies have been behaving.

[Fair-Parking]

Johno - The self employed bailiff is not using his own software and database, he is completely reliant in obtaining all data from whichever bailiff company he has offered his services to - and that could be more than one. It is the deliberate sharing of that information between bailiff company and third party self employed ANPR bailiff that violates the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

But then Councils sharing the same information with the bailiff company is illegal for the same reason.

 

But then the DVLA admits that it is reliant on the Road Vehicles (Registration & Licensing) Regulations 2002 for it's authority to share information with Councils and not the Data Protection Act 1998.

 

So where does that leave Councils who are notsubject to the RVRL 2002? Where exactly do they imagine such a privilege to share personal information with third party bailiff companies comes from if not from the RVLA 2002?

 

But note what Tom Tubby said, ANPR bailiffs are not going for the person they are bypassing that obstacle and going straight for the car with the express purpose of removing it - preferably without the knowledge of the keeper.

[buzby]

We seem to be going round in circles. This is NOT ANPR in the accepted sense, simply a hit list of vehicles that have 'come to notice' due to their connection with supposedly errant RK's. This is hardly new, and I recall Bailiffs levying on vehicles of a debtor because the VRM was personalised to such a degree that it didn't take much of a leap of faith to realise the car belonged to the subject of interest.

 

Additionally, have we all forgotten that (historically) it was the Councils that issues licences, log books and tax discs. Sure things moved on, but I doubt whether any of that legislation was ever repealed to the degree that the processing of this informtion was none of their business.

 

'ANPR bailiffs' is a gross misdescription and for my money, provides a form of 'legitimacy' that you are all trying to discount.

[Fair-Parking]

It is precisely ANPR in the accepted sense - automatic number plate recognition - unless you can offer an explanation for your definition.

[buzby]

When introduced, ANPR queried the COMPLETE database of numbers hewld by DVLA to reveal every RK of every vehicle, and flagging up those who had issues with the authorities.

 

What YOU describe is a DIY-botch up, that uses CCTV to interrogate NOT the national database, but stores only numbers of target vehicles. I even take issue with the use of 'automatic'. What is automatic about it? The bailiffs may use NPR technology for the number they are looking for, but I can do this too.... in a public street my CCTV can interrogate my own database of vehicles to see how often they pass and when. That isn't illegal, but it isn't ANPR as used by the 'authorities'.

 

Automatic - in the sense it consults THE vehicle database in the UK, I'd agree, anything else is simply a NPR system.

[Fair-Parking]

It's automatic in the sense that the ANPR bailiff can be sitting by the side of the road and smoking a cigarette when his computer goes bleep. He hasn't got to do anything except to ask his mate the policeman to stop and detain the motorist.

 

I know it isn't ANPR as used by the authorities which in the main is for the public benefit, but the ANPR bailiff isn't about that. He has taken its abuse to a much lower level and is using the system for his own gratification and without any conscience or thought for the law. He's only interested in gaining money from anything that goes bleep on his computer by use of fraud and intimidation if necessary.

 

He won't even have a warrant as the very use of ANPR will prevent that.

[buzby]

Look at a McDonald's Drive in - Signage there actually promote their use of 'ANPR' which of course is a complete misnormer. The plate may be recognised and captured, but it doesn;t return the RK or address, this has to be a seperate function with a DVLA enquiry they pay for - so hardly 'automatic'.

 

The bailiffs are simply using available technology as a modern day bounty hunter. The fact it has been casualised like this is because the number of civil servants capable of doing this have been long dispensed with. I'm in agreement with your sentiments, but I despair at the 'ANPR bailiffs' tag as it gives them a warped kudos they do not deserve.

[patdavies]

ANPR is the ability to 'read' a VRM from a picture and store it.

 

The layman's view of ANPR as used by the Police includes the further processing of this stored VRM against a database. However, the database is irrelevant to the functioning of the ANPR bit.

 

The Police ANPR does not use the DVLA database. It uses a subset loaded into the Police vehicle equipmentand this is further appended to by a list of 'VRMs of interest to the Police'

[buzby]

Do you mean store the picture, or the derived VRM?

 

If the former, I am unaware of any system in Scotland that does this for ANPR. As to the 'database' the DVLA supply the 'core' and constantly updates the PNC in near real time. Also it isn't clear whether you are suggesting that each equipped police vehicle carries its own database. Of the demos I've had, no information is held locally, their system relying on a live data connection to query and respond. (I believe the DVLA vans hold a daily updated database, and do not use data links to query the DVLAs onle DB (not the PNC).

[Fair-Parking]

Take it from me that ANPR bailiffs are not nice people. I have too many people coming to me with hair-raising accounts of their actions. I suppose they could all be wrong, but in three separate incidents in Essex they have followed somebody along the road, forced them to stop and simply snatched their car keys before driving off without any thought for motor insurance cover.

 

In Stoke Newington, one particular bailiff has waged a terror campaign on anything that moved and will be facing a court next week - he even went out after his certificate expired, whilst another two just drove around at 6am looking for cars they could clamp and tow. The Attorney General is now involved in this case.

 

Then there is the case of physical abuse on a 65 year old disabled man and a case where an ANPR bailiff tried to take a car after the police told him he couldn't.

 

All were self employed. None are registered with the ICO and not on any occasion was a warrant produced though a number of forgeries have been submitted since.

 

You couldn't make this up and this the point of the thread to bring to CAG's forum users the reality of what is happening every day via ANPR bailiffs as unbelivable as this must seem to some.

 

I can tell you that the bailiffs now confronted and challenges by legal means are not revelling in any 'kudos'.

 

These people are the dregs of an industry which thrives on bullying, fraud and intimidation. When all other nasty methods of enforcement have failed the self employed bailiff is dragged in.

 

Leonard Smalls (the biker bounty hunter in Raising Arizona) would look like a nice man if compared with the reality of these two dimensional creatures.

[buzby]

(1) Surely the term 'bailiffs' is quite enough?

(2) Motor Insurance? Provided they have a driving licence, they most likely have 3rd party cover for a vehicle that is 'not owned or hired' by them, my policy covers this. Of course if they have an accident, they become liable to the owner.

(3) Most outsourced facilities use self-employed labout, due to their untillingness to bear the burden of having staff.

(4) I'm unaware of any bailiffs require 'registration' with the ICO. A court is all that is required.

(5) Warrants are used to instriuct the bailiff, and shown (not given) to those that require evidence of their lawful authority. It is not a requirement to be produces unless explicitly asked for.

 

What you seem to forget - and I'm no fan of their deviant tactics, is that in many cases their tactics are required to make the court's will happen. How they achieve this is up to the individual person or company, and as will all things, there will be good and bad.

[johno1066]

(1) Surely the term 'bailiffs' is quite enough?

(2) Motor Insurance? Provided they have a driving licence, they most likely have 3rd party cover for a vehicle that is 'not owned or hired' by them, my policy covers this. Of course if they have an accident, they become liable to the owner.

 

Would likely require the permission of the owner

 

(3) Most outsourced facilities use self-employed labout, due to their untillingness to bear the burden of having staff.

 

And those staff would need to be registered as data-controllers in their own right

 

(4) I'm unaware of any bailiffs require 'registration' with the ICO. A court is all that is required.

 

Barristers, Solicitors, even the Comptroller of the National audit office require registration so I can assure you a Bailiff acting independently or under contract would.

 

(5) Warrants are used to instriuct the bailiff, and shown (not given) to those that require evidence of their lawful authority. It is not a requirement to be produces unless explicitly asked for.

 

But a Warrant provides that authority against the person and their belongings, if that person no longer owns the vehicle and a Bailiff levies against that vehicle, then he has exceeded his authority.

 

What you seem to forget - and I'm no fan of their deviant tactics, is that in many cases their tactics are required to make the court's will happen. How they achieve this is up to the individual person or company, and as will all things, there will be good and bad.

 

Those 'tactics' have to be lawful and legal, how on earth can breaking the law in order to collect a mere parking ticket ever be justified? These bailiffs are committing criminal offences in order to collect monies as a result of a civil penalty.

[buzby]

'Reasonable cause' is enough. Even if the information is flawed, providing it was correct at one time, they'll be fine. It is you who say the law is being broken. I don't see this, only a sequence of unfortunate events that will ultimately be excused by the courts as a necessary evil to ensure compliance.

 

The best one I heard was a guy arriving at Sydney airport, he doesn't use drugs, but his mate, who loaned him a case for the trip was. He was detained for 48 hours. This was 'one of those things', in the same way as the events you outline.

 

Finally, as for everyone and their uncle needing ICO registration to be a data controller, I believe you are labouring under a misapprehension. The Comptroller would certainly need registration, but not the subordinates as they would operate under his auspices. Similarly, to access data there needs to be a senior person desognated, not every member of the organisation - so I don't believe your assertion is correct. The fact bailiffs are self-employed would be an irrelevance.

 

However, even if it was not, can you explain why there has been no mass applications or prosecutions for non-compliance, if what you state is indeed true?

Edited June 10, 2010 by buzby

[green_and_mean]

ANPR is the ability to 'read' a VRM from a picture and store it.

 

 

That is not strictly true it doesn't always get stored, a baliff ANPR for example would not store every car in the street there would be no need. ANPR just reads the number plate and then converts it so it can be used by what ever software is being used. Some will store the data others will just check the number against a data base. You could for example have an ANPR camera set up to recognise your families cars and open your garage door but it would not store other peoples vehicle details.

[lamma]

Freelance bailiff are using ANPR on a subset of data i.e. that handed to them. Then they drive around a 'hot area' looking for a ping and clamp or take the vehicle no matter where it is found and with no service at all on the actual subject of the warrant. I see all kinds of problems with that. On the insurance side they need Motor Traders insurance that specifically includes 'wheel clamping' - not cheap, try and get a quote for it. How may of then do you think have it ? Once they have towed and got to their pound they need insurance coverage for the vehicles in there. How many do think have it ? They should have public liability insurance (a bond). how many do you think have it ? Then there is the issue of taken cars been sold off after the DVLA lets the clampers re-register absent the V5. It is a long long list of naughtiness. HMG doesn't give two stuffs about it as I believe they are pro driver oppression and exploitation. If motorists start thinking they have rights and can fight back then who knows where it stop, they may appeal most parking tickets and speeding tickets and grind these money making activities into the ground to the point of making them uneconomical. These private bailiffs doing all kinds of naughty things is a very good place to start.

[buzby]

If they are not driving, but clamping - why would they need Motor Trader's insurance? They certainly don;t need insurance to protect the value of the property they are siezing, as they are taking it to be sold anyway. I see where you're coming from, but you;re putting forward requirements that might be nice to have, but for an officer of the court? I don't believe so.

[johno1066]

If they are not driving, but clamping - why would they need Motor Trader's insurance? They certainly don;t need insurance to protect the value of the property they are siezing, as they are taking it to be sold anyway. I see where you're coming from, but you;re putting forward requirements that might be nice to have, but for an officer of the court? I don't believe so.

 

They would need to protect the value of it, if the levy is 800 quid and they sieze a 3 grand motor then the debtor is entitled to the balance for a start, if the vehicle is being towed, then that vehicle will need to be covered as part of a motortraders policy, you are in effect insuring multiple vehicles.

[lamma]

to take the car. ring a few insurance companies and ask for a quote. I couldn't get one online, The ones I tried with all had to be done by personal contact as a one off quote. they stick you car on the back of their truck and damage it they are liable, they need insurance for it.

[johno1066]

That is not strictly true it doesn't always get stored, a baliff ANPR for example would not store every car in the street there would be no need. ANPR just reads the number plate and then converts it so it can be used by what ever software is being used. Some will store the data others will just check the number against a data base. You could for example have an ANPR camera set up to recognise your families cars and open your garage door but it would not store other peoples vehicle details.

 

Correct

[buzby]

I've always seen bailiffs call in a specialist contractor (for which adds to the charges). The act of lifting a vehicle would therefore be a requirement of the sub-contractor, NOT the bailiff. So I've yet to be convinced that a bailiff is noting anything remotely 'wrong'n a professional sense.

[tomtubby]

I've always seen bailiffs call in a specialist contractor (for which adds to the charges). The act of lifting a vehicle would therefore be a requirement of the sub-contractor, NOT the bailiff. So I've yet to be convinced that a bailiff is noting anything remotely 'wrong'n a professional sense.

 

The point that I am trying to make is as follows (which I will try to explain simply):

.

 

If a person fails to pay a GOVERNMENT debt then by and large the debt MUST only be pursued by way of a Warrant or another another "legal authority" and can only be pursued by way of a CERTIFICATED BAILIFF.

 

With unpaid COUNCIL TAX the legal authority" is a "Liability Order" and over 3 million were passed to bailiffs last year. On the LO will be the persons name, property address and the amount outstanding. MOST bailiff sdo not like collecting unpaid council tax as there is very little money in this area of collection.

 

With unpaid child support agency arrears, the above also applies.

 

 

With unpaid Magistrates Court FINES, which typically are for using a TV without a valid licence, using a car without valid road fund licence, driving without insurance, not having an MOT and very commonly for speeding, then the "legal authority" is called a Distress Warrant.

 

Non payment of these fines is of course much more serious in that they are CRIMINAL offences. Last year 900,000 Distress Warrants were issued to bailiffs to enforce and on the Warrant will be the persons name, address, and court reference. The car registration number of the car that he may have been speeding in or to which he had no MOT or expired road fund licence is NOT included.

 

HOWEVER:

 

With an unpaid parking ticket the situation is entirley DIFFERENT. Firstly, the "legal authority" passed to the bailiff is called a Warrant of Execution and last year over 1.7 million Warrants of Execution were authorised.

 

The important difference is that these "warrants" UNLIKE ALL OTHERS have the vehicle registarion number of your car on it and this is an identifying mark which enables an ANPR operative to find the car.......and naturally, it means that he is not looking for a person to pay the unpaid parking ticket......he is instead looking to find that particular number plate and if the car is found parked in a street, it WILL be removed and taken to the vehicle pound etc and this will ensure that the vehicle owner will have to pay SIGNIFICANTLY more money that if a bailiff had knocked at his door for payment.

[buzby]

Thsnk you for the needless (and unneccesary) simplification of bailiffs duties.

 

What you convietly forget is that enforcement warrants for the VRM FOLLOW attempted distrain on the RKs address, which for one reason or another, has failed.

 

You appear to be advocating there should be no vehicle enforcement if the RK address does not bear fruit? If so, lets all screw the system with false RK addresses ot keep on moving so that they can never catch up. For those that abuse the system in this way, chasing a VRM is the most logical step, as I'm unsure what other method or information that could be used to 'follow the money'. Divine providence?

 

I agree it isn't ideal, and there are times where innocent motorists will be inconvenienced - but then, we're all accustomed to this, where the criminal acts of others impact on our daily lives.

 

So your complaint is no doubt well meaning but misguided. Faced with an either/or, the status quo is better than letting these miscreants get away without challenge. For all you know, it is this very type of enforcement that lewads to a larger percentage to pay up. No bad thing, IMHO.