Bailiff ANPR vehicles

[green_and_mean]

ANPR is a similiar system to what the Royal Mail sorting centres in order that postcodes and address details can be read, a photograph is taken and from that photograph the text is extracted using software, that text (usually the VRM) is then processed by the software and attributed to a database, the software and the camera are both components of ANPR, one cannot be used independently of another.

 

Does the Post Office 'ANPR' identify who lives at the address then or who posted the letter? I think not. You have proved my point the ANPR does nothing other than convert the photo of the VRM to a digital version that CAN be used by other software it does not identify the car, name the driver or anything else.

[lamma]

ANPR read number plates and generally gives a 'hit or miss' result. what it hits on just depends on the referenced data which could just be VRNs or even one VRN. people are confusing the back end function and criteria with ANPR functionality. PPC ANPR consists of logging times - plus some built in ' don't bother with intermediate readings just give me first and last times I can send a fake PCN to try and hook a fish ' functionality. There are quite a few alternative solutions out there with different back-end functionality but they are all ANPR. e.g. it can just be garage door/barrier opening if you want. people see 'ANPR' and think its the same as the full blown DVLA/MIB data based systems. I think we are all agreeing in different ways

[johno1066]

persistent evader detection

 

"JBW was the first debt management and enforcement agency to deploy mobile automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) enforcement vehicles using our bespoke Evader Detection System (EDS).

"

 

"Our fleet of ANPR vehicles are equipped with our bespoke evader detection system help to achieve higher collection figures and track down persistent evaders. Our ANPR fleet is also used by the Police on special roadside operations to help reduce criminal activity and anti social behaviour." [LMAO]

 

or how about Philips Bailiffs:

 

"ANPR cameras operate via sophisticated software that takes a series of shots as a vehicle approaches and stores them in a file. At the point when the number plate is large enough, the registration number is converted to ASCII code and held on file with data on the speed and position of the vehicle. The system has proved to be reliable, robust and user friendly in operation and the full back-up programme Pips offered was much appreciated. "

Edited June 13, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

persistent evader detection

 

 

 

 

 

or how about Philips Bailiffs:

 

.......relevance??

[johno1066]

Quote from Philips' Bailiff website:

 

ANPR cameras operate via sophisticated software that takes a series of shots as a vehicle approaches and stores them in a file. At the point when the number plate is large enough, the registration number is converted to ASCII code and held on file with data on the speed and position of the vehicle. The system has proved to be reliable, robust and user friendly in operation and the full back-up programme Pips offered was much appreciated. "

 

Notwithstanding the fact that if the person is capured using the ANPR system and that record stored again, that constitutes a record and personal information.

[green_and_mean]

Notwithstanding the fact that if the person is capured using the ANPR system and that record stored again, that constitutes a record and personal information.

 

Where does it state that? It describes how the ANPR camera converts the VRM to data, it doesn't say it stores or shares the personal data. The only numbers it will recognise are those already stored on the system. Why would a baliff drive around recording who was parked in every street and storing it?

[pin1onu]

There are no data protection issues due to baliffs use of ANPR the numbers of vehicles that are not on the database are neither recorded or shared. The data they use is already held by the baliff company as Buzby pointed out the ANPR has nothing to do with it any more than driving round in a transit with a pair of binoculars would.

Sorry G&M you are wrong.

 

I think the key point is that ANPR is no problem when it is used without being linked to a database.

 

As soon as you link it to a database of any sort, physical or manual then the data protection act comes in to play. Their used to be a practice by certain credit reference agencies to obtain electronic copies of the electoral roles. This practice was stopped because of the data protection issues.

 

Although ANPR is not foolproof (e.g. PPC's using it time vehicles in and out of a car park), it's use by bailiff automates an otherwise intensive, yet mundane procedure. Part of it's effectiveness is efficiency gains (economies of scale) over the manual procedure i.e sitting in the car with a physical list of VRM's and having to check the list with every VRM seen.

 

The real issue is that the data is being shared period. If you are not entitled to have it regardless of the form it is in (electronic or phsical) then it becomes unlawful or illegal or both. The bailiff companies use of, and the passing of data by Councils is highly questionable.

 

It is fairly clear from the posts of Tomtubby and others that there is a genuine and reasonable concern over VRM's being released and at what time in the process.

 

We've seen GMP and the Met abusing their powers by allowing civil debts to raise a hit on their ANPR system. However you want to dress it up - ANPR should be useless if they ping a vehicle away from the address on warrant (or other form). The fact it's not used in that way speak volumes to me. It seems to me that their would be a whole lot more complaints about bailiffs if people were more informed of their rights (and given the necessary means to do so).

Edited June 13, 2010 by pin1onu
pnctuation and clarity

[green_and_mean]

Sorry G&M you are wrong.

 

I think the key point is that ANPR is no problem when it is used without being linked to a database.

 

As soon as you link it to a database of any sort, physical or manual then the data protection act comes in to play. Their used to be a practice by certain credit reference agencies to obtain electronic copies of the electoral roles. This practice was stopped because of the data protection issues.

 

Although ANPR is not foolproof (e.g. PPC's using it time vehicles in and out of a car park), it's use by bailiff automates an otherwise intensive, yet mundane procedure. Part of it's effectiveness is efficiency gains (economies of scale) over the manual procedure i.e sitting in the car with a physical list of VRM's and having to check the list with every VRM seen.

 

The real issue is that the data is being shared period. If you are not entitled to have it regardless of the form it is in (electronic or phsical) then it becomes unlawful or illegal or both. The bailiff companies use of, and the passing of data by Councils is highly questionable.

 

It is fairly clear from the posts of Tomtubby and others that there is a genuine and reasonable concern over VRM's being released and at what time in the process.

 

We've seen GMP and the Met abusing their powers by allowing civil debts to raise a hit on their ANPR system. However you want to dress it up - ANPR should be useless if they ping a vehicle away from the address on warrant (or other form). The fact it's not used in that way speak volumes to me. It seems to me that their would be a whole lot more complaints about bailiffs if people were more informed of their rights (and given the necessary means to do so).

 

I'm not saying ANPR is not covered by the DPA but the whole ANPR thing is a red herring the baliff already has the data, the ANPR is not creating a list of debtors etc it just speeds up the process of checking vehicles in any given location. If the wrong car is seized or the wrong person chased for the debt it is nothing to do with ANPR as implied by the thread it is because the data being used is incorrect, the same would happen if the vehicles got manually checked by a human.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Are we coming to the point where it looks like the use of ANPR by unscrupulous bailiffs is the "smoking gun" that exposed the unlawful disclosure of personal data by LAs and TEC?

[green_and_mean]

Are we coming to the point where it looks like the use of ANPR by unscrupulous bailiffs is the "smoking gun" that exposed the unlawful disclosure of personal data by LAs and TEC?

 

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

 

I would have thought collecting on an order for recovery issued by a County Court would be exempt.

[pin1onu]

I think the key point is that ANPR is no problem when it is used without being linked to a database.

 

As soon as you link it to a database of any sort, physical or manual then the data protection act comes in to play. Their used to be a practice by certain credit reference agencies to obtain electronic copies of the electoral roles. This practice was stopped because of the data protection issues.

 

I'm not saying ANPR is not covered by the DPA but the whole ANPR thing is a red herring the baliff already has the data, the ANPR is not creating a list of debtors etc it just speeds up the process of checking vehicles in any given location. If the wrong car is seized or the wrong person chased for the debt it is nothing to do with ANPR as implied by the thread it is because the data being used is incorrect, the same would happen if the vehicles got manually checked by a human.

Sorry, didn't I just say that? I certainly did not say it created a list of debtors. I did say it was automation of the process.

 

The real issue is that the data is being shared period. If you are not entitled to have it regardless of the form it is in (electronic or phsical) then it becomes unlawful or illegal or both. The bailiff companies use of, and the passing of data by Councils is highly questionable.

 

I repeat the fact they have data in the first place is in some cases illegal/unlawful and the fact they continue to use and process it despite not being entitled to it is the real issue.

 

IMO they are acting ultra vires and the councils are in many cases complicit. Why let the rules or morality get in the way of revenue?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

 

I would have thought collecting on an order for recovery issued by a County Court would be exempt.

 

But AIUI the data isn't disclosed on the order of the court it is disclosed by the court when all the court actually needs to disclose is the name and address of the debtor.

 

Are we certain that there is nothing in the legislation that creates a lien on the vehicle for the recovery of the debt?

[johno1066]

35 Disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc

(1) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court.

(2) Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is necessary—

(a) for the purpose of, or in connection with, any legal proceedings (including prospective legal proceedings), or

(b) for the purpose of obtaining legal advice,

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

 

I would have thought collecting on an order for recovery issued by a County Court would be exempt.

 

 

1) TEC is not a Court, it's a deemed Court.

2) Where a Warrant of Execution has expired, is incorrect etc then the authority of a Court is no longer in effect.

3) As I read it G&M, "the order of the Court" as opposed to "an order of the Court" would need to be specific, in other words, it would need to specifically be by the order of the Court to exempt disclosure. An order of the Court in the generic sense would not exempt disclosure otherwise Bailiff Companies would not need to register as datacontrollers in the first place.

4) What has been lost on this thread is that we have third party contractors, certificated in their own right, utilising an ANPR system. Either way (and this has been confirmed by the ICO), those operators would need to be registered as datacontrollers not just for processing data but for the commercial procurement of images. Where an exemption applies such as non-disclosure, that does not exempt the requirement to provide data under section 7(1), a subject access request for example.

5) It's the Councils that provide the data to the Bailiffs, the Bailiffs then provide the data to their third parties etc etc.

6) It is still unlawful to destrain on the Highway unless directly outside the 'debtors' home.

7)The Police are aiding and abetting unlawful destraint on the Highway utilising s44 of the terrorism act.

Edited June 13, 2010 by johno1066

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Buts isn't the problem that they would argue the following exemption:

 

or is otherwise necessary for the purposes of establishing, exercising or defending legal rights.

 

Which seems somewhat expansive.

[lamma]

Not when they are operating as private bailiffs as is often the case with these passed on (or expired) warrants. From the cases I have seen its nearly always bailiffs operating as private bailiffs. When the warrant is expired and even when it is not and the valid warrant is to distrain on an address the VRN is additional. Expired warrants the Sch 2 "2. Personal data shall be obtained only for one or more specified and lawful purposes, and shall not be further processed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes. and 3. Personal data shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to the purpose or purposes for which they are processed." as cars can and are sold then "4. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date." But all this pales in the light of warrants under distress for rent being against an address not specific property.

[green_and_mean]

1) TEC is not a Court, it's a deemed Court.

 

Its deemed to be a Court which makes it a Court there would be no point in deeming it as a Court if it wasn't treated as a Court.

[Fair-Parking]

Buzby - I don't have to prove anything, the bailiff does and he won't do that without producing a warrant and yes he does have to carry it under 9.22 of TEC Code of Practice and 10.67 of DOT Guide. He doesn't produce it because he hasn't got one.

 

Nothing but nothing gives bailiffs the right to drive on our public roads without motor insurance. You might find that sentance more understandable if one of these morons hit a member of your family.

 

How do you know what sort of database I mean? Or far more importantly what database the self employed third party has - and 'third party' are the key words here. Data protection prevents ALL sharing of personal data with any third party. What on earth do you think is the purpose of the Data Protection Act if it allowed anybody to pass your private details with anybody they feel like and without your knowledge of permission?

 

'Sharing' -use or benefit from jointly with others - Oxford English Dictionary and by defintion from Lord Falconer when Lord high Chancellor. ALL sharing means just that - ALL sharing - whatever definition you wish to use.

 

You read what you like into my postings but until I say that I believe that all enforcement is illegal, then I don't mean that and haven't said so You'll know what I mean when I and nobody else says so.

 

Why should folk pay? The accusations written on PCNs will never be any more than an allegation. Why should you pay me anything if I merely allege that you owe me money?

 

Buzby - please learn far more about enforcement and data protection before you try to pull down postings of those that do know about these things. Otherwise there will be an answer to the contrary of everything you speculate on.

Edited June 14, 2010 by Fair-Parking

[Fair-Parking]

G & M When are ever going to understand that the sharing/passing on/discussing/handing over etc etc with any third party is illegal under the DPA excepting sections 28 and 29 of the Act.

 

Once again why do people believe that the DPA isn't there to prevent the sharing of personal data? That's the Act's primary function. If not, what exactly is it there for?

 

The blatant and continued misuse of this Act by the DVLA. local authorities and bailiffs when sharing personal data with any third party doesn't make it any less a law. Their joint actions have simply never been challenged in the High Court.

 

Misunderstanding the DPA and finding ever irrelevant excuses for trying to excuse the unlawful actions of the DVLA, local authorities and bailiffs under the DPA but the Act will still be there and perfectly straight forward in its definitions.

 

As will article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights which is closely related.

[buzby]

Not relevant to the thread.

 

In your opinion? Fine.

 

Just ignore it.

[buzby]

Buzby - please learn far more about enforcement and data protection before you try to pull down postings of those that do know about these things. Otherwise there will be an answer to the contrary of everything you speculate on.

 

Sorry, you've provided no substantiation to your allegations that (it appears) Bailiffs have no warrants in these matters, which is why they are not 'produced'. This is both naive and a foolhardy conclusion. I believe I know far more that you do about 'enforcement and data protection' as your comments to date have been simple subjective generalisations

 

On to your conclusion that Bailiffs are (all?) driving illegally - where's the proof? I can drive any car on my insurance, so no need for any emotive ccar-crash scenarion involving my family members. You're clutching at straws. and spindly ones at that. I've already explained that most sub-contract this to a specialist recovery firm - no insurance (for them) required, or even a driving licence. Kinda drives a wedge into your argument, doesn't it?

 

I'm sure you've made your complaints to the relevant authorities, so can you point to what has been done and changes achieved? I think I know the answer.

[Fair-Parking]

Buzby. After starting in motor insurance in 1966, I must say that you are the only person I have come across in 44 years who appears thinks that it is not necassary yo have motor insurance cover to drive on the roads. Bailiffs in Essex contracted by Newlyn ARE driving around without cover and three people who have contacted me about this are not figments of my imagination. They are real victims.

 

As for substantiation, this is forum and not a court. You can either believe what I say which all comes from hard experience and knowledge from dealing with parking enforcement issues not least in county courts and with local authorities and bailiff companies.

 

Changes - well this forum will know that I stopped Marstons from working with Greater Manchester Police in July 2008. Tower Hamlets Council now show a different list of purposes with ICO as a result of my correspondence to them in December 2009 and Maidstone Council's NtO's and Charge Certificates are no longer illegally worded. In between many have got their vehicles and money back from bailiff companies.

 

On the otherside of the coin it is clear that you do not understand how civil parking enforcement works and neither have any practical experience as that would radically change your ideas.

 

Nor do I have an 'argument', particularly one that is based on ideas rather than hard experience and facts. Everything quoted is factual and where incidents have been quoted they are real and they affected real people.

 

It really makes no difference to me whether you believe all this or not.

 

Thats all I have to say on this thread.

[johno1066]

Actually, edited, I think Fair-parking has summed it up nicely.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Buzby. After starting in motor insurance in 1966, I must say that you are the only person I have come across in 44 years who appears thinks that it is not necassary yo have motor insurance cover to drive on the roads.

 

Wot, have you not heard of the circumstances in which a derogation applies? I would have thought that someone as knowledgeable as you would have.

[buzby]

No - it's NOT required. I would have thought someone in the industry would have been aware of the fact that cover is not required in ALL cases. These include when the vehicle movement is not under the direct control of the bailiff, already mentioned has been when the vehicle is lifted onto a loader, of the keys are available, by the Bailiff's own or commerecial insurance for this very purpose. You'll be suggesting next that they don;t have a licence to drive next...?

 

Certainly there may be occasions where someone, somewhere will do something not #by the book', That's a given, what isn't is our statement that bailiffs are committing offenced by doing what they do. I's suggest in the bulk of cases, they are not.

 

We're on the same side here, I want those that break the rules to be punished, but not promote misleading generalised statements. BtB is also correct, I'd forgotten about the derogation and this remains valid.

 

There are also situations where (say) after an accident, police or recovery crews must move vehicles. Are you saying they should be prosecuted because 'they have no insurance'? Or recovering stolen vehicles, or a myriad of situations where common sense takes over?

[cream70]

Recent FOI request in relation to this issue.